Religion end of year exam Flashcards
SIKHISM: Founder
- Guru Nanak
- Born in 1469 in Punjab
- His parents were Hindus and he uses to live alongside Muslims
- “I shall follow God’s path” - does not agree with either religious views
- Believed in equality of everyone
- Guru = “Enlightenment” means teacher, spiritual guide, mentor
SIKHISM: Text
- Guru Granth Sahib
- The last Guru, Gobind Singh, decided that nobody was worthy to become his successor and that to select someone would go against the principles of equality.
- Sikh scriptures were to be the Guru and guide Sikhism’s followers
- The text expresses Sikh beliefs, which includes writings by both Hindus and Muslims
SIKHISM: 5 K’s - significance
- Kesh: Uncut hair. This shows obedience to God’s will by interfering with nature as little as possible. A turban is worn, usually by men, to keep the long hair tidy.
- Kangha: Wooden comb. The long hair must be kept neat and tidy, and not allowed to become matted like that of some holy men.
- Kachera: White shorts, to be worn under clothes. These symbolize purity and modesty, and were practical for people who might have to fight.
- Kara: Steel bangle. The circle represents eternity; the steel: strength and purity. Worn on the right arm, the sword arm, it is a reminder to fight only for God.
- Kirpan: Short sword. A reminder to defend truth and what is right. Today, symbolic kirpan brooches are often worn instead of the short sword itself.
ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY
Systems: God’s Law
- Some philosophers argue that definitions of right and wrong cannot lie with the society or the individual
- Looked for some higher standard of right and wrong — the law of God
- God’s law is seen as a system of universal rules of action, rules which prescribe certain kinds of acts and proscribe others, all enforced by God.
- This approach also explains why we feel obliged to do what is right; we do not want to be punished or, on a higher level, we simply do what God asks of us.
- Religious perspective
- Beliefs
ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY
Systems: Mores
- Not explicitly outlined rules/ laws to follow for people to be socially acceptable
- Based on everyday experiences and feeling
- Societal functions, that people care about
- Mores of society that do not govern us
- Subtle differences that one thinks are acceptable and one who does not understand.
- Example: Common courtesy
ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY
Systems: Utilitarianism
- The locus of ethics is in the outcome of the situations.
- Consequential ethics
- Concerned with the consequences of their actions
- Locate mortality in the consequences
- Collective happiness
- Greatest good for the greatest number
- Actions should make more good, more good in the world
- More concerned with the consequences
- Even if the act caused harm, if it brings more good in the long term
ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY
Systems: Categorical imperative
- Immanuel kant; believed that ethics does not have anything to do with the consequences of our acts.
- Deontological (duty-based) ethics are concerned with what people do, not with the consequences of their actions
- Do the right thing
- Do it because it is the right thing to do
- Wrong even if it brings about the good results
- Do a good thing because of duty
- “Can this rule become a universal rule for all human beings to follow”
ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY
Competing Values: values
Values:
the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something, merit, worth (regard in which an idea/something is held)
ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY
Competing Values: social norms
Social Norms: not explicitly outlines rules, expected behaviours within the community
ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY
Logical fallacies: Fallacies
Fallacies: A false or mistaken idea, false use of logic, sometimes aimed at deceiving an audience into accepting a claim
ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY
Logical fallacies: Post Hoc Fallacy
Post Hoc Fallacy:
- example: “John Howard raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. Howard is responsible for the rise in crime”
- Is committed when it is assumed that because one thing occurs after another it must have occurred as a result of it.
- Just because one thing follows another does not mean that it is caused.
ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY
Logical fallacies: Bandwagon
Bandwagon: A false or mistaken idea, False use of logic, sometimes aimed at deceiving an audience into accepting a claim as a fallacy and then endorsing something simply because it is popular.
ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY
Logical fallacies: Either/or
Either/or: An issue is presented as having only two choices, when it may have more. It can be used with an emotional fallacy as well.
ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY
Logical fallacies: Post Hoc
Post Hoc:
This occurs when one event follows another and we draw the conclusion that the first event caused the second, when in fact, the two events are not related.
ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY
Logical fallacies: Red herring
Red herring: An irrelevant fact is brought up to distract from or side step the main issue.
ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY
Logical fallacies: Slippery Slope
Slippery Slope:
- Certain generalized consequences will result if a particular course of action is taken.
- If there is clear and reasonable evidence to support that likelihood, the argument may be sound.
- If the cause-effect relationship is oversimplified, the result is inevitable, and there is no evidence to support that claim.
ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY
Logical fallacies: Ad hominem
Ad hominem: An attack on the character of an opponent in an attempt to undermine their status, therefore undermining the strength of their argument.
ETHICS - PHILOSOPHY
Logical fallacies: Strawman
Strawman:
- Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument, with a weaker argument, in an attempt to dismantle it.
- For instance: “Religion is only about belief, which means you won’t listen to any reason!”
THEORIES OF WAR
Pacifism:
Pacifism: the principal opposition to war and violence as a means of settling disputes. Peaceful, unrealistic, enabling them, if someone fights don’t have to fight back. A movement away from fighting during a dispute.
Absolute Pacifism: believes that it is never right to take part in war, even in self-defence, killing is always wrong, Participating in war will always lead to further conflict.
Conditional pacifist: War is wrong, but there are some circumstances where it is necessary.
Selective Pacifism: Opposes all usage/development of weapons of mass destruction.
Active pacifist: Strongly believes in pacifism and advocates for it in their day to day life
THEORIES OF WAR
Pacifism:
Pacifism: the principal opposition to war and violence as a means of settling disputes. Peaceful, unrealistic, enabling them, if someone fights don’t have to fight back. A movement away from fighting during a dispute.
Absolute Pacifism: believes that it is never right to take part in war, even in self-defence, killing is always wrong, Participating in war will always lead to further conflict.
Conditional pacifist: War is wrong, but there are some circumstances where it is necessary.
Selective Pacifism: Opposes all usage/development of weapons of mass destruction.
Active pacifist: Strongly believes in pacifism and advocates for it in their day to day life
THEORIES OF WAR
Religious war theory
- The just war theory is a largely Christian philosophy that attempts to reconcile three things:
1. Taking human life is seriously wrong
2. States have a duty to defend their citizens, and defend justice
3. Protecting innocent human life and defending important moral values sometimes requires willingness to use force and violence. - The theory specifies conditions for judging if it is just to go to war, and conditions for how the war should be fought
- The aim of Just War Theory is to provide a guide to the right way for states to act in potential conflict situations. It only applies to states, and not to individuals (although an individual can use the theory to help them decide whether it is morally right to take part in a particular war).
- The theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts.
THEORIES OF WAR
Religious war theory:
- The just war theory is a largely Christian philosophy that attempts to reconcile three things: 1. taking human life is seriously wrong
2. states have a duty to defend their citizens, and defend justice
3. protecting innocent human life and defending important moral values sometimes requires willingness to use force and violence. - The theory specifies conditions for judging if it is just to go to war, and conditions for how the war should be fought
- The aim of Just War Theory is to provide a guide to the right way for states to act in potential conflict situations. It only applies to states, and not to individuals (although an individual can use the theory to help them decide whether it is morally right to take part in a particular war).
- The theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts.
THEORIES OF WAR
Just War Theory: Jus ad bellum - the right to go to war
Just Cause: The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.
Comparative Justice: while there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. both sides did the wrong thing,
Legitimate Authority: Only duty consituated public authorities may wage war. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Political bodies
Peaceful intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose - correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not. intuition for the war, for a justice cause and solely for that purpose, expensive for countries. To get Revenge is not allowed.
Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success. Only using weapons is unlikely to succeed.
Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions. Negotiation with the enemy.
THEORIES OF WAR
Just War Theory: Jus ad bellum - the right to go to war
Just Cause: The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.
Comparative Justice: while there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. both sides did the wrong thing,
Legitimate Authority: Only duty consituated public authorities may wage war. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Political bodies
Peaceful intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose - correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not. intuition for the war, for a justice cause and solely for that purpose, expensive for countries. To get Revenge is not allowed.
Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success. Only using weapons is unlikely to succeed.
Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions. Negotiation with the enemy.
