Briefly summarize Aquinas’s argument in the excerpt from On Kingship.
Aquinas’s toils argue out the importance of man leaving under a ruler mostly a king. He equates the interactions and socialization of man with the parts of the body which must stay together and have a general organ coordinating the entire body lest all the other parts of the body fall apart. In his arguments, he points out the proverbs of King Solomon pointing out for the need of togetherness and living in a community because man is not an islander but a social being who cooperates and socializes with others in a bid to attain a particular goal. Aquinas concludes by pointing out that the ruler of a home is not necessarily a king but a father and links this line of reasoning to the title of the king as a “father” because he is the ruler of a people.
Augustine City of God, Book XIX
Throughout this text, Augustine expresses considerable skepticism towards the claims of several philosophical “schools” of thought, all of which hold that human beings can achieve happiness in this life. What philosophical arguments does he consider and why does he reject them? That is, what evidence does he adduce to refute the claims being made that happiness is attainable in this life?
Augustine maintains that true happiness cannot be achieved in this life, because most of what is regarded by man as happiness goes contrary to the plans of the Almighty. Augustine focuses on two worlds the earthly and the heavenly. He refutes to the claims by philosophers that true happiness can be achieved in this world because the philosopher’s regard of happiness is narrow and limited to being without a master, lacking instruction, pleasure, and lacking industry.
Are you persuaded by Augustine that true human happiness cannot be attained in this life?
No I am not persuaded, the conscience of man is plugged with a meter that flips on happiness whenever man does something good and honorable. Based on the bible which Augustine bases some arguments on, happiness can be attained in this world when a person does well to himself and the rest of humanity.
Towards the end of the assigned text (Chapter 21), Augustine considers Cicero’s definition of a republic or, what Cicero (and Augustine) sometimes calls “a people.” (This is what we would today call a nation.) Cicero argued, essentially, that for a people to truly exist, the republic they inhabit must be just (“where there is no justice, there is no republic” ). Augustine is skeptical of such a definition of “a people” in part because he is convinced that there has never been a just republic. But Augustine takes it as a given that there have been republics and so there must be something wrong with Cicero’s definition. Augustine, therefore, finds it necessary to provide an alternative definition of a republic (in Chapter 24). What is his definition of a republic and how does it differ from Cicero’s?
According to Augustine refers to a republic as a congregation of rational individuals united towards a cause that they all love. He insists that in order for a place to be regarded as a republic there must be a composure of rational individuals and who love what they do, in consensus concerning what they do. The different of this definition and that of Cicero is that it synchronizes the aspect of rationality and consensus and love in what is done.
Theological Ethics Questions over the readings by Finnis and Macedo
Summarize Finnis’ argument with respect to the morality of homosexuality. Upon what source (or sources) does he rely in making his argument? Do you find Finnis’ argument persuasive? Why or why not? In evaluating Finnis’s argument try to articulate the sources of moral authority upon which you are drawing.
Finnis’ argues that there are some individuals born naturally as homosexuals. He insists that allowing homosexuality openly is against the principles of marriage and acts contradictory to those individuals who aim to get into marriage and have a family. This argument is sound, children mostly might get confused by a homosexual arrangement which yields no offspring. Furthermore, the context of one acting as female and the other acting as male is weird and shows how unnatural the actions of homosexuals is. Well, on the context of some people being born naturally homosexuals I do not play along that lingo. Retardation and perversion always has some reasons, mostly linked to a bad past experience or something gruesome.
Summarize Macedo’s critique of Finnis. Do you find Macedo’s argument persuasive? Why or why not? In evaluating Macedo’s argument try to articulate the sources of moral authority upon which you are drawing. Are they the same sources you used in evaluating Finnis’s argument?
Macedo regards individuals who are opposed to lesbianism and homosexuality as conservatives. He insists that concentration on sexual orientation and opposition of gays and lesbians is both unrealistic and unfair. Macedo asserts that there are greater social evils that call for greater focus such as teenage pregnancy and rape. He advocates for liberation where individuals fail to cast stones and pin blames on homosexuals and lesbians and deems it tantamount to judging humanity, which is all men. This is because, according to Macedo, other men also commit social evils that he thinks are more inhumane and heinous than homosexuality or lesbianism. Finnis advocates for sexual liberty.
Macedo relies on the law of the land which grants freedom to gays and lesbians. I do not find Macedo’s argument persuasive because homosexuality and lesbianism goes contrary to nature, furthermore, the union is simply dysfunctional with the essence of protrusion of undesirable openings in man sounds like perversion. Imagine a scenario where a bull participates in gruesome sexual innuendo with a fellow bull, picture how unnatural that seems? The law is in place to ensure that all live in harmony, acceptance of these so called rights go against nature. Argument on the premise of acceptance of a new form of sin or perversions because other forms have been existing in the society is lame and very handicapped. Finnis should identify another premise of argument.
Theological Ethics Questions over the readings by Hays & Furnish
- What source(s)1 does Hays consider to be relevant to the question of the morality of homosexual relationships? What sources seem to be the most important to him? What about Furnish?
Hays points out to the bible as the reference point for morality because God is the creator of all in the universe.
According to Hays, does the bible place an emphasis on homosexual behavior? What issue does he identify as one that the bible is much more concerned with than homosexuality?
According to Hays, the bible places very light emphasis on homosexuality and homosexual behavior but opposes the act in all the verses that he sites from the bible.
According to Hays and Furnish, what is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah about?
The story of Sodom according to Hays is a question of punishment for homosexuals which is the jurisdiction of the Almighty only as opposed to man.
Furnish on the other hand draws the realities of the happenings during the fire at Sodom and Gomorrah. He believes that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah was not limited to homosexuality but there were other numerous forms of sin in that city.
- In general, how do you think Furnish would respond to Hays’ argument?
Furnish would tell Hays that it is not the jurisdiction of man to determine the place for homosexuals but the Creator Himself. Moreover, he would incline himself on the angle that there are other social evils and the greatest evil is refusing to accept the Holy Spirit as depicted by Apostle Paul.
Which argument–Hays’ or Furnish’s–do you find more persuasive and why.
I find Hays’ argument more persuasive because he draws his facts from the bible and inclines himself to the realities. He, first of all, accepts that the creator opposes the act of homosexuality by pointing out to Sodom and Gomorrah in which the whole city got burnt down because of sexual sin by God the creator of the entire universe. According to Hay’s homosexuality is sin like any other, however, homosexuality and lesbianism are condemned by God. Such individuals have the right to come to church and should not be judged by man based on the sexual act they indulge in.