چکیده:
In this article, the author first presents two meanings of the connection between religion and ethics and believes that the second is left to the test of fate. The first assumption, providing rational foundations for moral beliefs through religious beliefs, gives rise to Plato/Socrates' two-sided argument in the Euthyphro: Is that which is good, good because it is loved by God, or is it loved by God because it is good?! While reading it simplistically, the author explains their conclusion by bringing examples from Kierkegaard, Ibsen, and euthanasia; finally, by examining various aspects of the matter, proposes an analytical link between the 'will of God' and the 'nature of good' as an alternative explanation.
خلاصه ماشینی:
In the first hypothesis—that religious belief can provide forms of rational foundations for moral beliefs—a two-sided argument that gives rise to such a claim has been expressed in a traditional and subtle manner in Plato's Euthyphro: "Is that which is holy, holy because the gods approve of it, or do they approve of it because it is holy?"1 When Socrates questions and answers the young Euthyphro in the dialogue, it becomes clear that Euthyphro is unthinkingly attempting to maintain the coherence of an entire set of beliefs regarding religion and ethics, the incomplete analysis of which reveals.
Despite the doctor's warnings based on the fact that Brand's young son will die unless the family moves; Brand believes that it is God's will that they stay where they are; therefore, the struggle of Abraham (AS) over Isaac—which Brand refers to fleetingly—and Kierkegaard's preoccupation in Fear and Trembling is a story that Brand portrays in his nineteenth-century literary text.
Is this not a denial of God's divine grace when we claim at any time that personal life no longer holds any desirable outcome?"14 The difference between this example and the example of Brand (or perhaps Kierkegaard) is that while in Brand's case the conflict ultimately lies within the individual, in Brian Clark's play, the struggle is between individuals and, beyond that, between various ways of coordinating or justifying moral beliefs; as the following argument between Ken and another doctor makes clear: Dr. Scott: But what if you are lucky [what]?
(
, 
, 
)
