Capstone Essay

User Generated

vfdhverf

Writing

Liberty University

Description

This paper is based on the discussion board posts from 3 & 4 which are also in the files.


No more than 2400 words (total including title page, table of contents, quotations, and bibliography).

12 point Times New Roman font, double spaced, with one inch margins.


PLEASE READ ALL DOCUMENTS CAREFULLY!!

Unformatted Attachment Preview

ETHC 101 ETHC 101 CAPSTONE ESSAY INSTRUCTIONS Summary The final assignment for ETHC101 is a capstone essay that brings all of the knowledge and skills developed in this course to bear on a single ethical issue. Each student will write a paper of 2100 to 2400 words (total, including the title page, table of contents, quotations, footnotes, and bibliography), in current Turabian format, that combines the insights and arguments of the third and fourth discussion boards into a single carefully-articulated work. Content Begin your paper with a brief introductory paragraph that clearly states what positions you are going to argue for. State what metaethic you will defend, the issue in applied ethics to which you will be applying it, and the conclusion(s) on that issue that you want to defend. Next provide a lengthy and detailed explanation of your metaethic. This will likely reflect the metaethic that you argued for in your Discussion Board Three thread and the feedback that you received from the classmate or classmates who responded to your thread. Here you can go into much more detail than you could in the Discussion Board, which was limited to 600 words. If you use half of your paper to develop your metaethic, then it will contain approximately 1100 words, which means that it will be roughly twice as long as your Discussion Board thread was. Once you have fully explicated and argued for your metaethic, proceed to an application of that metaethic to the applied ethics issue that you discussed in your Discussion Board Four thread. This discussion may end up being twice as long as your discussion board thread was. Add detail, nuance, and argumentation, providing a fairly complete and comprehensive argument for approaching the issue the way that you do. You may illustrate the issue with real-life examples, but please do not fill your paper with anecdotes. You should anticipate possible objections to your approach to the issue and respond to them in an objective and informed manner. (For ideas on how others might object to your approach, a good place to begin would be your classmate’s reply to your DB4 thread, but you needn’t stop there. Your own imagination and the many books and articles that have been published on issues in applied ethics can provide a wealth of possible arguments relevant to every issue.) Your final paragraph(s) should reflect that you have accomplished your thesis. It should recap what you have accomplished and how you have accomplished it. Research This paper is not required to utilize any sources outside of those that were used in the class (the two textbooks, the videos, and the PointCast presentations), but use of additional resources is permitted and encouraged. At the minimum the paper should utilize the resources from the class. All resources used must be listed in the bibliography and any resources quoted, paraphrased, or alluded to must be documented via footnotes formatted according to Turabian. While your footnotes and bibliography (if you had one) did not count toward the word count for your discussion boards, for this capstone essay both the footnotes and the bibliography count toward the word count. In other words, the 2400 word limit is all-inclusive. You will be penalized if you exceed the limit, so please do not. Format ETHC 101 Your paper must begin with a title page that includes a paper title, your name, the date, and the course name and number. The second page of your paper must be a table of contents. The last page of your paper must be devoted to your bibliography. The paper must utilize 12 point Times New Roman font, double-spaced, with one inch margins. It must be double-spaced rather than triple-spaced between paragraphs and there should be only one space after the end of each sentence. Any documentation in the body of your paper must be done via footnotes formatted according to Turabian. If you are not familiar with how to do this, simply look it up online. There are many websites that explain Turabian formatting. Footnotes should be single-spaced 10 point Times New Roman font. Your paper must be submitted as a Microsoft Word document. If you submit it as a .pdf or anything other than a Microsoft Word document it will not be graded. Format Example Title Page Table of Contents Body of Paper: • Introduction • Metaethic • Application • Conclusion Bibliography Miscellany Proofread your work before handing it in! Errors of spelling, grammar, syntax, and punctuation will affect your grade. This is a university-level writing assignment. Please write accordingly. The deadline for this assignment is 11:59pm on Friday of Unit 8. Submit your finished paper via the SafeAssign link on Blackboard. SafeAssign is a program that checks your work for plagiarism. Plagiarism is immoral, unchristian, and will not be tolerated. The consequences for plagiarism are significant and SafeAssign makes it easy to detect. If you are not sure what plagiarism is, it is your responsibility to find out. Ignorance is no excuse. Do not plagiarize! This assignment contributes to achieving and assessing the achievement of all four of the Course Learning Outcomes. This assignment is due by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Friday of Module/Week 8. ETHC 101 CAPSTONE ESSAY GRADING RUBRIC Criteria Content Thesis Statement Advanced 19 to 20 points First paragraph includes a thesis statement and final paragraph(s) reflect accomplishment of the thesis. 20 pts. Style 27 to 30 points Appropriately academic style of writing, free of slang, informalities, sermonizing, anecdotes, etc. 30 pts. Tone 30 pts. Understanding 30 pts. Levels of Achievement 27 to 30 points Appropriately philosophical tone: obvious care for objectivity and respectful consideration of multiple perspectives; nuanced and insightful discussion of positions and arguments. 27 to 30 points Discussion reflects detailed knowledge of the issues in metaethics taught in the course and very appropriate application of this knowledge to the applied ethics issue selected. Proficient Developing Not Present 14 to 18 points 1 to 13 points 0 points Contains something that is close to a proper thesis statement and the conclusion basically reflects its accomplishment. 21 to 26 points Thesis statement is unclear and conclusion does not clearly reflect its accomplishment. No thesis statement and conclusion is unconnected to any thesis 1 to 20 points 0 points Occasional lapses from academic style, such as slang, informalities, sermonizing, anecdotes, etc. 21 to 26 points Frequent lapses from academic style, such as slang, informalities, sermonizing, anecdotes, etc. 1 to 20 points Style is completely non-academic Occasional lapses into subjectivity; some onesidedness; positions and arguments are painted with a broad brush, etc. Many lapses into subjectivity; consistent one-sidedness; positions and arguments lack detail and nuance, etc. 21 to 26 points 1 to 20 points Discussion reflects some knowledge of the issues in metaethics taught in the course and a reasonable attempt to apply this knowledge to a selected issue in applied ethics. Discussion reflects some but not much knowledge of metaethical issues, perhaps with some minor confusion, and some attempt to apply this to the chosen issue. Points Earned 0 points No attempt at writing with a philosophical tone. 0 points Discussion reflects no knowledge of the metaethical issues taught in the course. Page 1 of 3 ETHC 101 Criteria Argument 30 pts. Structure Length 15 pts. Components 15 pts. Format 15 pts. Levels of Achievement 27 to 30 points Argumentation is logical (free of fallacies, including appeal to emotion). 21 to 26 points Argument is basically logical, though with some appeal to emotion, unsupported assertions, or other similar issues. 1 to 20 points Argument falls short of being logical by committing multiple fallacies, appealing to emotion, making unsupported assertions, or other problems of this sort. Advanced Proficient Developing 0 points No argument is present Not Present 15 points 10 to 14 points 1 to 9 points 0 points Meets length requirement: 2100-2400 words (including footnotes, title page, table of contents, and bibliography). 15 points Word count exceeds 2400. Word count is less than 2100 words. Document is blank 10 to 14 points 1 to 9 points 0 points Contains a title page, table of contents, footnotes, and bibliography. Some required components missing. Many required components missing. All required components are missing. 15 points 10 to 14 points 1 to 9 points 0 points Body of paper is doublespaced with 1-inch margins and 12 pt. Times New Roman font; footnotes are singlespaced 10pt. Times New Roman; footnotes and bibliography are formatted according to Turabian. Some degree of deviation from the proscribed format. Considerable deviation from the proscribed format. Complete deviation from the proscribed format. Points Earned Page 2 of 3 ETHC 101 Criteria Proofreading 15 pts. Levels of Achievement 15 points Free of grammatical, syntactical, punctuation, spelling, and other such errors. 10 or 14 points Some grammatical, syntactical, punctuation, spelling, and other such errors. 1 to 9 points Many grammatical, syntactical, punctuation, spelling, and other such errors. 0 points Pervasive grammatical, syntactical, punctuation, spelling, and other such errors. Total /200 Instructor's Comments: Page 3 of 3 The Revelational Christian Ethic and Capital Punishment Michael S. Jones January 1, 2017 Capstone Essay ETHC101-B01 1 Table of Contents I. Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 II. The Revelational Christian Ethic ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3 III. Capital Punishment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 IV. Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9 V. Bibliography --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 2 Introduction In this paper I will attempt to answer the question, “Should a Christian support the death penalty?” Implicit in this question is the anterior question, “Does a Christian ethic support the death penalty?” A Christian approach to this issue will necessarily involve an attempt to find a way of reconciling or at least balancing sentiments that are major themes in Christian thought but that seem to point in opposing directions on this issue. Such potentially contrasting themes include mercy versus justice, forgiveness versus judgment, and love versus responsibility. These themes and tensions run throughout the Bible and cannot be blithely disregarded as if the biblical position is obvious. I will approach this issue in two steps. First I will describe the methodology that I believe a Christian should utilize when attempting to solve moral dilemmas. Then I will apply this methodology to the death penalty. The position that I hope to substantiate is that, regardless of what stance on the death penalty is rational for non-Christians, Christians should view the death penalty as immoral and therefore should take a public stand against it. The Revelational Christian Ethic I believe that the best approach to solving moral dilemmas is a modified Divine Command Theory sometimes called Divine Nature Theory. According to this, what is good in this world is a reflection of the nature of the creator of this world, God. Hence ethics is, in a way, a subset of theology.1 The transcendence of God makes it necessary for him to reveal himself to us in order for it to be possible us to do theology and thus revelation is a prerequisite of ethics, too. 1 Michael S. Jones, Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right from Wrong. (Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, 2017), 103-5. 3 I believe that God has indeed revealed himself. I base this belief primarily on the testimony of Jesus Christ, who, through his miraculous resurrection, has shown that he is God incarnate. The resurrection is God’s stamp of approval on Jesus’ ministries and teaching, and Jesus taught that God has revealed himself in various ways including the inspiration of the scriptures that we call the Bible.2 Broadly speaking, this revelation takes two forms: general and special. General revelation is that knowledge of God that he has communicated to us through creation (as the apostle Paul indicates in Romans 1) and the human conscience (Romans 2). Special revelation is God’s communication of specific truths to specific people through mediums like dreams, visions, angels, prophets, miraculous vocalizations, inspired writings like the Bible, and especially the incarnation of God as Jesus Christ. Both of these forms of revelation are useful to the ethicist. Ethical thinking that is based on general revelation is called “Natural Law Ethics.” There is no specific term for ethical thinking that is based on special revelation, but the term “Christian Ethics” can be used to refer to the Christian practice of utilizing general and special revelation to construct an ethical system and resolve moral dilemmas. 3 I believe that God’s revelation is sufficient to guide the believer in resolving any moral dilemma.4 Furthermore, it is my opinion that any solution to an ethical dilemma that is not harmonious with the approach advocated by God through his revelation is mistaken. However, there is a significant complicating factor: interpretation. The scriptures are subject to multiple interpretations. This is an important reason why Christians often disagree on moral issues. But I 2 This argument is taken from the work of scholars like N.T. Wright, Michael Licona, and especially Gary Habermas. See Gary Habermas, The Risen Jesus & Future Hope (Lanham, MD: 2003). 3 Jones, Moral Reasoning, 109-12. 4 I believe this to be an implication of II Timothy 3:16, 17. 4 do not believe that a correct interpretation of the Bible is impossible. What is required is an effective interpretative strategy. The study of how to properly interpret the scriptures is called “hermeneutics.” A grammatical-historical-contextual hermeneutic will lead the reader back to the original author’s intent and, via that intent, to the message that God inspired that author to communicate.5 Once God’s message has been thus discovered, careful, logical thinking will enable the ethicist to apply this message to the moral dilemma with which he or she is wrestling.6 Capital Punishment The issue in applied ethics that I have chosen to address is capital punishment. One of the most foundational of all biblical teachings is that God is love. This aspect of the nature of God seems to be as intrinsic to God as his omniscience, omnipotence, or any of his other immutable attributes. This is reflected both in the Apostle John’s repeated affirmation that “God is love” and Jesus’ summary of all of the Jewish law in just two commands: love God and love your neighbor.7 The Christian obligation to love all, even one’s enemy, is undeniable.8 Hence the Christian is obligated to love even the murderer. This, of course, poses a prima facie challenge to capital punishment. There is, however, an obvious counter-argument stemming from the obligation to love beyond the murderer, to consider the potential threat that a murderer poses to those around him. 5 Jones, Moral Reasoning, 113-15. For a more detailed explanation of this, see Jones, Moral Reasoning, 116-20. 7 I John 4:8, 16; Matt 22:37-40 and other passages. 8 Matt. 5: 43-45, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (King James Version). 6 5 This is acerbated in situations where the murderer is a hardened criminal with thoroughly ingrained patterns of violent behavior. Who aught we to love first? Who should we love most? It might be argued that, in contrast to others in our community, the murderer has voluntarily relinquished his claim to our love, and that therefore we ought to love him less and love others more, not abandoning our love for the murderer but rather prioritizing our love for the innocent and protecting them from him through the death penalty. But we must keep in mind that we could protect them through a life sentence without parole instead. We do not need to choose between loving one and loving the others when the lives of both can be spared. Counters to this small argument against the death penalty abound. It can be argued that the death penalty, when imposed on those who have committed murder, restores justice, that it saves taxpayer expenses, that it serves as a deterrent to others, and that it has biblical precedent. In this paper I am not at all concerned with the first three of these arguments, for here I am not trying to argue from the perspective of common good, but rather from the perspective of Christian ethics. Hence I will not entangle myself in the important but difficult debates over the comparative cost-effectiveness of the death penalty or its purported (and disputed) effectiveness as a deterrent. I direct our attention instead to the question of whether or not the death penalty is biblical. Most people are familiar with the principle of lex talionis (law of retaliation) enshrined in Genesis 9:6, “Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”9 Many conservative Christians take this as a carte blanche endorsement of capital punishment. But unless we are willing to mandate that every single time one human kills another the life of the killer must also be sacrificed, a much more nuanced understanding of this 9 Genesis 9:6 (King James Version). 6 text is required, for a woodenly literal reading of the text would result in absurdities. If a murderer is put to death, must the executioner also be put to death? And how about the executioner of the executioner? Or how about the person who kills another in self-defense or to defend his family? There are a variety of situations in which an act that results in the death of one human at the hands of another should not result in the death of the latter. Hence we must approach biblical texts that relate to this issue in a way that is characterized by an informed hermeneutic and careful exegesis. And we must make a number of distinctions relating to the texts on which we wish to base our position. Some biblical texts speak descriptively rather than prescriptively, and the mere fact that capital punishment was practiced at some time during biblical history does not entail that it is moral for Christians to support it today. Some passages that address moral issues are permissive rather than prescriptive; that is, they permit some action but do not prescribe it as a requirement. Concluding that the actions being permitted in such passages must be moral is overly hasty, for God may be permitting the action for reasons of his own even though the action in question is not generally moral. This seems to be Jesus’ interpretation of Moses’ permission of divorce: God (through Moses) permitted divorce in Deuteronomy 24 not because divorce is a moral practice but in spite of the fact that it is not moral and goes against God’s ideal design for marriage.10 In Jesus’ interpretation, Moses delimited divorce but did not endorse it as moral. Hence some biblical passages that seem to permit capital punishment may actually be delimiting it instead. In every attempt to apply a principle derived from a biblical passage to a situation outside of the one directly addressed the reader must make a determination of whether the principle is conditional or unconditional. Some biblical principles may be timeless, unconditional, and 10 See Matthew 19 for Jesus’ discussion of this. 7 therefore normative for all people. Others are clearly intended for a specific context. Many commands and prohibitions found in the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) – perhaps even a fairly large majority of them – were intended for a specific time and people and do not apply to Christians in the post-New Testament era. This is true of circumcision, various dietary commands, the rituals involving the Temple, the prohibition from marrying gentiles, and many others. Some of these are not explicitly moral while others are. A pertinent question is whether the institution of capital punishment found in the Old Testament is conditional or normative. One cannot simply assume that because it is permitted or even commanded in the Hebrew Bible it is therefore normative for all people. In the article “Contemporary Capital Punishment: Biblical Difficulties with the Biblically Permissible,” Eric and Walter Hobbs argue that the moral issue of capital punishment parallels the moral issue of divorce and should be handled the way that Jesus handled divorce.11 That is, killing other humans is not God’s ideal, regardless of the circumstances. God (through Moses) permitted the death penalty for His own reasons, which may have included impressing the sanctity of life on humanity through demanding the most severe penalty from those who take a life. However, once that goal was accomplished the death penalty had fulfilled its purpose and was no longer needed. This may be why the death penalty is not repeated in the New Testament. So far from being repeated, it may have been repealed by Jesus when he protected the woman caught in adultery from being stoned, which was the penalty proscribed in the Hebrew Bible.12 One timeless, normative principle that is found in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament is the principle of the sanctity of human life. Human life is so extremely dear because Eric E. Hobbs and Walter C. Hobbs, “Contemporary Capital Punishment: Biblical Difficulties with the Biblically Permissible,” Christian Scholar’s Review 11 (1982): 250-62. 12 John 8:1-11. The Hebrew Bible speaks of the death of both the man and the woman involved (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22-24). 11 8 it reflects the life of God himself, the source of our existence. To denigrate human life in any way is to dishonor the God who it reflects. In light of the uncertainty of the normativity of any Old Testament affirmation of the death penalty and in light of the certainty of the normativity of the imperative not to dishonor the imago dei, it seems appropriate for Christians to steadfastly eschew the death penalty. Furthermore, in light of the finality of the death penalty, it seems prudent, to say the least, to err on the side of caution. Hence it seems to me that the most biblical, the most hermeneutically informed, and therefore the most Christian position vis-à-vis capital punishment is one of strong opposition to it.13 Conclusion Capital punishment is an important issue: losing one life is a tragedy, but following that loss with the punitive loss of a second makes it even worse. In this paper I have attempted to apply the Revelational Christian Ethic to this issue to discover what the most consistently Christian position is on capital punishment. My conclusion is that Christians should view the death penalty as immoral and therefore should take a public stand against it. 13 Laura A.Stivers, Christine E. Gudorf, and James B. Martin-Schramm. Christian Ethics: A Case Method Approach (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2012), 296. 9 Bibliography Hobbs, Eric E. and Walter C. Hobbs, “Contemporary Capital Punishment: Biblical Difficulties with the Biblically Permissible,” Christian Scholar’s Review 11 (1982): 250-62. Jones, Michael S. Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right from Wrong. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, 2017. Stivers, Laura A., Christine E. Gudorf, and James B. Martin-Schramm. Christian Ethics: A Case Method Approach, 4th ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2012. 10 Chapter 3- My Ethical Theory One of the building blocks of a good life is morality. Many people have a certain measure that determines what is good and bad according to certain principles. For instance, Christians reflect their life by following God’s rules. The rules act as a set of guideline that one can use to determine whether their actions are acceptable or not. Every Christian is required to read and interpret the Bible correctly in order to gain understanding and consciousness that can guide the person to avoid bad behavior. However, to be able to distinguish between what is morally good and wrong, there must be knowledge acquisition that helps the person to have instincts that give a second thought before doing the intended action. For instance, the consequentialist metaethical theories are based on past experiences and the consequences that might happen after doing a certain thing. This helps the person to have the ability to distinguish between what is morally upright because of what will occur after the actions. However, since Christians depend on the Bible as guidance on what is morally upright, consequentialist metaethical theories act as an additional theory because it makes the person aware of the outcome of their actions. Christians do believe that through God manifestation in their own lives they can be able to stand firm and distinguish between what is morally wrong. For God to reveal Himself to the Christians, they must believe and have strong faith in him as the lord and savior of their lives. The teaching of God is based on the truth and they seek to help people to live in a morally upright society. It’s through the resurrection of Jesus Christ that Christians should have faith in the word of God because it had already been prophesied that He will overcome the power of death. However, Christians must interpret the Bible correctly in order to get the right meaning of every concept and God’s purpose towards it. One of the major mistake associated with Christians is interpreting the Bible in the wrong way hence leading to actions that contradict the nature of God and the community at large. The Bible should also be interpreted depending on the moral issue involved. Christians should be knowledgeable enough to identify ethical dilemmas that are not discussed in the Bible for the purpose of interpretation from other verses. For instance, Christians should advocate for peace between people and the correct ways to solve conflicts that might arise among the people. The reactions and examples used in the Bible should act as a guide to all Christians on how they should respond to ethical dilemmas. Virtual ethics entails the observation of different role models in order to determine the right way to respond to moral dilemmas. In the Bible, Jesus acts as a good role model because His actions direct Christians on how they should handle different situations. The theory of utilitarianism can be displayed in the context of the Bible through the death and resurrection of Jesus. He died for the sake of humanity which shows people that they should sacrifice their ambitions for the peace and well-being of others. Chapter 4- Applying My Ethical Theory Applying My Ethical Theory In discussion board forum 3, we derived our own and different approaches to meta-ethics. These are approaches that align to the ethical theories that we believe should be used or applicable in our lives. The approach that I chose for my ethical theory is one that is based on following the Christian view. The view involves interpreting the Bible and living by the rules that are given by God. The Christian view is one which ascertains that people should live in harmony with each other so as to obey the wishes of God. A theory that I identified from the Bible is that of utilitarianism since Jesus died for the sake of humanity. In line with this theory, human beings should always ensure that they are ready to sacrifice their ambitions for the good of other people in the society[1]. A real issue or challenge in the society that can be solved through application of my ethical theory is poverty and homelessness among people in the society. In the modern world, there are millions of people who live in poverty and cannot afford housing. The issue of poverty affects people even in the developed nations. There are thousands of people across the United States who live in poverty and cannot afford proper housing for themselves or their families. Poverty affects the welfare of people since they cannot afford a comfortable lifestyle like society. Such individuals also have limited access to healthcare and this has a long-lasting impact on their productivity at their places of work. However, poverty and homelessness can be addressed through application of different meta-ethics theories that have been developed in the past. According to my ethical theory, poverty is an issue that can be addressed or eradicated. According to Christian teachings, human beings are supposed to share their belongings with the less fortunate in the society. In the modern society, there are people who are more privileged than the others. If everyone was to share their wealth with the less fortunate, there is a great likelihood that poverty and homelessness could be a thing of the past. Through sharing with the less fortunate, there would be enhanced well-being among the people. In the Bible, Jesus lived his life as an example to how we should. He was always concerned about the welfare of the poor in the society and this is something that Christians can learn from if they want to bring an end to poverty and homelessness in the modern society. Companies and corporations also have a role to play in dealing with poverty in the society[2]. Most of these companies make large profits on a yearly basis through the products and services that they provide for the people. Christianity advocates for doing actions that are morally right. Companies can participate in different activities at the societal level which can help improve the lives of the people who live impoverished lives. These activities are known as corporate social responsibility activities and play a critical role towards providing poor people in the society with different social amenities that enhance the quality of life that they lead. Companies can also be guided by the notion that extorting money from the poor is wrong according to the teachings in the Bible. With such a thought, they would be compelled to charge proper prices for their goods and services instead of making huge profits from overcharging products and services. Bibliography Ward, K. (2015). Ethics and Christianity. London: Routledge. [1] Ward, K. (2015). Ethics and Christianity. London: Routledge. [2] Ward, K. (2015). Ethics and Christianity. London: Routledge.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Complete.

Utilitarianism and Helping the Needy
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Capstone Essay

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Meta-Ethics ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Application ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 10

Introduction
The paper attempts to ascertain whether Christians have an obligation to share their
belongings with the poor and less fortunate individuals in society. A Christian ethical approach
will aim at establishing whether there are key themes in Christian ethics that aim to address this
issue. The author also discusses themes opposed to rich individuals helping the poor.
The paper will address this concern in two stages. Firstly, it will discuss the methodology that
Christians should utilize when solving moral and ethical dilemmas. The paper will then apply the
methodological approach to the issue of helping the less privileged people in the society. The
author hopes to validate the position that Christians have a moral obligation of helping the poor.

Meta-Ethics
One of the building blocks of a good life is morality. Many people have a certain measure
that determines what is good and bad according to certain principles. For instance, Christians
reflect their life by following God’s rules. The rules act as a set of guideline that one can use to
determine whether their actions are acceptable or not. Every Christian is required to read and
interpret the Bible correctly in order to gain understanding and consciousness that can guide the
person to avoid bad behavior. However, to be able to distinguish between what is morally good
and wrong, there must be knowledge acquisition that helps the person to have instincts that give
a second thought before doing the intended action.
For instance, the consequentialist metaethical theories are based on past experiences and
the consequences that might happen after doing a certain thing1. This helps the person to have
the ability to distinguish between what is morally upright because of what will occur after the
actions. However, since Christians depend on the Bible as guidance on what is morally upright,
1

Frith, C. D., Metzinger, T., Engel, A. K., Friston, K., & Kragic, D. (2016). What’s the use of consciousness.
Where’s the Action.

act as an additional theory because it makes the person aware of the outcome of their actions.
Christians do believe that through God manifestation in their own lives, they can be able to stand
firm and distinguish b...


Anonymous
Super useful! Studypool never disappoints.

Studypool
4.7
Indeed
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags