Descendants of Grace Monergistic Assembly

Author: Yskander Arquimides Saucedo

  • Soren Kierkegaard: A Short Biography of His Youth, Faith, and Philosophy

    Kierkegaard was a Danish philosopher but was also considered a theologian and other titles with respect to the humanities. His area of authorship consists of a wide variety of critical topics such as; philosophy, religion, morality ethics, and psychology. He is considered the father and first existential philosopher. A considerable amount of his writings deals with the issues of how one should live as a single individual. He emphasizes the importance of personal choice and commitment to finding the meaning of existence as it is found in each individual. His psychological writings studied the feelings and emotions an individual may succumb to when faced with the freedom of choice. In this short biography, three areas of Soren Kierkegaard will be mentioned; Kierkegaard’s youth, his faith, and his philosophical contribution.

    Soren Kierkegaard was born in Copenhagen May 06, 1813, to his mother Ane who was 45 years of age and father Michael who was 56 years of age. Soren was the seventh child born to Ane and Michael. From the seven children only two, Soren and his older brother Peter outlived their father. Michael Kierkegaard believed his children’s death was the consequence of a curse from God. According to Soren’s second and third cousins, he was a mischievous boy who they would rather avoid. Soren as a boy was given the nickname “the fork” because when asked at the dinner table what he wanted to become when he grew, he responded “a fork.” The reason was so he can spear any food of his choosing at the dinner table. When asked if someone would try to stop him he responded that he would then spear the person who attempted to stop him. Most authors point to this remark to reveal the intellectual wit and satire of the young Soren Kierkegaard. Most scholars notice the sarcasm from his youth reflected in his writings as an adult through pseudonyms. The name Kierkegaard has a long and intricate history. It is spelled in several different ways but originally the name was spelled, Kirkegaard. In Danish, the name is translated as “churchyard” because of the close proximity of the family farm near a church. Soren Kierkegaard’s father Michael was born on the family farm but it was Soren’s grandfather Peder Kierkegaard who took his farm’s name as his surname to highlight where his family was from, (Garff & Kirmmse).

    In respect to spirituality, although he had a personal affection toward Jesus Christ within the Christian religion; he was critical of Christendom and organized religion in general, but to the extent of anyone’s knowledge he never renounced his love for Christ. Contrary to the teachings of Christianity that the way of life ought to be subjective in the sense of becoming a subject, Kierkegaard believed that the most meaningful way to live as an individual is to become objective. Clearly, Kierkegaard presents himself as an objective and reasonable thinker. While he also believed in science and the credibility it contributes by way of observation; he argued it had any merit towards the inner workings of spirituality. In his youth, the Kierkegaard family went to church on Sundays and participated in communion on Fridays a few times a year as was the Lutheran tradition at that time. Soren never became an ordained minister but he did write thirteen communion discourses and personally ministered three of the discourses himself at the church. At Copenhagen University, Soren completed an undergraduate degree in theology likely to commemorate his late father who desired Soren to become a pastor. Soren later changed his ambition and in the same institution achieved a doctoral degree in philosophy but did not become a professor. Soren desired authoritative freedom and believed if he became a pastor or professor he would have to write under the authority of the Church or the State. Indeed, Kierkegaard continued to write philosophy and plenty of theology in his later years. He remained critical of organized religion and Christendom, but Kierkegaard did not write to the extent of heresy. Instead, there are many theological writings theistic theologians may find edifying. The subject of Faith became an intricate topic in his theology, Kierkegaard wrote, “certainly no eye is as sharp-sighted as faith’s and yet faith, humanly speaking, is blind; for reason, understanding, humanly speaking, is sighted, but faith is against the understanding,” (p. 105).  The implication Kierkegaard is making is ingrained in the conflict between religion and philosophy, or more closely to the context, between faith and reason. For clarity, the “leap of faith” concept should be mentioned. In general, Kierkegaard believed that incredible biblical accounts require faith to believe instead of reason. Doctrines such as the trinity or resurrection are in conflict with reason and would eventually have to choose either to suspend belief in the incredible doctrines for the sake of reason, or take a leap of faith and suspend reason in order to believe the incredible doctrines by faith.

    Kierkegaard was a highly influential figure to theologians and philosophers. In the philosophical world, he was the cornerstone of existentialism; a term not developed by Kierkegaard but became a term conveying a self-description. The existential term is credited to “Jean-Paul Sarte and his associates notably Simone de Beauvoir, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Albert Camus—existentialism became identified with a cultural movement that flourished in Europe in the 1940s and 1950s,” (Crowell). In general, Kierkegaard’s existentialism emphasized the inquiry of the individual to search and give meaning to life. The individual should do this not by the influence of religion or society. Neither should it be accomplished by merely armchair reflection about existence, but by the experience of the individual’s existence as the will and passions motivate actions. The starting point of existentialism is the concept of the absurd, that the world contains no meaning except for the meaning we discover if perhaps there is any meaning to be discovered at all. For Kierkegaard, absurdity rested in the limitations of human freedom and choice as it finds conflict with the world’s external circumstances which lack a foundation of meaningful justifiability. To put it simply, “absurdity is limited to actions and choices of human beings, these are said to be absurd to the extent that, as they issue from human freedom, they lack a foundation outside themselves,” (p. 39).

    Soren Kierkegaard met his end at the age of 42 in 1855. Soren was a highly influential philosopher and theologian who left behind a voluminous amount of writings for readers to muse on for an individual lifetime. His influence continues to influence philosophers both theistic and atheistic. Kierkegaard is a significant philosopher in the sense that his writings have the capability of breaking through the theistic and atheistic bias. His early upbringing as a nineteenth-century protestant and later his objective way of thinking inclined him with the ability to question the deepest roots of subjectivity. Such an exercise has left many theists to become atheists; nevertheless, although he may have rejected the established Christian church he did not reject his love for Christ. The result was a legacy of knowledge for theists and atheists to continue the search for the existence and meaning of the individual self in an absurd world.

    “In a little while I shall have won, the entire battle will at once be done. Then I may rest in halls of roses and unceasingly, and unceasingly speak with my Jesus.” Soren Kierkegaard

     

    Works Cited

    Garff, Joakim. Soren Kierkegaard: A Biography, Princeton University Press, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=1441388.

    Soren Kierkegaard. Discourses at the Communion on Fridays. Indiana University Press, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=670312.

    Crowell, Steven. Existentialism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2015. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/. Web. Oct 20, 2019.

    Michelman, Stephen. The A to Z of Existentialism, Scarecrow Press, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=1124498.

    Garff, Joakim. Soren Kierkegaard: A Biography, Princeton University Press, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=1441388.

  • Hermeneutics: Reflections from the Movie Luther

    Joseph Fiennes plays the sixteenth-century Augustinian monk, Martin Luther, who led the Christian Reformation resulting in religious freedom for hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries. The movie begins with Luther running through a thunderstorm. In fear of death, he vows to God to become a monk if God saves him from the storm. Pursuing theological progression and service to God, Luther travels to Wittenburg where he excels theologically but becomes personally acquainted with the corruptions of the church. Realizing the practices and teachings of the church from the Pope to the Priests are in conflict with what he believes to be true in the scriptures, he nails 95 theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenburg. This single act catapults Luther into a spiritual revolution and reformation of how biblical scripture is interpreted.

    The movie Luther reveals a great hermeneutical theme. The movie is based on true historical accounts revolving around religion which is appealing to most people. The notion of hermeneutics is captured in the constant battle between Martin Luther and the leadership of the church as they quarrel over the meaning and interpretation of the scriptures. The intent of this paper is not to explain systematically how to apply hermeneutical principles to a particular study or everyday life, but to reflect on the concept of hermeneutics as I see it exemplified in the movie.

    Hermeneutics analyzes the way a person reads and understands a particular text. It has become especially important for those examining a historical text or something written from the basis of a different culture. Hermeneutics in relation to the bible or religion, in general, explores how someone reads, understands, observes the text, and eventually makes applicable the meaning the reader interprets. Perhaps the concluding interpretation is the most important factor in hermeneutics or in general. The final interpretation of something observed can form a basis or prejudice in the mind of the observer. The result can become either positive or negative as the observer begins to make an application in life. Compatible with observation is the conclusion from something read. How one understands something read can also have a negative or positive outcome when making an application in life. For instance, in the movie Luther, the way Martin Luther understood the concept of mortification was to practice self-flagellation. In future practice of hermeneutics, he comes to realize he was wrong in his interpretation and ceased the false application.

    Similar cases to these concede that the interpretation of something should be taken seriously. Finding the meaning of something involves labor to deal with the complexity of topics. Resources and tools involved in the study have encouraged philosophers to consider hermeneutics as “the science of interpretation,” (p. 12). One of these tools or resources is innate within every individual, and that is the ability to question yourself. Questioning the reason why we come to believe what we believe. Questioning our basis and examining our self is similar to the concept of Socrates realizing that the unexamined life is not worth living. The act alone may involve humility. Another tool or resource of importance is the human attribute of courage and anger. Justified anger does not necessarily have to result in a negative consequence. As seen in the movie Luther, Martin Luther became angry as he developed the courage to question the decrees of God and developed doctrines and traditions of his church. Unknowingly, at the moment only confusion may be the only disposition, but with further labor, persistence, and hermeneutical responsibility the final conclusion may result in great positive utility. It is highly important, especially when reading political or sacred texts to focus on a study with responsibility.

    Without constant responsibility in seeking the meaning of things, history has demonstrated unfavorable consequences. Perhaps greater responsibility is attributed to people who rise in power and establish control over resources necessary to find a precise interpretation. A historical example is in 1229 when the Council of Toulouse prohibited the people from owning a copy of the bible; “we prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament . . . we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books,” (Mizzi). To be fair, the historical context was that the Catholic Church was attempting to combat heresy and corrupt translations in circulation. There may be a reasonable justification given the circumstances. In reference to the movie Luther, Pope Leo the tenth seemed to have more nefarious reasons. Since the people had no bibles to interpret the teachings of the church; the Pope had an advantage over their ignorance to raise money through indulgences. Luther’s response was that the Pope has the right to interpret the bible, but he is not above it.

    I believe Luther expresses an important principle for many to follow. While Luther expresses the bible as an absolute authority, we may view this as an absolute standard, or that there is an absolute truth for the truth seeker to hope for. By this standard, or that there exists a universal absolute truth as an absolute standard; when attempting to interpret truth in meaning, we must be careful and responsible not to violate whatever the absolute standard of truth may be. To do so would be comparable to placing our self on similar corrupt ground as the Pope was in the sixteenth century.

    The practice of hermeneutics undoubtedly existed prior to Luther’s reformation; however, the conception of hermeneutics was primarily established through Christian theology. In western society, exegesis is seen in the works of Origin and Augustine, but it wasn’t until the Protestant Reformation which gave rise to the principles of hermeneutics as we understand it today (Dilthey). A few reasons for this are perhaps the people realizing the manipulation of the scriptures by the church. It is reasonable to accept once someone realizes they are being lied to over a matter; to eventually attempt to find the truth for themselves. In desiring the truth, and eventually attaining bibles for themselves, a personal passion between the person and the bible is developed. A personal notion is established and meaning becomes a priority. Meaning in relation to the bible can become complex, and with the complexity and desire to understand for passionate and personal reasons, principles of interpretation are developed into what we know as hermeneutics to find truthful meaning in the texts.

    Hermeneutics, although it may have started with theology eventually expanded to other relevant branches. Systems of interpretation are relevant in law and politics. For example, attempting to find accurate meaning in the US Constitution involves the concentrated study of history, law, philosophy, and politics. All these systems obligate the reader to examine several sources of study material, which inevitably involves a system of hermeneutical principle. Hermeneutical principles are advantages but in philosophy, it is not without its problems. For some philosophers, the hermeneutical circle becomes an epistemological dilemma. Hermeneutics may also extend to personal communication between individuals. Interpretation and meaning can be dictated by sociological principles which may be culturally based. Reasonably, lack of understanding is one of the world’s principal problems which create conflict from individuals to nations.

    Hermeneutics has been established as an art or science of interpretation. It has become a systematic method of interpretation. The way something is interpreted is as important as the conclusion received from an understanding. The final understanding of meaning creates inevitable utility. This utility may have a positive or negative reaction. These negative and positive reactions are manifested in history as seen in movies such as Luther. Movies like Luther may also be considered as a hermeneutical resource to gain an understanding of how misconstrued meanings can have an unfavorable or favorable reaction. Hermeneutics and power such as involved in church or government necessitate responsibility. As seen in the movie Luther, those with great power need to concentrate on the power of interpretation. The way powerful people interpret a meaning can have the ultimate consequence of either creating peace, or creating calamity. A powerful principle to remember for those who possess power; that they may interpret a matter, but they are not above it.

    Work Cited

    Diekelmann, Nancy, and Ironside, Pamela. Hermeneutics. New York: Springer Publishing  Company, 2006. Web. Oct 6, 2019.

    Mizzi Josheph. Just for Catholics: The Bible Forbidden to the Laity.  http://www.justforcatholics.org/a198.htm. Web. Oct 6, 2019.

    Dilthey, Wilhelm, et al. Hermeneutics and the Study of History. Princeton University Press,1996. EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=nlebk&AN=75653&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Web, Oct 6, 2019.

     

  • Time and Ethics: A Short Essay of St. Augustine’s View from Confessions Book 11

    William Alexander Hernandez writes that St. Augustine believed two theories regarding the concept of time; that time is a creature of God and time is a phenomenon of human consciousness (p. 73). The two theories are derived from Augustine’s Confessions Book 11. The creature of time theory recognizes the concept of time having its origin in the mind of God before the creation of the physical universe. This idea entails that time exists independent of the human mind. This seems slightly paradoxical considering the second theory but does have its justification which I will not be able to develop since this is not an essay. In either case, time manifests into reality at the beginning of the creation of the universe. God being eternal who exists in eternity and therefore has no beginning or no end cannot exist within the parameters of time; otherwise, the very concept of God would be contradictory to the attributes which define what God is. Time then is a creature of God not as an ontological, objective, or physical creation, but only as a point of reference toward the beginning of physical creation; hence, (Gen 1:1) in the beginning, God created is a point of reference to a source of existence which has a beginning not within the parameters of eternity or the concept thereof.

    In the second theory, Augustine develops time as a concept dependant on the mind of man. James Fieser writes “we might think that it (time) is objective and part of the external nature of the world itself . . . Second, we might think of time as merely subjective, existing only as a product of our minds . . . Augustine goes with the second: time has no meaning apart from our minds.” I do not fully agree with Fieser that Augustine claims time has no meaning apart from our minds; since, in his confessions he recognizes time having its integrity in the mind of God, which for some can be perceived as part of God’s divine illumination toward man innately having the intellectual inclination to develop the concept of time. In his Confessions, Augustine writes largely about the past, present, and future. Nevertheless; to be as concise as possible, time then; in the mind of Augustine, exists as a subjective instrument used to measure particular circumstances such as any reference to beginning and end, motion, and distance. Which leads me to the ethical portion.

    In our reading lesson, the author wrote: “for Augustine; evil is not a thing in itself, but rather a distance from God.” I believe Augustine meant distance in relation to the human’s capacity of love toward God. Not distance in relation to the physical measurable distance between God and a person, because only humans exist in the parameters of physical time while God exists outside of time and is, therefore, omnipresent meaning capable of being in all places irrespective of time and space. Besides, the capacity for evil action dependant on the special distance between God and subjects does not make sense, since the bible states that Satan and his angels rebelled from God in heaven; signifying close proximity toward God, yet they were able to perform such an evil action. Neither can I reconcile evil to distance from God emotionally, because there are recordings in the bible of theists and atheists committing evil acts such as betrayal, adultery, and murder. Rationally, I would have to disagree with St. Augustine at this point. Perhaps evil is a thing in itself, but that would logically conclude that goodness is a thing it itself as well, since, in this world of time and space there cannot be one in existence without the other. And if they both are things in themselves, it may be a great challenge for St. Augustine or anyone to reconcile one originating from God without the other.

    Works Cited

    Hernandez, William. St. Augustine on Time. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_6_No_6_June_2016/4.pdf. June 2016. Web. Nov 13. 2019.

    Fieser, James. Medieval Philosophy: From the History of Philosophy: A Short Survey. Sept 1, 2017. https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/110/5-medieval.htm. Web. Nov 13, 2019.

    Phil 303/Lesson 2. Augustine-Metaphysics and Ethics. Web. Nov 13, 2019.

  • Time: A Subjective Practical Illusion

    The illusion of time

    During the lifespan of a human being, each one has a birth and a death, a beginning and an end. People generally acknowledge the day of their birth every year and reach closer to death every year. Not only do all men without exception have birth and death in common, but all men use a conceptual instrument to measure and record events and moments during their life. This conceptual instrument is universally known as “time.” However, what is time? Most agree on how time is applied, but not all agree on a universal definition of time and how time may exist metaphysically. Does it exist subjectively or objectively? Time may merely be a concept in mind used to measure the existence of life. If so, then the existence of time depends on the mind and is recognized as a subjective practical illusion.

    19th and 20th century British Philosopher JME Mctaggart concluded that time is an illusion. Mctaggart demonstrated the contradictions of time in two theories known as A and B theories. An important principle to gain as a presupposition, and understanding of the theory of time, is acknowledging that “time essentially involves change” (Dummit 497). Furthermore, in addition to time, since time is always in motion, not only does it involve change, but it also involves direction.

    Consider first the B theory, or the B series of time. In the B series, temporal events are recognized as before or after, earlier than, or later. For example, consider three different dates; the years 1800, 1900, and 2000. In this time series, the dates are fixed. The year 1800 hundred is always and forever will be before the year 1900 hundred, and the year 2000 will always be ahead of the year 1900 hundred. Time in the B theory is not a valid time series because, as stated earlier, a qualifier of time is that it continually changes. Time in the B series consists of fixed temporal events, which disqualifies change; therefore, making the B series of time incompatible with the properties of time.

    Consider now the A series of time. In the A-theory, there are three predicates; past, present, and future. Events begin in the future, which then becomes present, and finally becomes past. This series of time may seem to make sense for some since the flow of time through the three predicates seems to involve constant change through the flow of motion. However, Mctaggart claims that “A series would generate contradiction because past, present, and future are incompatible attributes” (Thomas). They are incompatible in the sense that each moment; for example, moment “D” starts in the future, then becomes present, and then becomes past. Moment “D” with all its properties is a fixed moment as it passes through all three predicates of time. Moment “D” starts in the future, and it remains a fixed temporal moment as “D” flows through the present and past, defeating the qualifier of change. Mctaggart reveals that both the A and B series are contradictory, concluding that time is an illusion.

    Based on the idea that time is an illusion, time does not exist ontologically. Therefore, time has no basis in natural substance or anything related to being. Neither does time exist objectively in the philosophical sense, meaning that time is not based on facts or existing independent of the mind. Therefore, if time is going to make sense to the mind, then the existence of time needs to be mind-dependent, existing subjectively. It follows then that time is a concept; it is an idea in man’s mind, which has become a concept developed as an instrument to measure the existence of life. This is important to grasp because, since the concept of time is mind-dependent, then without the mind, or the existence of human life, then time also ceases to exist. Since time’s existence had no ontological or objective existence, then without the mind to give it a subjective existence, time could not exist subjectively and would have absolutely no basis for any existence.

    Recognizing time as an illusion does not create any dilemma in practical life. The concept of time is still subjectively practical to everyday life. Time does not need to exist objectively for its practicality. Consider a clock on the wall. The clock on the wall is a mere physical tool used to apply the concept of time in true life practically. Likewise, a measuring tape is a mere physical tool used to apply the concept of distance in actual life practically. Distance is another concept in the mind of man used as an instrument to measure the amount of space between two locations. Distance depends on two reference points; if the two physical reference points are removed, then the concept of distance exists only subjectively, the same as time. Therefore, it follows that, though time is an illusion, it does not hinder man’s mind from attributing this illusion intelligibly and practically in everyday life. In this manner, time is defined as a subjective practical illusion.

    It becomes essential to consider how the concept of time as an illusion may change someone’s perspective on the past, present, and future. There are several different theories, but one, in particular, is presentism. Associate Professor at Nottingham University, Jonathan Charles Tallant, defines presentism as; “the thesis that ‘only present objects exist,’ or ‘nothing exists that is non-present” (479). The past and the future do not exist in this theory. Regarding the past, whatever once existed presently, currently does not exist but once existed and is now referred to as the past. The word past then becomes a concept to identify what once was present; therefore, “past” has no ontology

    The present or the now moment makes sense as a moment based on conscience observation. For now, to be a reality, it has to have an observer to be conscious of the now moment. It is essential to realize that a now moment does not exist in the way fallible human minds are costumed to comprehending it. When one thinks of now, one thinks of a moment occurring. However, in essence, the moment is not occurring, and instead, it is passed. People’s minds tend to want to make sense of now, as if it were a pausing moment, and to make better sense of now, perhaps that is what may be required. For “now” to exist objectively, in reality, it may necessitate a pausing moment, a moment that one can stop and declare, “this is the now.” Since a moment may never pause, every moment is in the past and no longer exists objectively.

    Many ideas are developed by man to effectively and productively progress and communicate through life. Some of the essential ideas developed are conceptual ideas. Concepts such as; time, past, present, and future, are all concepts developed in mind as instruments to account for life’s existence and occurrences, including the conscience observation of the flow of motions or moments. Although some of these concepts may be referred to as illusions and have no fundamental ontology or objective existence, as long as they are understood as subjective practical illusions, they may still be used intelligibly and reasonably in everyday life.

    Works Cited

    Dummett, Michael. “A Defense of McTaggart’s Proof of the Unreality of Time.” The Philosophical Review 69.4 (1960): p. 497. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy1.apus.edu/stable/2183483?pqorigsite=summon&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    Thomas, Emily. “John Mctaggart Ellis Mctaggart.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/mctaggar/#SH3c

    Tallant, Jonathan Charles. “Defining Existence Presentism.” Erkenntnis 79.S3 (2014): p. 479. http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/docview/1519819917/fulltextPDF/49D7545020C8445DPQ/1?accountid=8289

  • A Bibliographical Essay on Just War Theory

    Introduction

    In this essay, I will examine two of the predominant Christian thinkers from the early developers of JWT. Three contemporary authors will also be examined as well such as; Jeff McMahan, Michael Walzer, and Michael Farrell. The intent is to discover credible sources and look for logical moral consistency throughout the works of several resources and attempt to contribute further insight. Just War Theory has an esteemed past with early developmental figures such as St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas. Naturally, wars have been prominent prior to Augustine and Aquinas; and wars are prominent in our present days such as post 911 wars of Afghanistan and Iraq. The consistency of wars has motivated the novelties of more contemporary authors such as Michael Walzer, Jeff McMahan, and Michael Farrell. There are many more scholars and examiners of JWT who have added their own insights to further develop popular JWT concepts such as Jus ad Bellum and in bello. Jus post-Bello is a modern concept dealing with how to rebuild a nation after destroying it.

    Preceding Thinkers

    St. Augustine is perhaps not only a significant figure in Christian theology, but some secular philosophers may consider him as one of the most important philosophers of the western philosophical tradition. Augustine’s philosophy is so profound that some may consider St. Augustine as the leader of just war theory development. St. Augustine in his time was keen on understanding the dilemma of a just war, and approaches the topic with the intent of resolving the dilemma with great intellectual ambition.

    Perhaps the best place to begin a study of just war theory is with St. Augustine. Director of the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Graduate Fellowship Program and Senior Research Fellow at the National Defense University Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Dr. John Mark Mattox, author of, Saint Augustine and the Theory of Just War, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Central examines the writings of Augustine and attempts to systematically reflect the thought of Augustine as it pertains to JWT. According to Mattox, it presented an overwhelming challenge for him as he realized how the complexities of Augustine’s thoughts were interrelated with many of his other doctrines. Although many may relatively enjoy the insight in Dr. Mattox’s account of Augustine’s JWT, Dr. Mattox personally felt he did not meet his personal goal in attempting to capture Augustine’s philosophy completely.

    One of the unique contributions of Mattox is that he developed a few tables which compared the different views of Augustine, Ambrose, and Cicero in relation to the JWT principles of jus ad Bellum. Dr. Mattox lists the principles as; just cause, comparative justice, right intention, competent authority, public declaration, and last resort. Augustine, Ambrose, and Cicero had similar reasoning toward the jus ad Bellum principles; nevertheless, it is effortlessly noticeable how the concepts of the three thinkers and especially Augustine influenced modern political doctrine as it is reflected in current political doctrine.

    Over 800 years after the death of St. Augustine; Thomas Aquinas arguably follows as one of the next best Catholic theologians and philosophers to contribute to the doctrine of JWT. In one of Aquinas’s voluminous books, The Summa Theologica Article 1. Question 40. Page 3074,  “whether it is always sinful to wage war,” St. Aquinas reveals astounding insight on the topic of war. It is perhaps in the best interest of the reader to primarily focus on article one to gain a strong perspective on Aquinas’s justification for war. In addition to article one, Aquinas writes four articles in total regarding war and its justifications; whether it is lawful for clerics to fight in war, whether it is lawful for belligerents to lay ambushes, and whether it is lawful to fight on holy days.

    It is very interesting to consider the format in which Aquinas decided to articulate his thoughts. It may seem safe to infer that Aquinas formulated his articles exemplifying historical religious catechisms. His first question of whether it is always sinful to wage war is in a curious form. Gregory M. Reichberg, Adjunct Professor, the Department of Political Science at the University of Oslo. Head of the Research School on Peace and Conflict; author of Thomas Aquinas Just War and Pacifism. Professor Reichberg in his book argues that Aquinas was making the point that waging war is always sinful; nevertheless, there are occasions when going to war is justified. Furthermore, in his book he builds a case against those who may misinterpret Aquinas’s writings as encouraging pacifism.

    Aquinas raises objections to his questions in his articles to communicate his viewpoints.  For a better understanding of Aquinas’s writing, it may help to view his opening question in article one as a proposition instead of a question. For example, instead of “whether it is always sinful to wage war” one may rephrase it too, “it is always sinful to wage war” then followed by objection one and two and etc. The objections are against the proposition that it is “always sinful to wage war;” based on the objections that follow, it is implying that there are justifications for waging war. This rephrasing of the question, I believe may help to dissuade anyone who may believe Aquinas may have been writing from the basis of pacifism.

    Make no mistake, Aquinas does entirely build the case that killing and waging war is entirely wrong, yet the justifications for war become evidently clear with great reason. Aquinas in the first four objections references a few passages of scripture, yet the interpretations and reflections he uses to justify warfare may appeal to those who seek a philosophical answer to JWT. As Aquinas continues, he frequently quotes sermons from Augustine to further elaborate justification for waging war and for the justification of Christians involved in Soldiering as careers.

    In particular, something not commonly read about is the justification for Soldiers to take part in military actions, especially whether Christians ought to involve themselves in military affairs. Aquinas references one of Augustine’s sermons on the son of the centurion. Aquinas highlighted Augustine’s reference of Christ impressing on Soldiers to restrain from evil against others and be content with their wages. Aquinas uses Augustine’s sermon to propose Christians and all may indeed become Soldiers and be involved in warfare if necessary; otherwise, Christ would have commanded them to forsake their service, instead, He suggested to be content with their wages, implying they may continue to serve in the military; in relation, Dr. John Mattox, Saint Augustine and the Theory of Just War Bloomsbury Publishing, exemplifies a similar example from Augustine. A Soldier by the name of Boniface reveals to Augustine that he wants to leave the military life for a life of religious service. Augustine advises Boniface that although a life of religious service would be greater than a military one, he would be of better service to God if he stayed in the military considering the Vandal invasion.

    Contemporary Thinkers

    In general, when studying JWT it is noticeable that most researchers agree humans killing humans is one of the most immoral actions displayed by human nature, and objectively wrong. Yet, most JWT researchers have agreed that when involved in a war it becomes morally permissible for humans to kill humans on a large scale. Jeff McMahan is a contemporary philosopher and author who presents a contrasting view of popular JWT beliefs. On the subject of Just War Theory Jeff McMahan authored Killing in War, Oxford University Press USA – OSO, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central. Jeff McMahan’s intent is to reveal that the conditions of war do not justify the killings involved during wartime. In McMahan’s perspective, the conditions for killing in war are no more permissible than the conditions of humans killing humans in the context of individual murder or self-defense. McMahan believes that merely because some politicians allowed the country to go to war; does not give that country the moral permission to oppress the objective moral rights of people in a different country.

    The book is written in only five chapters, yet it is 250 pages because of several subsections in each chapter. The first 37 pages of chapter one revolve around the morality of participating in an unjust war. Examples of being involved in an unjust war include violations of the principles mentioned earlier in the essay. The 66 pages of chapter two pertain to the popular doctrines and arguments for the moral equality of combatants. Chapter three has three subsections that have subsections to the three subsections attributing to a thorough explanation of the popular excuses offered for the unjust combatants. Chapter four is perhaps the most relevant portion of the book. McMahan writes in great detail about the various types of threats and how these stipulations are used to excuse unjust combatants for their actions. McMahan finishes the book with chapter five considering the status of civilians in a state of war. McMahan clarifies issues such as civilian liabilities, immunities, collateral damage, whether or not civilians can be open to military attacks, and furthermore; McMahan also gives attention to the topic of terrorism late in chapter five.

    Another contemporary philosopher, professor, and author of over two dozen books; Michael Walzer has written on the subject of JWT in 1977 with a second edition published in 1992; Just and Unjust Wars : a Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books, 1992. Print, and a fifth edition published in 2015. The first publication published in 1977 was based on Walzer’s reflections from the Vietnam War. The book may be considered as one of the standards pieces of literature written on the topic of JWT.

    About almost 100 pages more than Jeff McMahan’s Killing in War, Michael Walzer gives greater detail in the philosophy of JWT from a political activist perspective with references to historical authors of JWT. References of other examples of combat from antiquity are also given, not for the sake of developing a historical narrative, but merely to illustrate a point. His examples are broad and relative to many personality types may enjoy the reading as Walzer references Statesmen, Soldiers, Philosophers, and Theologians. The objective of the book is not to explain morality from the ground up. If he were to make that attempt, it would require a separate book on that particular topic alone. Walzer claims the main intent is one of practical morality. Practical morality in the sense that the book analyzes the moral justifications, judgments, doctrines, and decisions people have made during war times from historical settings to the present day the book was written.

    In the second chapter of Just and Unjust Wars, Michael Walzer describes war as a moral dilemma especially relating to Jus ad Bellum, the just cause of war and Jus in Bello, justice in war. Walzer identifies the initiation of war as a crime, borrowing from the philosophy of Karl Von Clausewitz because of the calamity and death it brings, and sometimes without moral considerations. Particularly, Walzer believes war can have a just cause as well as be fought justly. He also believes war can have a just cause, yet fought in an unjust manner. He can also accept as a fact that war can have an unjust cause, yet the Soldiers themselves can still fight justly according to rules of engagement and national agreements. This is significant and contrary to Jeff McMahan’s position that there is no distinction between just cause and just fighting in war because, at its base level, all killing in war is indifferent to the killing by humans in an individual difference.

    The difference in context between these two authors is especially pleasing. While Michael Walzer uses figures such as Von Clausewitz to enhance his argument, Jeff McMahan uses Ludwig Wittgenstein. At first, it seems as if McMahan is admiring Wittgentsteing for his intelligence, nut instead McMahan uses Wittgenstein’s ambition to participate in the business of killing while serving in an unjust war as an example of our depraved nature. McMahan raises the character of Wittgenstein so high; that if a brilliant man such as Wittgenstein is willing to kill people in an unjust war, then there is no hope for anyone else.

    Jeff McMahan does make a fair assessment of Michael Walzer anytime he references his writing from Just and Unjust Wars. McMahan acknowledges the different views between himself and Walzer. For example, McMahan makes clear mention of Walzer’s views of the two principles of ad Bellum and in Bello and how Soldiers can fight morally justly or unjust regardless of the war itself having a just or unjust cause. McMahan also makes a fair assessment of Walzer’s moral equality of Soldiers. This means that regardless of whether the war has a just or unjust cause, in other words, regardless of the legal status of the war; the moral character of the Soldiers fighting must remain morally independent of the character of the unjust war. The combatants must on all sides have equal rights during the war in relation to morality and regulations, and if abided then all combatants have an equal right to kill only enemy combatants according to Walzer.

    Bibliographical Resource

    If there was only one bibliographic resource to suggest on the topic of JWT, Michael Farrell’s Modern Just War Theory: A Guide to Research, Scarecrow Press, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central may very well be the all in one go-to source for an extensive research project model. Farrell’s book may serve as a guide from students to scholars on a multitude of topics revolving around JWT. Contrasting from Jeff McMahan and Michael Walzer, Michael Farrell focuses his research mostly on the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first. Farrell evaluates Christian and secular sources appealing to anyone studying from various backgrounds such as; students, scholars, theologians, philosophers, soldiers, and politicians. Instead of focusing on a specific subject, Farrell surveys several key topics that may expand the reader’s knowledge of JWT; for example, in addition to JWT readers will learn about international law, pacifism, realism, and cosmopolitanism to name a few.

    Farrell’s introduction is very direct and to the point. Wasting no time he makes clear to the reader his exact intent and what the reader can expect to gain from his material and the promise of disclosing research methods revealed later in the book for the reader to continue research beyond the book. In chapter one Farrell defines all terms necessary to understand the just war doctrine or the ethics of war such as; Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, Jus post-Bello, and jus ante Bellum which refers to all the actions and diplomacy attempted prior to the hostile breakout of war. His definitions on the principle revolving around the bellum’s and bello’s are insightful,  concise, and comprehendible. Farrell explains additional just war doctrines not usually brought up in other popular sources such as; the doctrine of double effect, humanitarian warfare, asymmetrical warfare, pacifism, and nuclear pacifism, realism, natural law, holy war, crusade, total war, supreme emergency, and nuclear deterrence.

    In chapter two Farrell gives a comprehensive summary of the three most cited books of the twentieth and twenty-first century on just war theory. In chapter three he explains the specifics and arrangement of his annotated bibliography of chapter four. In chapter three Farrell also shares with the reader his methods of research and suggestions several different strategies of discovering different sources relevant to just war and ethics of war. Chapter four is the annotated bibliography of dozens of sources all with its own specific concentration regarding JWT. This book is a necessity for anyone earnestly interested in researching JWT.

    Conclusion

    One of the greatest contemporary philosophical issues from history to the present has been whether a war can be just; which has come to be known as just war theory, (JWT). From history to the present; from theologians to philosophers, politicians, and professional researchers; all have made their attempts to answer the most fundamental questions regarding what constitutes a just war. The attempts from past great thinkers have developed and left behind great western doctrine which has reached an international level. They have also inspired many modern thinkers who have also contributed to the modern development of just war theory. Some of the developers of just war theory were inspired by divine literature, yet they managed to have the wisdom to articulate their thoughts in a way where anyone regardless of spiritual foundations or a lack thereof can understand and appreciate as valued writings. The foundational writings of just war theory from the early western developers are so astute, that it has become merely impossible for modern contributors of just war theory to ignore and neither should be ignored. Modern writers of JWT have become just as important as the early developers. The only matter remaining unfortunate is that war will not end, and to that end neither will just war theory.

    Work Cited

    Mattox, John Mark. Saint Augustine and the Theory of Just War, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc,

    1. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=436707

    Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Article 1. Question 40. Christian Classics Ethereal

    Library. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.pdf. Web. 14 Jul 2019.

    Reichberg, Gregory M. “Thomas Aquinas between Just War and Pacifism.” Journal of Religious

    Ethics, vol. 38, no. 2, June 2010, pp. 219–241. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9795.2010.00427.x

    McMahan, Jeff. Killing in War, Oxford University Press USA – OSO, 2009. ProQuest Ebook

    Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=431111.

    Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars : a Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations.

    2nd ed. New York: Basic Books, 1992. Print

    Farrell, Michael. Modern Just War Theory : A Guide to Research, Scarecrow Press, 2013.

    ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=1207426.

  • Animal Rights by Way of Contractarian Human Extension

    Regan begins his argument by stating that the system which allows us to view animals as a resource is fundamentally wrong, (p.1). Viewing animals as a resource does not necessarily have to be perceived as something wrong. One may identify animals as a resource from a positive point of view. Regan seems to convey this position by appealing to the sentimentality a pet owner may feel toward a pet. Someone may argue that a pet is not necessarily considered a resource. Another argument contrary to that may reason a pet is a resource as it provides the owner with temporal enjoyment; relatively similar to a product bought at a local store, and after all, an animal may be purchased in an identical way as a product.

    A respectable reason one may raise is the issue of life. Regan’s position is animals should not be killed or mistreated in any way because they have equal inherent moral rights as humans. It is agreeable that animals should not be mistreated, but only to an extent. Yes, animals are living beings as humans are living beings or rather, living to be. But is the argument of life enough to persuade people of an extreme position as Regans? The NRCS states that “animals both large and small are a critical component to our environment. Domesticated animals, such as livestock, provide us food, fiber, and leather. wild animals, including birds, fish, insects, and pollinators, are important to support the web of activity in a functioning ecosystem.” This statement by the NRCS may lead some to believe the US Department of Agriculture views these elements of life as resources. Perhaps that is their position, and it is not necessarily negative to state they are all-natural resources essential to balance out the world’s natural ecosystem. But on the issue of life, insects and plants are also elements that contain life. Why not share equal reasonable defense for them as well? Why the strong bias on non-human animals alone? There is an obvious lack of consistency.

    A worthy issue Regan raises is the issue of pain. His logic is as follows; humans feel pain and so do animals. It is wrong to inflict forceful unwanted pain on humans; therefore, it is wrong to inflict forceful unwanted pain on animals as well. The argument is logical but may not be as valid as it seems, since it appears to be within the field of a false dichotomy. There are reasons other than negative motives someone may deliver unwanted pain or death to either humans or non-human animals. For example, would Regan contest against putting an animal to sleep or giving painful treatment to relieve pain and suffering? The same question can be reasonably applied to humans as well.

    Regan’s view of contractarianism as it relates to animals is that only non-human animal pain is relevant, and if one holds to this view then they are immoral. Regan does not exactly claim someone as immoral for supporting contractarianism, but it is the implication some may interpret as they read through his writing. Regan implicates that contractarianism is unfair to the animals since they cannot mutually agree to the contract. Only the humans who are the signatories make the stipulations and the non-human animals are affected whether it harms them or not. Regan’s rationality is acceptable on that particular matter. It may be agreeable among philosophers that contractarianism can be refined; nevertheless, contractarianism seems to convey rational justification for using animals as resources to sustain human life.

    The human species is obviously the dominant species of the two. Not to advocate for speciesism, but since humans have been the dominant species for thousands of years, there seem to be few practical options. Either humans do with animals anything they will, or humans adhere to Regan’s extreme animal rights movement, or humans can regulate the amount of suffering on animals by way of contractarianism, or a form of social contract. Such suggestions are not unreasonable. It is humans who have fought through the conflicts of life to establish moral reasoning and concepts for each other. Such philosophies have become dogmatic laws. If there is to be a regulated treatment for animals, which there is, then it becomes human’s responsibility to extend human moral rights to animals. If one is to argue animals have an inherent moral right not given by humans, then by who? Humans can account where they receive their inherent moral rights, either from God as creator, or by social autonomous self. Non-human animals cannot claim intellectual autonomy; therefore, for non-human animals, they receive their moral rights by way of extensions from humans who have developed the insight and accepted the moral responsibility to extend it to animals.

    Works Cited

    Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights.

    http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/regan03.pdf Web. 07 Jul 2019.

    United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resource Conservation Service. Plants and

    Animals. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/plantsanimals/.

    06 Jun 2019.

  • Experimental Philosophy

    Experimental Philosophy (X-Phi) is a relatively new 21st-century approach. The approach is less traditional and more in common with modern methods used by the social sciences. Traditionally, philosophers would spend their leisure gathering data and performing experiments. Philosophers for over two thousand years have been comfortable performing thought experiments as they reflect their way to conclusions. The practice of philosophy has been considered to develop an open mind and raise awareness of personal bias and subjectivity. This awareness of one’s own subjectivity inclines people with the ability to think objectively and consider the ontology of a substance. It is no surprise that with increased awareness and ability, and the rise of scientific efficiency, philosophers began to consider applying social science methods to the traditional practice of philosophy.

    From Experimental Philosophy another branch developed known as Experimental Moral Philosophy (XM-Phi). Similar to X-Phi, XM-Phi gathers data using experimental methods and studies behaviors, intuition, and moral judgments by way of empiricism. This in no way reduces the practice of cognitive reasoning to derive moral conclusions, but it appears to have expanded how people arrive at moral decisions in depth as researching the neurological factor. Some philosophers have come to consider morality being completely intuitive, which became another system known as Ethical Intuitionism. It leads to the belief that perhaps all moral intuition is self-evident and without an objective or ontological factor.

    Neuroscience has become an asset to X-Phi. It has become a means of answering questions about what the mind is, consciousness, and free will. Over three hundred years ago, Rene Descartes broke metaphysical ground with his mind and body problem and his philosophy of Cogito Ego Sum. Undoubtedly, many were influenced and debating whether people merely existed as an immaterial thinking being, and whether or not the mind can exist independently from the body. The philosophy has influenced and depicted in modern movies such as The Matrix and Robocop. Conceivably, it may no longer be a question whether the mind itself exists apart from the body. Neuroscience reveals that, “brain mechanisms explain learning, decision making, self-deception . . . the mind-body problem is not a single problem; it is the vast research program of cognitive neuroscience,” (Churchland).

    Although the innovation of modern science adding veracity to one of histories greatest philosophical developments; it is not the first time a similar occurrence has been revealed. Over two thousand years ago, Thales of Miletus believed all mass floated on water and earthquakes were the result of rough ocean waves crashing against the earth. His theory may have seemed rational at the time, but later proved to be wrong with the invention of Seismology. In this instance, we see again in history how science has brought greater light to a grey area of philosophical thought.

    The studies of Experimental Philosophy in relation to moral relativism and objectivism is interesting but perhaps needs to be further developed. The studies are thought-provoking for some who may be grounded in their objective reasoning. Experimental Philosopher Joshua Knobe claims that “studies seem to imply that the more openminded one is, the more possible one may become inclined to moral relativism. The more people have a capacity to truly engage with other perspectives, the more they seem to turn toward moral relativism,” But do the studies reveal the statistical conclusion to be objectively true? It seems perhaps there may be a logical argument against this theory. It may be true that a particular age bracket and particular personality traits favor moral relativism over moral objectivism, but the reasons why they may be more “openminded” are relative reasons within themselves.

    Modern science has evolved into a credible system for determining the truth of a matter. Philosophy, in general, has been a system with the same objective before any sciences became what they currently are. Modern Philosophy like science has evolved through time and adopted scientific methods and become known as Experimental Philosophy. The system is not perfect, but neither is science. Nevertheless, history is revealing how philosophy and scientific data can bring clarity in a world so old, yet still diligently discovering itself.

    Works Cited

    Patricia Smith. “The Impact of Neuroscience on Philosophy.” Neuron 60.3 (2008): Churchland

    409-11. ProQuest. Web. 21 June 2019.

    Knobe, Joshua. Is Morality Relative Depends on Your Personality? Forum Relativism. 2011.

    https://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/files/forum-tpm-52-knobe.pdf. Web. 06 June 22, 2019.

  • The Elenchus Experience Moral Relative Dilemma

    In common are the multiple ethical dilemmas humans find themselves in on a frequent basis. Conceptual moral factors are an anchor of weight one must struggle to deal with to determine what action is right or wrong. In determining the moral factor, some are arbitrary in deciding what course of action to take. In contrast, there are some who engage in a more rational approach to ethical problem-solving. The Euthyphro dilemma is a dialog many thinkers appeal to as a foundational example to exercise critical reasoning in relation to concrete ethical principles. Robert C Reed’s approach to the matter is particular in the sense that he similar to Kant, uses a similar method of doubt approach to accomplish moral maturity by questioning one’s self-belief about a moral dilemma.

    In the Euthyphro, Socrates flatters Euthyphro by accrediting him as an expert of religious matters, to which Euthyphro concurs. Socrates delivers a serious of questions which reveals the inconsistencies in Euthyphro’s conclusions. This line of reasoning has become known as the Socratic Method, or also known as the Elenchus. From this line of reasoning, Reed borrows the concept to argue one may grow in virtue if one applies the Elenchus to their own situation when facing a moral dilemma of their own. Similar to Kant’s Method of Doubt, one may cast doubt on their own moral conclusions. This enables the subject to constantly ask how it is the subject has arrived at a particular conclusion, and decide which conclusion is most reasonable. This is similar to modern Knowledge Engineering which uses artificial intelligence to apply data and imitate human reasoning, (Rouse).

    When subjects are able to reason within themselves regarding a moral dilemma, Reed implies that principles ought to be ignored in favor of intuition until the moral decision is evident. Continually questioning our reasoning compels a person to achieve a more keen awareness of intuition, which in return may raise moral integrity. A self-revelation of this method is what may be attributed as the Elenchus Method since the subject is frequently questioning himself to originate a more sound and reasonable moral conclusion, and in the end becoming a more virtuous person.

    A principal question remains unanswered, what is virtue? Robert Reed concludes by defining virtue as, “ the application of ordinary knowledge, cognitive and non-cognitive, to the task of achieving better self-definition,” (p. 256). This also begs the question, can this definition become acknowledged as absolute? If we are to realize piety through self-revelation by way of doubting, discussion, and intuition; then is not all discovery relative to one’s own belief? Isn’t the quest ultimately to find what is truly and morally and absolutely correct? Should the Elenchus experience raise true awareness of one’s self instead of merely self relativity? Some may conclude with a definitive positive. Finding what is absolutely true may serve as a greater motivator rather than merely attempting to find what may or may not be real or true. Otherwise, morality merely becomes a relative factor, and who is to say what is definitely morally true or not? Surely such reasoning is not practical in the world.

    The Euthyphro is a philosophical dialog that may always serve a great purpose for moral and religious discussion. It may serve as a platform for what moral arguments make greater sense than others. Many authors such as Robert Reed have developed outstanding moral developments and serve as practical enlightenment. This practicality is relevant to one’s self-awareness and knowledge about their own virtue; however, it may fall short of concrete moral objectivity as the Elenchus experience may seem to pave a pathway for moral relativism. In order to determine what is truly holy or virtuous; perhaps rules, principles, and standard ought not to be ignored as Reed suggested, but instead developed.

    Works Cited

    Rouse, Margaret. Knowledge Engineering. TechTarget. October. 2017.

    https://searchenterpriseai.techtarget.com/definition/knowledge-engineering. Web. 06 June 2019.

    Reed, Robert C. “Euthyphro’s Elenchus Experience: Ethical Expertise and Self-Knowledge.”

    Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16.2 (2013): 245-59. ProQuest. Web. 9 June 2019.

  • Management Ethics: Business Ethics and Moral Character

    It is ostensibly obvious that anytime currency is involved in a situation especially business in relation to earning money, unethical behavior will be revealed. Chapter one of Business Ethics begins with examples of white-collar executives who were sent to prison or companies bankrupt as a consequence of unethical behavior. From the investors, the one I consider most ethical is former CEO Martin Shkreli of Turing Pharmaceuticals,  who was convicted of securities fraud for raising the price of an HIV treatment drug from $13.50 to $750 a pill, (Schwartz, 2017, p. 33). What leads me to apply a degree of immorality to this example is the factor of human life; furthermore, not merely human life, but people whose lives have become subjects of unfortunate illness. While the executives were convicted of manipulating stocks; and I realize the lives who suffered from that consequence may have become homeless or other extremes, but the victims suffering from HIV were already in a grave position and raising the price of their medication to a ridiculous price makes the severity of their situation worse.

    Un-ethical practices are seemingly constant in the world of business. Reuters writer Brad Brooks (2019) reports ICE agents assisted in the arrest of a Brazilian man Luiz Eduardo Loureiro Andrade on December 20 in the United States. Luiz Andrade is accused of bribing officials on behalf of a Brazilian oil company, “Vitol Group” of an excess of $2.85 million dollars. The pursuit of fast money and the luxurious fantasies it provides will always be a strong temptation for anyone given the opportunity. This does not mean whoever acts in this manner is an evil person, the fact is that there is a relatively thin line between moral and immoral decisions. When riches are involved, moral character is not at the highest consideration, but instead, it is whether the unethical behavior is worth the risk compared to the consequence.

    I can agree with Aristotle’s view of moral virtue increasing with practice. What I disagree with is the concept of the moral ideal, that the moral ideal is “someone who naturally does the right thing,” (Schwartz, M. S. (2017). Any individual with full mental capability has the capacity within their moral character to naturally do the right thing; however, the moral opposite can be applied as well, that the same individuals have the capacity within their moral character to do the wrong thing. It is just as natural to a human to do the right thing and the wrong thing. It is, therefore, more ideal to say that anyone who has the capability of doing the right thing is just as likely to do the wrong thing at any given moment. We can apply Schwartz’s first and second dimensions of moral character to the subjects mentioned in the book and the article and gain great reflections, but there is a faculty I believe needs to be considered and that is, “convenience”. Often, it is likely that an individual will compromise their moral character whenever it is convenient for them to do so. The moral character can be viewed and used as an innate moral instrumental tool to gain or lose something one wants, needs, or discard of a thing or even avoid social relations according to their own convenience. In this theory, one’s convenience would take precedence over moral principle.

    Works Cited

    Schwartz, M. S. (2017). Business ethics: an ethical decision-making approach. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu

    Brooks, Brad. (2019). Top suspect in Vitol, Glencore Brazil bribery case arrested in the U.S. Reuters Business News. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-corruption-oil-traders-exclusi/exclusive-top-suspect-in-vitol-glencore-brazil-bribery-case-arrested-in-u-s-court-idUSKCN1P225C?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FbusinessNews+%28Business+News%29

    Schwartz, M. S. (2017). Business ethics: an ethical decision-making approach. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu

  • The Enlightenments Supremacy Over the Divine Right of Kings Doctrine

    The Enlightenments Supremacy Over the Divine Right of Kings Doctrine

    Religion has evidently been a persuasive influence in civilization and government, particularly the historical monarchs. Speculation to this day leads to a debate about whether biblical law ought to be the standard of governments judicial system with doctrines such as Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction. Highly sophisticated arguments have been developed from proponents and advocates of biblical law in government. One negative aspect; although not the only throughout history may be currently observed through sharia law, which part of its doctrines have become responsible for an ideology justifying war and terror. The influence of religion on government has been notably used for evil and righteous means, but perhaps the most relevant to western enlightenment were the monarch proponents of divine right. Kings such as; King James VI of Scotland, King James I of England and King Louis the XIV of France were strong advocates for divine right theory and biblical passages may or may not have been manipulated to justify their means; nevertheless, whether or not Kings used the doctrine intentionally as an instrument to control power, it served the enlightenment thinkers such as;  John Locke, Montesquieu, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau as reflections on how to develop a legitimate form of government by way of objectivity. A government where the people have a right of claim in the development of laws, as opposed to one individual ruling over all where the king is law and above all.

    The divine right of kings (DROK) is a political and religious doctrine which uses biblical passages to justify its legitimacy. It declares that a monarch is subject to the authority of God alone and not subject to earthly authority. The doctrine declares that the king derives his right to rule directly in accordance with the will of God. The king is therefore not a subordinate to the will of his own subjects, political parties, states, or the church. The king himself cannot come under any condemnation from the people and only God alone can judge the injustice of the king. The DROK doctrine suggests that any attempt to overthrow the king or to manipulate his powers in any way is equal to resisting the will of God itself. The Satirical 18th-century song, The Vicar of Bray gives testimony to the doctrinal influence of their time, “In good King Charle’s golden time, when loyalty no harm meant, A zealous high churchman was I, and so I gained preferment. To teach my flock, I never missed: Kings are by God appointed. And damned are those who dare resist or touch the Lord’s anointed!” (Ross).

    In the 17th century, Sir Robert Filmer, an English Royalist Squire proclaimed the state was a family and the king was its father. He used an interpretation of Scripture to convey that Adam was the first king and that King Charles I of England was Adam’s oldest heir, (Britannica). Scriptural support for this view is perhaps derived from Genesis 1:26, “God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, (KJV). Filmer’s interpretation is reaching to justify DROK doctrine and claim King Charles as an heir of Adam. Contextually, there is nothing in the first three chapters of Genesis declaring any form of kingship or monarchy. The dominion given to Adam is over the creatures and the earth created by God. God had not created any other humans besides Adam and Eve, so there is no one for Adam to rule at this point. The offspring of Adam and Eve came after their removal from the Garden of Eden at the end of chapter three, but it does not make sense to say Adam was to become a king of his children and establish a monarchy. Furthermore, after nearly a millennium of life on earth, there is no indication to infer that Adam at any point of his life attempted to develop a monarchy or to rule or have dominion over people. This is not to specify that DROK doctrine is not justifiable through scriptural passages, but to use scripture referencing as far back to Adam seems fallacious and adding to the text something the author did not mean to communicate to his audience.

    The DROK theorists also used the texts of 1Samual to prove its legitimacy. They reference the choosing and anointing of Saul from God through the Prophet Samual, but they make no mention of the Kings of other nations which already existed before a king was chosen for Israel. This is perhaps because according to the texts in 1Samual 12:19, it was an evil thing to request a king to rule over God’s people. “And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the LORD thy God, that we die not: for we have added unto all our sins this evil, to ask us a king, (KJV). Even after a warning was given to the people of the atrocities the king would commit over his subjects, the people still preferred an earthly king over God. This perhaps was not developed in depth by leading advocates such as Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, who was a leading advocate of divine right theory. If the passages were taught in context, perhaps the subjects of the king would not submit in fear of going against the will of God. There can be no legitimacy following an organization which God primary considered evil. What may possibly be inferred from these passages is not legitimacy to establish a line of monarchs, but instead God authorizing a king over Israel in order to give the people the judgment they preferred from their own selfish desires.

    The original passages used to justify the doctrine of divine right seems illegitimate; nevertheless, beyond that point, scriptural passages reveal that what was not intended was permitted by God. Understanding the paradox allows for the continual usage of further passages such as Daniel 2:21 “And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings,” (KJV). Here is a passage divine right theorists can claim without conflict. Not only does this passage attribute to the amount of control God has over the affairs of the world by raising and destroying kings and kingdoms, but the divine right theorist can make a sound claim that it was God who appointed the king to his office, and the day the king falls from his place will also be divinely appointed.

    The divine right of kings doctrine does not merely apply to past monarchs who were affiliated with a church-state. There are a few New Testament passages which may be considered for modern times. Consider just one; Romans 13:1-4,

    “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

    For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil,” (KJV).

    This passage is the one stop for all that says it all. All are to submit to the political powers for they are established by the power of God Himself. Anyone that resists the established powers resists the will of God as He has appointed the rulers over His creation; however, the established governments are supposed to maintain law and order, to punish evil and reward the good. Governments and kings are never supposed to provoke fear on the law abiding subjects, but instead, they are a minister, in other words, they are servants of those that obey the law. For those that disobey the law, or resist the powers with an unjust cause, the powers are a servant to them as well, but a servant with the sword to deliver God’s wrath on those that do evil.

    The passage indicates that fear is the property in man that ought to work both ways in the balance of powers. The people ought to respect their kings or governments not necessarily with love, but instead with fear; remembering that they ought to fear the government as they fear the Lord. This may raise credibility to Machiavelli who has claimed that fear lasts longer than love. Likewise, the established rulers ought to rule over the people with dignity as they were given the responsibility to govern by God. To govern with dignity demonstrates the fear of God in their conscience, remembering that it is God who will rightly judge the kings for how they governed God’s creation. In this sense, the divine right doctrine may rightly be applicable in modern times; not to explain its origins through Adam or that it was God’s intent to pass a kingship from Adam to Samual to King Charles, King Louis, to President Trump; but instead to understand that because of the iniquity in man, God has allowed people to rule themselves apart from God with a standard to balance powers between dignitaries and subjects.

    All this doctrine may sound fascinating for those who have a belief in God. But for those who do not, this may all sound completely irrelevant. After all, there has been evil kings and rulers who pay this no mind and commit atrocities. Kings such as Bad King John of England who was considered a tyrant so bad that the Pope in Rome decreed for King John to be deposed from his throne and replaced by someone more worthy chosen by the Pope himself, notably King Phillip of France, (Tate p. 187-188). The outrage caused by King John did not go in vain and resulted in great resistance which eventually gave the world the Magna Carta, which would remove King James and future kings as being above the law. The Magna Carta was perhaps the first document which paved way for enlightenment thinkers to establish a constitutional rule or social contract where all are equal under common law, instead of one man using divine doctrine or revelation as an excuse to manipulate power and serve his own self-interest.

    John Locke’s political philosophy was in sharp contrast to Sir Robert Filmer who believed that all government should be a monarch who’s right for a king to rule is derived from Adam. John Locke believed the government should be constitutional with limited powers being by way of consent from the people governed. As Filmer’s premise for political doctrine was that no man is born free, Locke’s premise was that all men are born free, (Strauss p. 476). The first treatise of John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government is dedicated to the refutation of Filmer’s argument of kings right to rule is inherited from Adam. According to Bertrand Russell, Locke argues and makes fun of Filmer’s concept of monarchs being heirs of Adam in a real sense. Locke argues, that if the true heir of Adam were to ever be discovered, are all existing kings to surrender their crowns and kingdoms to Adam’s rightful hereditary heir? Furthermore, any existing king who refused, then those kings would be guilty of usurping, (p. 621).

    Montesquieu authored a book titled The Spirit of the Laws. The book is generally reflecting on what may be considered as the best form of government based on enlightenment principles. Montesquieu is another enlightenment thinker who like John Locke, developed concepts used to establish the western political structure of the United States. Montesquieu political philosophy is based on an in-depth study of historical political establishments from Europe to the Far East, and how they ruled under forms of governments such as; democracy, republic, aristocracy, monarchy, and despotism.

    In relation to Monarchy systems, Montesquieu believed if one man is going to rule through fixed and established laws, then it would have to require that, “there be powers intermediate between the monarch and the people, hence the nobility, church, and cities. There must also be an independent depository or guardian of the laws, such as the French Parlements,” (Strauss p.520). Unfortunately, Montesquieu realized that when monarchs combine the executive and legislative power in one man, it usually leads to despotism and degradation of honor and virtue spreads through its society. It is interesting to note that Montesquieu was reflecting on separating powers in the monarch since Montesquieu is considered one of the major influences of enlightened separation of powers of America’s form of government, as it checks and balances its power through the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

    Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote a book titled The Social Contract. He was not the first philosopher to write about a social contract. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes also wrote about the social contract. The social contract is a development of ideas concerning the legitimacy of authority over the citizens of a government. In a social contract, the individual citizen of a state surrenders its will to the authority figure in return of the protection of their human rights. Rousseau’s social contract is not a social contract which reflects on the individual rights of man, the individual’s liberties, but instead, the rights and liberty as a whole, not an individual will, but a general will all have surrendered too under contract to guarantee the security of their general freedom.

    What sets Rousseau’s social contract from Locke is the idea of the sovereign and the general will. “The sovereign is not the government . . . the sovereign is a more or less metaphysical entity, not fully embodied in any of the visible organs of the State,” (Russell p. 696). The general will forms a social contract as “an artificial person, the state, which has a will like the natural person; what appears necessary or desirable to that person is willed by it and what is willed by the whole is law. Law is the product of the general will,” (Strauss p.568). Rousseau’s social contract implies that all man surrender all their rights collectively to the community. As all giving all, there is nothing for anyone to war about as in the state of nature. All in the community agree on an absolute standard of law; the sovereign then becomes the legislative capacity. The sovereign cannot become a monarchy or tyranny because the legislative community would only establish laws they themselves would be willing to submit too. Whatever is voted to become an absolute law through the sovereign; then becomes the general will of the people. The will of the people becomes the general will all obey.

    There are some similarities between the writings of Rousseau and the founding fathers. The idea of general welfare in the US Constitution has similarities to that of Rousseau’s idea of general will. It is possible that Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence was inspired by John Locke, Montesquieu, and perhaps Jean Rousseau. Regardless of what the three have in common, what is relevant is their ambition to find an objective truth for a basis to form the legitimacy of government, authority, and religion. They obstructed the ideas of monarchy and its fallacious intent for legitimacy through divine right doctrine, and they paved the way through a dark philosophical road with enlightened ideas of man’s nature, liberty, equality, and freedom of worship. Their enlightenment ideas have been used as a footing to construct the worlds most free form of republican government in the world. John Locke’s constitutionalism, Montesquieu’s separation of powers, and Rousseau’s social contract molded together to form America’s only sovereign and general will; the product of the enlightenment that is, the United States Constitution.

    Works Cited

    Ross, David. The Vicar of Bray – History and Song Lyrics. Britain Express.

    https://www.britainexpress.com/attraction-articles.htm?article=29. Web. 22 Dec, 2018.

    Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible. Tennessee. AMG Publishers. 1991. Print.

    King James Version.

    Appleby, John Tate. John, King of England. Knopf, New York. 1959.

    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.32106000302551;view=1up;seq=205

    Web. 22 Dec. 2018.

    Strauss, Leo., Cropsey, Joseph. History of Political Philosophy. Chicago. The University of

    Chicago Press. 1987. Print.

    Russell, Bertrand. The History of Western Philosophy. New York. Simon & Schuster Inc. 1972.

    Print.