Theological Anthropology Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

theological Anthropology - Essay ExampleWe shall thus consider that which is common to all faiths in terms of morality and indeed proceed to take this a step farther and liberating it from the traditional perspectives to en stove a broader view of humankind.In seeking to understand the morality of either given actions, it is helpful to use some sort of compass in which to judge any action as purely moral or not. In roam to not bias the discussion to any one faith, we volition apply a method that close anyone will be able to accept yet does not invoke the singular nature of any one faith. The most general and acceptable rule of this nature that has ever been attempted is to be imbed in Kants categorical imperative. The categorical imperative would denote a requirement that is absolute and unconditional and whose function essential exert itself in all circumstances. According to Kant, we can distill the categorical imperative into lead basic precepts 1) Act only according to th at maxim whereby you can at the very(prenominal) time will that it should become a universal law 2) Act in such a way that you direct humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means and 3) Every thinking(prenominal) being moldiness so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends. That is to say, any moral law that can be considered as a categorical imperative is one in which you can will it for everyone and is not restrain to any person or group of passel what applies to the prince must also apply to the peasant and vice-versa. Next, we must focus on deontological ethics by necessity since to do otherwise would allow actions for expediency and import rather than the morality of the actions themselves. Each and every other person must be treated as an end and not a tool. in other words, there can be no cold-blooded use of human beings as tools t o accomplish a object. They themselves are the goal since the morality of an action cannot be separated from its application to every human being and in no way can this be interpreted as using one human being fore the benefit of the other. Lastly, this law must be considered as one in which all human beings, barring none, act as equals in enacting this law as a means of harmonizing the moral kingdom, thus bringing about a enunciate of perfect moral equality among all humankind. Critics of this approach tend to follow the consequentialist schools of thought, in which the ultimate goal is looked at and not necessarily the means to achieve it. This approach to morality is faulty in bounteous part because it ignores a critical aspect that Kant himself did not make much use of, but which has progressively important as we see people trying to follow a moral code and flunk miserably. The categorical imperative seems admirable in theory, but unworkable in practice, so thus people often ignore the internal aspects of the requirements in favor of practical success. The missing component part in consequentialist theories and the element that makes many people view the categorical imperative as unworkable in practice is, in fact the focus on the external world rather than recognizing