James Rachels 'God And Morality Are Incomcompatible'
Karly Houghton
Dr. Adam Gaffey
Philosophy 220
September 24, 2014
We The People What is morally good is defined in different ways throughout the world. Race, society, moral beliefs, God, an individual, and also many others can determine what is thought to be good or bad. God as well as the individual defines what the good is. James Rachels believes that being a child of God and also an autonomous moral agent is completely incompatible. His argument is that one cannot fully worship a God without giving up one’s own moral standards. Rachels declares that if one confirms that there is, indeed, a God, the thought in itself makes you a servant of god. Working in full service of God means, to Rachels, that one would be abandoning all of one’s own moral standings. He also believes that there is no being who is worthy of worship …show more content…
Therefore, he states, “there cannot be any being who is God” (Rachels 373). Although James Rachels feels that worshipping God and being morally independent are not compatible, many would think differently. There are a few different flaws within James Rachels’, “God and Morality Are Incompatible”. Rachels is speaking outside of his own knowledge range when he asserts, “to apply the tittle ‘God’ to a being is to recognize him as one to be obeyed” (Rachels 372). Now, this would usually be a true statement as Rachels brings up the word “’King’” (Rachels 372). A king is a great being and is obeyed by all without question, just like a dictator. This would be an example of the God that Rachels is talking about in the previous statement. Many others would see the Christian God as
Dr. Adam Gaffey
Philosophy 220
September 24, 2014
We The People What is morally good is defined in different ways throughout the world. Race, society, moral beliefs, God, an individual, and also many others can determine what is thought to be good or bad. God as well as the individual defines what the good is. James Rachels believes that being a child of God and also an autonomous moral agent is completely incompatible. His argument is that one cannot fully worship a God without giving up one’s own moral standards. Rachels declares that if one confirms that there is, indeed, a God, the thought in itself makes you a servant of god. Working in full service of God means, to Rachels, that one would be abandoning all of one’s own moral standings. He also believes that there is no being who is worthy of worship …show more content…
Therefore, he states, “there cannot be any being who is God” (Rachels 373). Although James Rachels feels that worshipping God and being morally independent are not compatible, many would think differently. There are a few different flaws within James Rachels’, “God and Morality Are Incompatible”. Rachels is speaking outside of his own knowledge range when he asserts, “to apply the tittle ‘God’ to a being is to recognize him as one to be obeyed” (Rachels 372). Now, this would usually be a true statement as Rachels brings up the word “’King’” (Rachels 372). A king is a great being and is obeyed by all without question, just like a dictator. This would be an example of the God that Rachels is talking about in the previous statement. Many others would see the Christian God as