In no less than 250 words answer: Human doctors are fallible. They fix on the first information they hear, they ignore important points that donât fit with their impressions, they are unaware of significant research in their field. As many as 10% of patient deaths in this country may be due to doctorsâ mistakes, Dina Fine Maron reports in âThe Computer Will See You Now.â But could medicine become too rational? Do we want to be treated as if we are machines made up of cells, chemicals, intruding diseases etc.? Will something important be lost?
Sample Solution
Other Christians have further argued that Aquinasâs argument contradicts the Christian principles of Agape. Joseph Fletcher, the founder of situation ethics, has claimed that this âlegalistic approachâ is wrong since it does not take account of Jesusâs most important teachings. NML says that you can kill somebody in self-defence; however, on the sermon on the mount, Jesus taught for people to âturn the other cheekâ. Furthermore, sometimes the most loving thing to do will not follow the guidelines of NML. For example, euthanasia goes against the primary precept of survival, yet surely it is most loving to respect somebodyâs request to die? Again, I feel that this argument is a significant weakness of the argument because it further illuminates the differences between NML and Christianity. I believe for the teachings of Jesus to be the most important rules that Christians can follow since they are supposedly from God himself. Therefore, Aquinas has neglected a huge part of Christianity in the theory, which significantly weakens its validity in the eyes of the religious. A few Christians, such as Karl Barth (20th Century), have even claimed that natural law contradicts The Fall (Genesis 1:2). According to these Christians, we cannot use reason to the extent that Aquinas implied because we are living in a Fallen world where humans are tainted and imperfect as a result of the sins of Adam and Eve. Consequently, reason is not reliable enough to judge our morals, and instead people must use the Bible and revelations of God to help us decide on how we should act. Barth has said that people should recognise and accept the revelation of God as the only source of truth, instead of looking towards human reason. This point does not considerably weaken NML because it is a matter of opinion and interpretation whether or not reason can be used to know God. From my secularist perspective, God is the result of reason and so it is only fitting that we can use our reason to determine what he is and how he wishes for us to act. If anything, Aquinas does not rely on reason enough: people should use their own morals to distinguish between right and wrong. Other critics, such as G.E. Moore, have used Naturalistic Fallacy to find weakne>
Other Christians have further argued that Aquinasâs argument contradicts the Christian principles of Agape. Joseph Fletcher, the founder of situation ethics, has claimed that this âlegalistic approachâ is wrong since it does not take account of Jesusâs most important teachings. NML says that you can kill somebody in self-defence; however, on the sermon on the mount, Jesus taught for people to âturn the other cheekâ. Furthermore, sometimes the most loving thing to do will not follow the guidelines of NML. For example, euthanasia goes against the primary precept of survival, yet surely it is most loving to respect somebodyâs request to die? Again, I feel that this argument is a significant weakness of the argument because it further illuminates the differences between NML and Christianity. I believe for the teachings of Jesus to be the most important rules that Christians can follow since they are supposedly from God himself. Therefore, Aquinas has neglected a huge part of Christianity in the theory, which significantly weakens its validity in the eyes of the religious. A few Christians, such as Karl Barth (20th Century), have even claimed that natural law contradicts The Fall (Genesis 1:2). According to these Christians, we cannot use reason to the extent that Aquinas implied because we are living in a Fallen world where humans are tainted and imperfect as a result of the sins of Adam and Eve. Consequently, reason is not reliable enough to judge our morals, and instead people must use the Bible and revelations of God to help us decide on how we should act. Barth has said that people should recognise and accept the revelation of God as the only source of truth, instead of looking towards human reason. This point does not considerably weaken NML because it is a matter of opinion and interpretation whether or not reason can be used to know God. From my secularist perspective, God is the result of reason and so it is only fitting that we can use our reason to determine what he is and how he wishes for us to act. If anything, Aquinas does not rely on reason enough: people should use their own morals to distinguish between right and wrong. Other critics, such as G.E. Moore, have used Naturalistic Fallacy to find weakne>
