Question 3.1
Thomas Aquinas presents his argument about the existence of God through the concept of necessity in a third way, taken from possibility and necessity. Aquinas base his argument on empirical observation of how natural things come into existence and pass away. It is thus possible that at any given time, these objects exist or fail ever to exist. Also, objects in the universe are finite in number since they are countable. If at all existent things are not existing at a certain time, then in infinite time, nothing will be existing. Nothing comes from nothing, meaning for individuals and other natural things to exist, there has to exist something ( Branso et al.,2020) . It means that there is a necessary being that makes it possible for these objects to exist.
Aquinas presents his argument of necessity using the empirical concept of a straight line. Taking the case of a straight line that extends without bound representation, one can take a finite number of line segments at any length to represent the time when the object existed in the world. Placing these finite numbers on the line would lead to several unoccupied unbounded time-line. The little time that the object exists shows that there must be something necessary that existent objects depend on ( Branso et al.,2020) . Using this concept, Aquinas argues that everything necessary can be caused or uncaused. This argument helps in the understanding of the existence of God.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
I do not support Thomas Aquinas's claim on necessity, especially where he states, "If everything is contingent, then at some time there was nothing" ( MacIntosh, 2017). In this statement, Aquinas means that all things have a finite life-span, and there is a time when nothing existed in the universe. In my view, if nothing existed, then there would be nothing existing today based on ex nihilo nihil fit . This concept means that the new existing things are a transformation of an already existing thing. The argument is illogical since most things exist. Simply because human beings' life-span is finite, it does not necessarily mean that a one-time human race will come to an end.
Question 3.2
In his philosophy "The Ethics of Belief," Clifford explores three arguments as to why human beings have the moral obligations to believe responsibly. He asserts that human beings should only believe what they have sufficient evidence for and diligently investigated. He argues that our beliefs influence our actions, and our behavior is shaped by what we take as truth concerning the world, what we believe ( Clifford, 2014) . What people believe about the world lead them into either poor or good action that threatens survival. As social animals, our actions affect those around us; everyone suffers from maintaining and supporting false beliefs and wrong actions.
Clifford supports his argument using two examples where believing something without sufficient evidence affected other people. In the first case, Clifford gives an example of a shipowner sending an immigrant ship to the sea. Although he had some doubts that the ship is not in good condition, he stifles the doubts and sends it out to sea, and eventually, it sinks. According to Clifford, the shop owner was guilty since "he had no right to believe on such evidence as was put before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts” ( Clifford, 2014) . The error was caused by the ship owner's belief, where he stifled his doubts. In support of his philosophy, Clifford uses a second example based on people living on an island. People are falsely accused of a crime due to the passions and prejudice of the accusers who failed to take time to investigate the evidence ( Clifford, 2014) . If the agitator could have taken time, he could have obtained evidence leading to fair and just inquiry. The sincere convictions of the accused were ignored as the agitator listened to voices of prejudice and passion.
I share in Clifford’s school of thought that performing actions for which one has insufficient evidence leads to guilt. Having justified beliefs give a better feeling of security and power. Believing in something without adequate evidence places society in danger. As seen in the examples presented, if the belief was true, the guilt of accusers or shipowners could not be diminished. The question of right or wrong depends on the origin of the belief and not its matter. Morality depends on whether the individuals had the right to believe the evidence presented.
Question 3.3
Willian James's philosophy on "The Will to Believe" defends the controversial view concerning normative standards adopted when reflecting upon our beliefs. James writes about the concept of "genuine option," which is important to the existence of a free will. According to James, if individuals believe they have free will, they will act accordingly since they will gain much and lose nothing ( James, 2014) . However, when individuals believe they lack free will, they tend to be passive because they believe they will lose much and gain nothing. In most cases, facts come true when one believes in them.
According to James, the concept of "genuine options" is based on three criteria; must be live, forced, and momentous. A live choice contains an emotive appeal to the chooser. It is not a rational or forced appeal; instead, it is a subjective and internal appeal. On the other hand, a dead option or choice lacks appeal to the chooser in question. James further believes that an option can be forced or non-forced. In forced option, the hypothesis is unavoidable, nearly all rare of the sort: you either do or not do this ( James, 2014) . In an avoidable option, one can choose either of the options presented or choose something different. Further, James argues that when choosing the genuine option of our beliefs, they should be based on adequate evidence. However, in some situations, human beings are allowed to follow their beliefs where there is insufficient evidence.
I agree with Kant’s reasoning on the concept of "genuine option". The concept is important for a good life since it emphasizes the importance of having true beliefs about every theoretical question. Unlike Clifford's arguments about holding back belief until evidence is found, James asserts that some beliefs are forced, live, and momentous, requiring sensitivity to evidence. The concept of truth can be achieved when one chooses to perform actions that agree with the worldview. Those genuine actions that fit the world will lead to positive actions, while those actions that do not agree with the world can lead to failure. Some actions can indeed lead an individual to success hence should be embraced. I, therefore, support James’s concept in beliefs in power to choose per the momentous option of taking charge of our lives since we have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
Question 4.1
Aristotle believed that happiness is the ultimate goal that humans desire for its own sake, and it is because of happiness that people pursue other objectives. From this definition, one may be tempted to think that Aristotle meant that happiness is only a feeling of fulfillment or satisfaction. Still, it is essential to note that it is an activity and a function associated with human beings in particular. The rational principle on which Aristotle's perspective of happiness is established requires that human beings create a proper balance between reason and emotion ( Allard, n.d. ). Reason should be the harmonizing principle because it is the function that dictates the kind of life human beings live, with life being an activity of the soul, which in itself is the mind and spirit. According to Aristotle, happiness is an activity that involves the mind and spirit of an individual, which is in accordance with distinction and virtue and manifested over a person's lifetime ( Allard, n.d. ). Thus, one realizes that happiness is both a contemplative and practical activity. It has an aspect of commonsense and that it is not a one-time experience but an activity of virtue.
Aristotle believed that all things on earth and that happen in the universe have an ultimate end, and each thing aspires to achieve some good. I share in Aristotle’s school of thought on happiness and its relationship with virtue. I think that humans engage in various endeavors to be happy in the end. For this to be actualized, individuals must live by virtue and reason. Indeed, human beings are different from other living things such as plants, although all living things have functions such as nutrition and growth. However, human beings have a higher gift of being rational, which is the essence of happiness. Thus, just like Aristotle, I think that happiness is a means to attaining moral virtue.
Question 4.2
Both Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant were pioneers in advancing moral philosophies that guide individuals in decision-making. The statement "Bentham's moral philosophy is essentially at odd with Kant's philosophy" is true. According to Kant, the morality of an action or decision is not guided or shaped by its consequences but by the inspiration of the executor. Kantianism philosophy is based on the deontological school of thought, which focuses on ethics of duty and commitment. From Kant's viewpoint on decision making, one acknowledges that duty, goodwill, and moral worth are essential in explaining the morality of a person's actions. Further, Kant suggests that duty should be the critical factor that a person must consider when executing their decisions which should be a function of rational thinking, which is inherent to human beings ( Wood, 2008 ).
Differently, Bentham proposed the moral philosophy, which is known as utilitarianism, based on the utility principle. The utility principle argues that for an action to be moral, it must have the majority's best interest. One realizes that utilitarianism focuses on usefulness and how beneficial one's decisions and actions are to the most significant number of people. When one is basing their decisions on utilitarianism, they must consider the common good of the community. Further, Bentham's principle seeks to locate the moral goodness of action in how the majority receives it. Under utilitarianism, a morally correct decision must produce the greatest pleasure for the executor and other people. From this, one cannot fail to pinpoint consequentialism, which forms the foundation of morality according to utilitarianism ( Driver, 2015 ). Therefore, Kantianism considers benefits that the doer of an action reaps, while on the other hand, utilitarianism focuses on how a decision or action benefits the majority. Morality, according to Kant, moves inwards, while Bentham believes that the happiness of the majority is the most crucial factor that a person should consider before doing an action.
Question 4.3
Throughout an individual's life, one tries to accomplish different things while also avoiding others. The things that one tries to achieve can be termed as "good," while one that is avoided can be labeled "bad." A good thing can be a means to some end or an end to itself. Undeniably, an item can be "good" or "bad," depending on what it is meant to achieve. Relatedly, one recognizes that different people are inspired by different ends, which implies that individuals will find different actions or decisions "good" and "bad." When Kant says "good will is good without qualification," he attempts to differentiate between the two classes of good. For an object, decision, or action to be good “without qualification," then it must not be two-sided in that one person can perceive it as "good" and another individual see it as "bad," but it should be independently "good" ( People.loyno.edu, 2021 ).
Kant says this because one thing can be good as a means for a particular end associated with another means relative to another end. For example, one may seek a university degree as a gateway to a higher-paying career, while on its part, a higher-paying job can be viewed as an end to a life of financial security. Financial security, on its part, is a means to affording life necessities and other luxuries. The “good” associated with pursuing the college diploma is, in this case, "without qualification" since it does not have a quality of being "bad" ( People.loyno.edu, 2021 ). I agree with Kant’s reasoning on “good without justification’ because if a person pursues thing A as an end for thing B and B for the sake of thing C, then there is no justification for seeking A initially. This is because for "justification" not to exist, there must be independence in the intentions of seeking thing A as a means to something else.
References
Allard, S. (n.d.) Aristotle . Community.plu.edu. Retrieved 29 May 2021, from https://community.plu.edu/~nelsoned/Courses/115/StudyGuides/Aristotle.html .
Branson, B., Hunt, M. W., Knepper, T. D., Lee, R. S., Steyl, S., & Van Eyghen, H. (2020). Introduction to Philosophy: Philosophy of Religion.
Clifford, W. K. (2014). The ethics of belief (pp. 171-176). Routledge.
Driver, J. (2015). The history of utilitarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/spr2015/entries/utilitarianism-history/
James, W. (2014). The will to believe (pp. 177-188). Routledge.
MacIntosh, J. J. (2017). The arguments of Aquinas: a philosophical view (Vol. 14). Taylor & Francis.
People.loyno.edu. (2021). Comments on Kant's Ethical Theory . Retrieved 29 May 2021, from http://people.loyno.edu/~folse/Kant.html#:~:text=Kant%20means%20that%20a%20good,to%20some%20yet%20further%20end.&text=Kant's%20point%20is%20that%20to,every%20instance%20of%20its%20occurrence.
Wood, A. W. (2008). What is Kantian Ethics? (pp. 157-182). Yale University Press.
