Sentences with phrase «on moral evil»

A Philosophy for Children lesson focused on moral evil and the role and responsibility of humans as the primary cause of suffering.

Not exact matches

The youth appear uninterested in carrying any longer the burden of national moral responsibility for the evils of the Third Reich, and the hard - working people of Europe are disenchanted with the concept of toiling to keep idle Greeks and Portuguese at the beach on their state benefits that began when they retired prematurely from unproductive state jobs.

Many people believe along with the pacifists that war does indeed necessarily involve evil actions and so any attempt to impose a moral standard on our conduct is doomed from the start.

As the 1986 Vatican «Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons» stated, the homosexual inclination is «ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil» and is therefore an «objective disorder.»

using your argument we would had civil rights in this country just because goverments make certain practices illegal does tat mean that what the goverrmet s doing is moral and just, The fact s the goverment attempted to use Christaniaity to bolster it claim to power through this we have the start of the Roman Catholic Church one of the most insidious evil organzations on this planet which as doe more to oppose ad kill true follewers of Christ then ay group o this planet.

The Church speaks with Christ's own authority on faith and morals and evils such as abortion, casual sex, the culture (or «anti-culture») of recreational drugs, binge - drinking, and pornography.

Thus the traditional conception of deity, which we have received from our past, puts its main stress on divine absoluteness or aseity; on divine causative agency as the explanation of everything that occurs whether by direct divine willing or by indirect divine permission with respect to evil done in the world; on divine self - containedness and hence lack of necessary relationship with anything else; on divine impassability, which makes any suffering impossible for God; and on divine moral perfection, with the giving of laws in accordance with which everything should be ordered.

This question of the physical evil in the world leads us naturally on to the question of moral evil, which poses at least as difficult a question, even though it is sometimes argued that they are but different manifestations of the same thing.

What is chosen therefore is one of those types of act which «in the Church's moral tradition have been termed «intrinsically evil» (intrinsice malum): they are such always and per se, in other words on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances.»

I find, on the contrary, that it is much more difficult today for the knowing person to approach God from history, from the spiritual side of the world, and from morals; for there we encounter the suffering and evil in the world, which it is difficult to bring into harmony with an all «merciful and almighty God.

It is not sufficient, however, to point out that there are innumerable ministries in the several Christian communities that insist on the objectivity of truth, the authority of Scripture and Spirit - guided interpretation, the ecclesial means of grace, and the reality of moral good and evil.

The insistence that communism and fascism be weighed on different moral scales continues, says Martin Malia in his introduction to the American edition of The Black Book, because «no matter what the hard facts are, degrees of totalitarian evil will be measured as much in terms of present politics as in terms of past realities.»

But (conjecture on my part) any moral standard acceptable to almost anyone would call such acts evil.

A more robust theological focus will bring to light religion's profound contribution to a world in need: not merely consensus on moral imperatives, as crucial as this is, but hope in the face of moral impotence and profound evil, confidence in otherworldly aid in this life, the courage to change, and even holy fear.

It is not sufficient, however, to point out that there are innumerable ministries in the several Christian communities that insist on the objectivity of truth, the authority of Scripture and its Spirit - guided interpretation, the ecclesial means of grace, and the reality of moral good and evil.

The answer is simple: do the opposite of what catholics want because you can always expect to find them on the wrong side of any question regarding ethics and morals, especially if science is involved or it shows them to be evil.

That is why atheism is on a higher moral ground, we understand that WE are responsible for any act, be it kindness or evil, that we perpetrate.

and the history of your corrupt and evil church shows that those who believe in god are no more moral than anyone else for having» god» on their side.

Personally, I find Christians that only care about preserving their moral supremacy at the cost of everyone else to be a far greater evil than same gender oriented individuals seeking equal treamtent in a country founded on the principles of freedom and equality.

Even when villains are on a moral journey, films still generally have a more polarised «ultimate evil» somewhere on - screen.

The kingdom then becomes moral and ethical obedience to God's call within the total sweep of personal and social living, with special emphasis on the human responsibility to correct the evils of an unjust and unloving society.

In this sense, true evil appears only in the very field where religion is produced, namely, in the field of contradictions and conflicts determined, on the one hand, by the demand for totalization which constitutes reason, both theoretical and practical, and, on the other hand, by the illusion which misleads thought, the subtle hedonism which vitiates moral motivation, and finally by the malice which corrupts the great human enterprises of totalization.

They pled for moral regeneration, calling upon the whole nation to turn its back on evil.

The point which emerges most clearly from these two illustrations is that the most destructive social evils of which we have knowledge appear on what, according to any previous conception of progress, have been high levels of intellectual and moral advance.

The Netflix original is better than the beating the critics are giving it on Rotten Tomatoes, which could be due to the fact that the media elite seem to prefer the moral ambiguity of Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri to a straight - ahead tale of good battling evil.

If, on the plane of moral evil rather than physical or «natural» evil, one replies that with the real freedom of the free will goes the real power of personal sanctifying grace to sweeten and transform our personalities if we will allow Him, the rejoinder comes, «well, yes, but if He is almighty why does He not stop me from sinning and going to hell?»

There are too many people on the moral sidelines who think they are living well just because they avoid specific acts of evil.

This type of moral correctitude is, on a larger view, so like evil that the distinction is trivial.24

Growing out of a series of books and essays Kekes has written over the last several years - on the nature of moral argument, the problem of evil, and the conflictual goods and evils that make up life as we know it - Against Liberalism marks the author's most explicit broadside against liberal theory to date.

Depending on the theory employed, evil is either transformed by a larger Christian context, slighted in favor of focusing attention on a saint, or justified in terms of an educational or moral function.

This type of moral correctitude is, on a larger view, very like evil» (RM 95).

Like Mehta, Lewis objected to God on the basis of the evil he saw in the world, but his conversion mirrored that of Leah's as he realised that his objection only made sense if a moral realm existed: «My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust.

On the one side, Christians were to exercise undiscourageable goodwill toward evil men, even praying for those who slew them when no other manner of expressing goodwill remained; but, on the other side, the new faith retained the hopeless torture chamber of Gehenna, where punishment was supposed to go on in endless agony long after moral purpose in the torture had been losOn the one side, Christians were to exercise undiscourageable goodwill toward evil men, even praying for those who slew them when no other manner of expressing goodwill remained; but, on the other side, the new faith retained the hopeless torture chamber of Gehenna, where punishment was supposed to go on in endless agony long after moral purpose in the torture had been loson the other side, the new faith retained the hopeless torture chamber of Gehenna, where punishment was supposed to go on in endless agony long after moral purpose in the torture had been loson in endless agony long after moral purpose in the torture had been lost.

If it was truly based on a moral issue, the employees and administrators would immediately drop their tainted, evil health coverage.

In fact, one might suspect that a world in which evil was somewhat less victorious than in our present one would evoke more moral qualities, since many people in the present world give up on the battle for goodness because it often seems so hopeless.

If you believe that fooling a woman's system to avoid pregnancy is against your moral code then fine, we'll agree to disagree on the evils of foiling God's plan for every coupling to produce a child, but to claim the pill is abortion is just sad.

Since one of the most famous exponents of process thought has called the western notion of substance a chief cause of moral evil and selfishness in the western world (WVR 6), it is astonishing that another famous process philosopher should have tried a reconciliation between process thought, with its emphasis on relations and actions, and Aristotelian substantialism, with its emphasis on things and states of being.3

The cause of this uneasiness becomes clearer if we question Ignatieff's argument at several points: the validity of the moral paradigm itself, the assumptions from which he proceeds, the inconsistencies in how he describes the limits to be observed in doing the «lesser evil,» and his conclusions about specific elements of the war on terror.

Throughout the book, he attempts to set general limits on the evil that may be done, but in different places he defines the limits differently, and in no place does he offer a systematic moral justification for the various limits that he lists.

If such be the case, then Hegel is right when in his chapter on «The Good and the Conscience,» he characterizes man merely as the particular and regards this character as «a moral form of the evil» which is to be annulled in the teleology of the moral, so that the individual who remains in this stage is either sinning or subjected to temptation (Anfechtung).

The absurdity of suggesting that Iain Duncan Smith's Christian motivations were any kind of secret and of criticising the use of moral categories to justify his policy approaches - only lefties are allowed to have morals, after all; to be Right Wing is, by definition, to be evil, seeking to impose final solutions on the poor, force them to eat rotting horse - flesh, and cleansing them from beyond the sight of nice middle class folk; any right - winger employing a moral term such as «wrong» or «sin» must have some sinister ulterior motivation - has been covered already by the Editor and by Cranmer.

The direction of Greene's research seems to be saying that it makes no difference how we respond to moral dilemmas: «Evil doesn't exist on a neuronal level,» he says.

However, a new study from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business titled «Less Evil Than You: Bounded Self - Righteousness in Character Inferences, Emotional Reactions, and Behavioral Extremes,» to be published in the forthcoming Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Nicholas Epley and Nadav Klein ask whether the extensive research on self - righteousness overlooks an important ambiguity: When people say they are more moral than others, do they mean they are more like a saint than others or lesslike a sinner?

I don't know where robot boxing falls on your moral spectrum, but I'd take a pre-teen to see Real Steel, as long as we had a long talk afterwards about the evils of product placement.

Like many tales about the good vs. the evil, the evil mostly steals the show from the good in «The Devil and Daniel Webster» (1941), a cautionary moral tale based on Stephen Vincent Benét's short story which is sort of a New England version of the tale of Faust.

They seem to offend people less than the comparatively inexplicit The Pledge, and I'm sure that's because Penn's film, though not amoral, has no moral centre — no one slapping Evil's wrist on our behalf.

From that point on, the film devolves into the cozily predictable world of TV legal dramas, abandoning the moral uncertainty of its opening scenes for the benefit of a villain so comically over-the-top in his evil, he might as well be theatrically twirling a mustache and tying a damsel in distress to train tracks.

Polanski is credited by Towne and others with insisting on a tragic ending by which evil and corruption are triumphant, instead of a more «moral» ending, and this made all the difference.

One is that this is all incidental and happens to give them some kind of moral background to stop the killer (but they could / do have morality coming from other sources) or Two, a propaganda film (the way most critics took it, making it one of the worst - reviewed films of Eastwood's career) that says because «God was on their side» and the like, they were ready and even protected just enough to «defeat evil» because of U.S. «moral exceptionalism» or the like.

You could then feed this starter activity into a lesson based on the fall and / or Christian attitudes to moral evil and God's benevolence.