Psychological Egoism/rachelsEssay title: Psychological Egoism/rachelsIn the Euthyphro, Socrates asks an important question concerning the nature of piety. Socrates is skeptical and asks, “Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?” This question is very significant and has become one of the most famous questions in philosophy. Antony Flew, the British philosopher, thinks that whether a person can grasp and force the point of this proposed question, is a good determiner of their aptitude for philosophy. The significance is this: if we accept the theological conception of right and wrong- were caught in a major dilemma. Socrates question requires us to clarify what we mean.
A Brief History of Philosophy
An old American law professor, John W. Evans, argued that Socrates “had no right to be able to think and read about things and do these things.” After Socrates, a philosopher, philosopher-worship took its form in the U.S.: one in which the government sought to make its citizens a little more religious.
In his speech to the Athenians
by John C. Evans in Pamphlets on the History of Philosophy (4 February 1946). [Aristotle] – https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_to_The_Classical_School_of_Philosophy.html?id=qJg8xTw9AQBA&utm_source=gb-gplus-share
Introduction to The Classical School of Philosophy
by John C. Evans, Ph.D.
“A most interesting thing is that Plato spoke to Socrates in his last two years,” Evans’ website states. “According to him he was the one who decided on the question of whether philosophy should be classed from one to four categories. When I first made my presentation, I was not particularly concerned about classifications. But I had to try harder because if I tried to change people’s attitudes, they’d just laugh at me. It was one of those things, I remember many of the people saying, ‘If you had to learn one of those courses, I’d hate to teach it. I mean, I know the philosophers.’ And when I said, ‘Do you have any other course?’ they’d say, ‘We’re all good at it!’ It was quite enlightening. I can tell you about the things people say and the things they do and the ideas they think about.”
– https://www.theatricalinstitute.org/documents/Philosophy.pdf
“A most interesting thing is that Plato spoke to Socrates in his last two years,” http://www.anthonyflew.org/2010/02/06/introductions-philosophy
Another eminent American philosopher, William R. Maccoby, also spoke at the Ephraconic Seminary (1819–1929) of Washington State. In the opening pages of his monograph “The Philosophers of Greece”—in which he describes his role in the debates over the nature of philosophy, in particular its metaphysics, and the implications it had for politics—Maccoby writes, “From Sparta the Greeks were the leading leaders in the development of a new discipline, science, theology, and economics. Their philosophy was in many respects the culmination of that development.”
– https://www.atricalinstitute.org/docs/scholastics/html
The Social
A Brief History of Philosophy
An old American law professor, John W. Evans, argued that Socrates “had no right to be able to think and read about things and do these things.” After Socrates, a philosopher, philosopher-worship took its form in the U.S.: one in which the government sought to make its citizens a little more religious.
In his speech to the Athenians
by John C. Evans in Pamphlets on the History of Philosophy (4 February 1946). [Aristotle] – https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_to_The_Classical_School_of_Philosophy.html?id=qJg8xTw9AQBA&utm_source=gb-gplus-share
Introduction to The Classical School of Philosophy
by John C. Evans, Ph.D.
“A most interesting thing is that Plato spoke to Socrates in his last two years,” Evans’ website states. “According to him he was the one who decided on the question of whether philosophy should be classed from one to four categories. When I first made my presentation, I was not particularly concerned about classifications. But I had to try harder because if I tried to change people’s attitudes, they’d just laugh at me. It was one of those things, I remember many of the people saying, ‘If you had to learn one of those courses, I’d hate to teach it. I mean, I know the philosophers.’ And when I said, ‘Do you have any other course?’ they’d say, ‘We’re all good at it!’ It was quite enlightening. I can tell you about the things people say and the things they do and the ideas they think about.”
– https://www.theatricalinstitute.org/documents/Philosophy.pdf
“A most interesting thing is that Plato spoke to Socrates in his last two years,” http://www.anthonyflew.org/2010/02/06/introductions-philosophy
Another eminent American philosopher, William R. Maccoby, also spoke at the Ephraconic Seminary (1819–1929) of Washington State. In the opening pages of his monograph “The Philosophers of Greece”—in which he describes his role in the debates over the nature of philosophy, in particular its metaphysics, and the implications it had for politics—Maccoby writes, “From Sparta the Greeks were the leading leaders in the development of a new discipline, science, theology, and economics. Their philosophy was in many respects the culmination of that development.”
– https://www.atricalinstitute.org/docs/scholastics/html
The Social
The name “divine command theory” can be used to refer to any one of a family of related ethical theories. What these theories have in common is that they take Gods will to be the foundation of ethics. According to divine command theory, things are morally good or bad, or morally obligatory, permissible, or prohibited, solely because of Gods will or commands. Alternatively, in the history of Christian thought, the dominant theory of ethics is not the Divine Command Theory, but rather the Theory of Natural Law. A central conception of this theory is that everything in nature has a purpose. Aristotle said that in order to understand anything, we must ask ourselves four questions: What is it? What is it made of? How did it come to exist? And what is it for? According to Aristotle, everything has a purpose. Another idea in this view, says that some ways of behaving are “natural” and some are “unnatural”; and unnatural acts are said to be morally wrong. Furthermore, the Theory of Natural Law endorses the familiar idea that the right thing to do is whatever course of conduct has the best reasons on its side.
Rachel thinks that the common flaw in citing scripture to support a moral argument is that is often difficult to find specific moral guidance in the Scriptures because our problems are not the same as the problems faces by the Jews and the early Christians many centuries ago. It is not surprising that the Scriptures might be silent about moral issues that to us seem quite urgent. Although the bible does contain a number of general precepts that