Understanding The Meaning of Life (Other (Not Listed) Sample)

The Meaning of Life
Name
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date
The Meaning of Life
Morality
My sense of morality is undoubtedly influenced and informed by my belief in God, the supreme and perfect being who created and controlled the world. As a Christian, God is my prime reality. According to Bakhos (2014), prime reality can be defined as what is considered the ultimate reality. Christianity’s conception of prime reality is in the “I am who I am” the infinite and impersonal God as revealed by the bible. There cannot exist a greater reality beyond the holy trinity in Christianity, who was before everything and caused everything to be out of love rather than necessity. In essence, Christianity holds the view that while God is Alfa and the omega, he granted his creation the human being a free will to do as he deems appropriate.
In my worldview, to narrow down on whether there is an ethical justification for action, five key areas should be critically assessed. The areas include beneficence, least harm, the impact of the decision on autonomy, and the underlying fairness. In our case, we should weigh how our decision affects the individual and his relationship with God vis-à-vis the society.
Under the beneficence consideration, we should question what good our intended action would have to the individual and society. It is primarily that the individual and his relationship with God stand to gain from their activities since they will have a better standing with God.
However, one should also question possible negative outcomes that emanate from the action. In this regard, the optimum decision is one where there is no harm; in our case, we seemingly do not have this option. Nonetheless, in case we have two options, there is, of course, one with the least harm. As such, your final decision should emanate after the comparison, whereby your choice should lie on the greater good of the society. As in the case of utilitarian theory, strive to maximize the good and minimize harm.
Lastly, one ensures that the decision would be fair in our choice to either direct our action to the individual and his relationship with God or not. In any case, we should ensure that our action is centered on ethical reasons that can be justified by ethical theory. As such, our question should center on the legality of our decision and honesty and geared towards advancing societal interest.
The conception of Death and afterlife
As a Christian, death does is more of a transition from the material world to the spiritual world. However, death also marks a transition into judgment where every human being is held accountable for his deeds. According to the Christian view, two places where one can end up after death are heaven and hell. Heaven is reserved for the righteous, precisely those whose deeds were found worthy and they had a cordial relation with Christ. Here the righteous will meet God and will live in eternal happiness in the glory of God (Bakhos, 2014). Consequently, the sinners or those whose acts in the world will be found to be lacking will be doomed for an eternity of suffering in hell, doomed together with the devil.
Suffering and happiness
In Christianity, human beings are special beings with a mind and consciousness of the world around them. In this regard, Lee argues that the Christian view of happiness derives from an understanding that “God has granted the human being the knowledge to discern all things.” From this view, one has the ability to understand the components characterizing suffering and happiness however, the catch is that while the desire to incline towards the quest for happiness is higher, God also employs suffering as a lesson. In this case, Bakhos holds that God as the supreme being reveals all things to human beings through the Holy Scriptures (Bakhos, 2014). Happiness and suffering are part of life in my quest to reach my destiny. My purpose in life is to live in accordance with his word and contribute to the betterment of society. Accordingly, from this belief, my determination of what constitutes morality requires a broader outlook before a morally ethical decision can be made. As such, the most basic question that should be clarified is what denotes an ethical decision. In its simplest form, an ethical decision entails what is right and selfless in the eyes of the creator, often entailing a set of actions with the greatest benefit to the majority of the people in society.
Arguments on the existence of GOD
There are various Philosophical arguments on the existence of a God. For instance, according to Hare (2014), the existence of a supreme being (God) is codified in the tenet that “because humans have the tendency in their nature towards ugly or harmful actions as well as beautiful or beneficial ones, God has to reveal to us by command what to pursue and what to avoid.” However, the most notable moral argument for belief in God can be traced to Kant (1788 [1956]) in the philosophical position regarded as God’s existence underlying the principle “postulate of practical reason.” The argument parallel Aquinas’s argument on the existence of God termed as proof of God underlying the conception of “the Necessary Being (Evans, 2017). According to Evans (2017), the arguments seemingly form the basis for Kant’s Moral theory and accrued application informing the supreme principle. According to Kant, God exists as the most real being. In this case, he employs the principle that every individuated object is subject to the “principle of complete determination,” and since God meets this principle despite the shortcomings in all theoretical arguments for God’s existence, his existence is affirmed as “postulate of practical reason. From this, Kant holds that all beings derive their sense of morality from the complete deterministic aspect of a supreme being, and thus, morality is quite simple, such as fulfilling social contracts and promises.
The supreme principle has some flaws in my point of view, particularly in the application of contemplation of suicide. From personal experiences, posterior principles, suicide is something void of rationality regarding humanity but rather rational from an individualistic form. Morally to everyone else, taking away your own life is seen as taboo; this includes contemplation. I understand that individualism, if analyzed by Kant, may be deemed selfish and thus being the greatest sin, but an argument to that: why is it that humanity has afflicted such an individual even to begin contemplation of their life’s value? In a cause-effect style of analysis, I believe it is unfair to say that suicide is immoral, but rather the actions made before contemplation of suicide. An individual has full control over themselves and their decisions; it’s only problematic when they afflict any threat or harm to other people in a society. The individual has no general obligation to preserve themselves healthily just because society deems such to be morally ethical. Again the action was taken against an individual that makes them contemplate darker thoughts should be accountable, not how the individual reacts to the offender’s actions.
With regard to the problem posed by Kant’s supreme principle of morality. I agree with the observation that Kant’s conception of the morality of Suicide is likely to pose a problem. Indeed, the response makes a compelling argument that, in fact, judgment and blame should be on the society that drove the individual to the point of contemplating suicide. However, regarding the assertion that committing suicide inflicts no harm or pain to any other member in society, I feel that this is not entirely true considering that suicide exposes friends and relatives to extensive grieve. Furthermore, if we were to assess the morality of suicide employing the categorical imperative, I feel that ending one’s life is not a position we would quantify as a universal principle.
If I was not a believer secular (atheist)
Critical analysis of my position in case I was an atheist, my position and morality would mirror secularism. Interestingly, although professing secularization and an increased emphasis on reliance on rational arguments and reason to inform their societies, the resultant principles promoted by and defining the views would no doubt be strikingly similar to those codified by atheism. In this regard, the conception of a Moral Society by secularism aligns perfectly with the one promoted by the religions.
The concepts informing secularism became central in secular atheists and were influenced by the social and political spheres. According to Kutiz the concepts defined by the Greek Philosophy, especially an emphasis on individualism and the need to rely on logic and reason, are evident in Secular atheists’ affinity for empirical data as the basis for concrete proof. Moreover, emphasis on rational discourse to formulate principles, the need for freethought, freedom, and democracy, although rooted in the Greek philosophical debates, become critical components in the Secular atheists . Consequently, the fundamental concepts at the heart of secular atheists can be summed up as a composite of Democracy, Rational thinking, Individualism, Equality, and Human rights.
From a secular world view, Morals constitute a critical component of society and are the basis from which individuals are judged. According to Hare (2014), morals can be viewed as the society’s presumption of what entails good and evil. Consequently, morality is used in ...