Faith and Critical Reason Issues

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

In what do you have faith?

Taking into consideration the various misinterpretations of faith, it is frequently difficult to formulate in what one has faith. The major mistakes made when analyzing faith are reducing faith to believing things, relating it to behaving morally, dismissing faith as something deep in our souls, and associating it with being religious (Tilley, 8). To avoid any of these misinterpretations, I will try to come up with my own explanation of what faith is to me. Personally, I have faith in the fight between good and evil, and in the need to behave towards others as I would like them to treat me. My understanding of faith is close to the definition suggested by Tilley, who argues that faith is the relationship between the person who has faith and that which one has faith in (27-28). I believe that there can be a close connection between individuals and their beliefs that makes it possible to support their faith and cultivate it. On the contrary, when there is no such connection, ones faith is not strong enough.

I have faith in doing good deeds for people and not expecting anything in return. This aspect of my faith is connected with religious beliefs. It presupposes not thinking of what I will receive in exchange for something I have done, but instead enjoying the mere satisfaction of having performed something nice for others. Also, I believe that if someone does something bad consciously and intentionally, he or she will be punished for that sooner or later. I think that people should support one another and live in peace irrespective of the differences in their religious views or moral values.

When it comes to sex, abortion, and consumerism, explore how the concept of free choice functions in the authors we read and the debates we had on voice-thread. Have a particular focus on the critiques which argue, because of the social structures in which they are made, our choices are less free than we might imagine them to be at first.

Some aspects of peoples lives are associated with so-called free choice, which entitles individuals to make decisions regarding how to behave in a particular situation. This includes such aspects as abortion, sex, and consumerism, among others. While the concept of free choice seems like a favorable option, some scholars argue that our decisions are not as independent as we imagine them to be. For instance, Smith remarks that donating ones organs after euthanasia is the last nod to a consumerist culture (Camosy, 76). While someone has the choice of donating his or her organs after death, the increased responsibility gradually makes people feel obliged to give away their organs. As a result, as the scholar notes, some individuals may be prone to committing suicide or requesting euthanasia because they think that their lives would matter after they help others (Camosy, 76). This critique indicates that the notion of free choice is much more complicated than it seems at first sight.

There are similar concerns related to decisions regarding sex and abortion. It may seem that one has free choice of whether to engage in sexual intercourse. However, it turns out that individuals may feel pressure to do it even if they have not made up their mind yet. The critique of free choice concerning abortion is related to counting this act as a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being (Camosy, 12). Thus, there are many arguments against abortion since it is the choice of the woman but not of her unborn child. In general, the social circumstances in which peoples choices are made undermine the possibility of counting such decisions as free to a great extent.

What, in your view, is a person?

In my opinion, a person is someone who has consciousness and has the right to freedom of speech, the right to vote, and others. When applying this definition to the available alternatives, most of them will not be regarded as persons. For instance, a 12-week-old fetus, a 26-week-old prenatal child, and a 24-week-old premature newborn infant have neither consciousness nor rights. This explanation coincides with Singers views since he considers neither fetuses nor infants to be persons (Camosy, 257). The same applies to animals such as dogs and pigs: they cannot be viewed as persons since they have no rights or consciousness. While this explanation comes from the suggested definition, such an opinion is viewed as speciesist (Camosy, 84). That is, according to Singer, not counting animals as persons is racist since it eliminates the rights of animals and makes them subject to suffering through scientific experiments and death for food (Camosy, 84). Still, it seems to me that it is not appropriate to call animals persons.

As far as adult humans in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), it may seem that they cannot be considered persons under my definition. However, according to research, the brain of comatose patients is capable of imagining and thinking (Egnor). Thus, it is impossible not to regard humans in a PVS as persons. Finally, Superman is an alien from Krypton that is not, in fact, a human. Under such circumstances, it seems viable to consider him a non-person since he lacks the consciousness and rights of humans living on the Earth. Still, there is quite a difference between acknowledging someone as a person and depriving them of rights. Whereas by my definition, animals, infants, and fetuses are not persons, it does not mean that I support abortions or cruelty towards animals.

Engaging both the arguments of Peter Singer and Catholic Teaching, what do we owe the poor?

Despite different views on some critical aspects of faith, both Singer and the Church have quite similar opinions on what we owe to the poor. The first major coincidence in views is that both parties recognize the present as a highly potential time for conducting the battle against poverty (Camosy, 137). Singer mentions that this is a unique moment when there are both many people having far more than they need and those who are desperately in need (Camosy, 138). Thus both opinions agree that there is an urgent need for equality between peoples possibilities and that those having too much should share with the ones not having enough.

Failing in ones responsibilities to the poor is regarded by the Church as severe misconduct. For instance, Jesus mentions that the love of money is the root of evil (Camosy, 139). Christians took some of the words from the Bible so seriously that they decided to give a part of their income to support the worlds system of welfare. Singer follows some of the Churchs ideas and suggests that one-tenth of peoples resources should be donated to those living in absolute poverty (Camosy, 139-140). Therefore both the Church and Singer consider it important to help those in need.

Apart from praising morally right actions, both the Catholic Church and Singer condemn those who do not provide help when it is most needed. The common idea of both doctrines is that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad (Camosy, 142). Thus, if someone can prevent another individual from suffering such misfortunes, it is his or her duty to do so. These views characterize Singers and the Churchs attitude towards what we owe to the poor.

Works Cited

Camosy, Charles C. Peter Singer and Christian Ethics: Beyond Polarization. Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Egnor, Michael. A Map of the Soul.First Things, Web.

Tilley, Terrence W. Faith: What It Is and What It Isnt. Orbis Books, 2010.

Click Here To Order Now!

Faith and Critical Reason Issues

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)