ETHC 445 Week 2 Discussion

ETHC 445 Week 2 Discussion | Devry University

Week 2: The Good, Bad ......

This week we study two medieval philosophers who tried to understand and explain why humans act in "good" or "bad.  They inquired whether there something in our nature that drives us toward "good" or "evil."

FIRST LEAD DISCUSSION QUESTION: Let us like Augustine and Aquinas also consider whether we humans are by nature, good, or bad. Or are we neutral and shaped in our behavior by nurture?  Do we have to learn what is "Good?"   Or are we influenced by both our nature and how we are nurtured? Your thoughts.

Week 2: FIRST LEAD QUESTION LEARNING POINTS:

The question I presented by my First Lead Discussion Question is one that has been argued about for centuries.  Various views and arguments are presented, religious beliefs, data subjected to inductive or deductive reasoning, anecdotes.  All can and have been called upon to support an opinion of whether by nature humans are good, neutral, or bad. Is there something innate in humans which directs them toward good or bad behavior, is there something external which determines our behavior? Nurture, nature, both?

The underlying question is why this might matter. Does the answer to this question then determine what is good or bad behavior? Does it have implications regarding how we ought to go about analyzing a situation in determining what is the “right” course of action?

Our next lead discussion question calls on us to study St. Augustine’s and St. Aquinas’s views on human nature and the implications of their views. As you study their views, consider whether and how, if at all, such views are helpful to us in making better ethical choices.

SECOND LEAD DISCUSSION QUESTION:

Decide what to do in the job interview we discussed in week 1 now using the Natural Law ethical theory.  What is the right choice to make?  To tell on your friend or not?  Or does the Natural Law theory allow for another "Right" option?   

SECOND LEAD QUESTION LEARNING POINTS

The question of whether humans are by nature good, bad, or neutral has been and continues to be debated. Our study of Augustine and Aquinas is meant to make us aware that this has been a question of ethical inquiry and provides one of the earliest ethical approaches for determining whether an act is good or bad. That standard is the” Divine Command.”  Augustine and Aquinas were of the Christian religious tradition, clerics of the Roman Catholic Church. For them what is the good was known and given to them through their religion, their belief in a divinity,  God,  that has provided the standards.

For Augustine and Aquinas the bad was not obeying that which they were instructed by divinity to do. They struggled with the question why do humans do bad when they know what is the good?  Augustine found the answer in human nature as illustrated by the biblical story of the first humans, Adam and Eve.  They being driven by some compulsion in their nature to disobey God, and because they have free will, can choose to give in to that I compulsion. Augustine called this  ”original sin,” the inherited condition of humans that lies as the basis for the explanation for the continuing lifelong struggle humans have between doing what they know to be good but on occasion being driven to do otherwise.

Aquinas approaches this question from a different perspective. While not rejecting the divine command he uses reason to find those divine commands as part of the natural laws that he discerns are characteristic of humanity. He finds that in all humanity there is an instinct for self-preservation, procreation, a drive for meaning in life. Aquinas does not reject the divine command of his religious tradition grounding the origin of natural law in God, but observes   all humans can come to know the natural law through the use of reason whether you believe in a divinity are not, an observation he made in that many other non-Christian religions and even those who do not believe in God hold to the  same ethical principles.

 So for St. Aquinas doing wrong is to go against the natural law, the divine command structuring the human condition, human nature.  He finds two reasons.  First, we do “wrong”  out of ignorance that what we are doing may not actually be consistent with the natural law, an example being that at one time cigarette smoking was thought to be beneficial or eating certain food once thought to be beneficial, but we now  find is not. The second reason  is our emotions,  similar to St. Augustine,  that drive us to do bad. Aquinas with Augustine observes they can become so strong on occasion that they override our reason and compel us to act contrary to what we know is otherwise right.

So what is the ethical choice regarding the job interview applying the Natural Law theory.  Which of its BASIC GOODS  as discussed in the video on this theory does the possible choices support or violate?  Is telling on your best friend supportive of  “survival/life?  Or maybe “avoiding offense?”  Does concealing it make it easier or harder to “live in society?”