I’m working on a philosophy discussion question and need an explanation to help me understand better.
300 words. Links and reading will be provided.
For the GEORGE MAVRODES reading, you should focus on the idea of moral obligations: what they are, what they mean, and what it means for ethics if they do and don’t exist. Does the author present the ideas of a secular world well? If not, why not? What feature does the author think is necessary for a coherent concept of moral obligations? Can you think of a way out of the bind the author presents?
For the RATIONAL RELIGIOUS ETHICS reading, you should focus on the requirements of ethical thought in philosophy. What are the standards that have to be met before we can legitimately consider an approach philosophically viable? In what ways does the reading address those requirements from the religious perspective? In what ways do you feel it might fail at that task? Can you think of a counterargument for the article?
UNFORMATTED ATTACHMENT PREVIEW
Purchase answer to see full attachment