EPISTEMOLOGY

1. Plato’s theory of knowledge, which is the foundation of his philosophy, is a rejection of

Sophists’ claim that human knowledge is grounded in social customs and the perceptions of
individual people. In his book The Republic, Plato argues that there are unchanging and
universal truths. These arguments are explained through his Allegory of the Cave and the
Metaphor of the Divided Line.
Allegory of the Cave
Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” is one of the most well-known philosophical concepts in
history. The Allegory of the Cave is a theory put forward by Plato, concerning human
perception. Plato claimed that knowledge gained through the senses is no more than opinion, and
that, in order to have real knowledge, we must gain it through “Philosophical Reasoning.”
In the Allegory of the Cave, Plato distinguishes between “people who mistake sensory
knowledge for the truth” and “people who really do see the truth.” Those people who mistake
sensory knowledge for the truth rely on sensory experience. While people who really do see the
truth, rely in their reasoning. In other words, Plato uses the cave as a “symbolic representation
of how human beings live in the in the world, contrasting reality vs our interpretation.”
Another important thing is the narration of the Cave reflects the “two worlds”, which
Plato grounded his Cosmological view – (1) the world inside the cave, (2) the world outside the
cave. For the prisoners in the cave, the shadows on the wall reflected by the firelight believed to
be real. However, if one of the prisoners break free and witness the outside world, they will come
to understand the true reality. However, when the freed prisoner returns to the darkness of the
cave, their eyes will be blinded by height of the sun the light of the sun, and their fellow
prisoners still inside the cave will believe that it is the outside world that is harmful. To them he
truth is not worth seeking.
Symbols & Meanings:
 Cave – the limited world of ignorance we’re all born into.
 Darkness – lack of knowledge- unenlightened.
 Objects Casting Shadows – the true form.
 Shadows of the Objects – incomplete representations of the truth.
 Prisoners – common people, every person we’re born into.
 Chains – that which holds us back, limits our ability to see reality.
 Fire/Sun/Light – knowledge, enlightenment and wisdom.
 Contest the Prisoners Play – meaningless activities we do out of ignorance of the
truth.
 Journey of Leaving the Cave – the process of becoming enlightened and
knowing
the truth of reality.
 Mockery the Prisoners Experiences When He Returns – the scorn of the
ignorant
people place on the
enlightened.
 The Person Who Frees the Prisoners – a person who has reached enlightenment
and attains true knowledge, no longer
 bound by chains.

 Pain of Seeing the Light – the difficulty and struggle we have when learning
about
the truth
 Reflections in the Water – how we view ourselves after we learn the truth.
 Blindness of Going Back Into the Dark – our struggle to understand and cope
with
the ignorance of other.
 Ignorance is Bliss – we tend to mistreat those we perceive as being ahead of us.

Plato’s the Divided Line

Plato’s the Divided Line is an analogy that provides a way to visualize the distinction
between different states of mind and to understand which states of mind are more reliable than
others. In The Republic, Plato describes how Socrates understood the divided line. He first
distinguishes between a visible world and intelligible worlds. Plato imagines these two worlds,
the sensible world and the intelligible world, as existing on a line that can be divided in the
middle: the lower part of the line consists of the visible world and the upper part of the line
makes up the intelligible world.
In Plato’s the Divided Line, it is divided in two major sections – “AB” & “CD”. Each
section is divided on its own into two parts – “A” & “B”, “C” & “D”. The A and B is the side of
the “World of Forms” the intelligible realm. The C and D is the side of the “World if
Appearances” the visible realm. Plato believed that the closer a person gets to the intelligible
realm, the closer a person gets to the truth and reality. And therefore the visible realm is where a
person is least likely to get to the truth and be further away from reality.
 Section “D” is the epistemic state of illusion or eikasia (Greek: Imagination). In
this state, images exists, such as shadows and reflections. Why is this section the
furthest away from the truth?
Ex: Imagine if you are standing by a tree, and you can see its shadow.
Obviously you can see its vague shape and branches. But that depends
whether where the source is and inevitably, the shadow of the tree will
change shape. So, you will never know the real shape of the tree, and
therefore, you cannot gain much knowledge from it.

 Section “C”, the biggest section of the visible realm is the epistemic state of
belief or pistis (Greek: Belief or Faith). This is the state where objects exists, such
as animals and man-made items. Plato says that this is where we could use our
senses.
Ex: Given the situation that I am talking to you now. So, right now you
can hear my voice. But remember Plato said that you cannot get
knowledge while using our senses, which is why he classifies it as belief.

So what does C & D combined give us? Both can give “Opinion” or Doxa.
  Section “B”, the first section of intelligible realm is mathematical reasoning or
dianola (Greek: to Process or Calculate). While some ideas are mainly
mathematical forms. So, math and geometry dominated this section. Plato thinks
that math or numbers is the closest things to knowledge we can get in our world.
It was also mathematics that led Plato into the field of metaphysics. And this is
because when we think of concepts such as the “perfect straight line” or a
“perfect circle”, we are accessing things that are impossible for us to experience
in the physical world. And that what makes section B above section C in the quest
for true knowledge.

 Section “A” is where intelligence is or noesis (Greek: Exercise of Reason). This

is where pure ideas are. So the forms (eidos) and philosophy are placed here. The
basic idea of how we can access the forms, is in the same way we can access the
perfect straight line, which is using our minds.

Thus, A & B are combined to give us “Knowledge” or Episteme.

The “Sophists”, were once known to be wise men in ancient Greece. The term sophist
(sophistēs) derives from the Greek words for wisdom (sophia) and wise (sophos). But they
abused the public’s respect and high esteem to them. According to Plato, sophists considered
knowledge to be a ready-made product that could be sold without discrimination to all comers.
The Sophists held no values other than winning and succeeding, to win arguments, debates and
have good lectures. Knowledge in their line of thinking and from what is seen from their
conducts, it is bendable and sellable. (1) Knowledge is bendable in a sense that its depths
depends on whose explain it and how far the capacity of the sophist goes. (2) Knowledge is
sellable in a sense that, the richness of knowledge explained depends on the sum of money paid
to the sophists. From Plato’s assessment of the sophists, it could be concluded that sophists do
not offer true knowledge, but only an opinion of things.
Plato refuted the sophist’s way of discoursing knowledge to the public. In his Allegory of
the Cave and the Divided Line, he contended that (1) true knowledge is attainable through
philosophical reasoning, not sophistry and (2) there are realities that are temporary and there are
permanent.
2. Baruch Spinoza’s rationalism was influenced by Descartes. However, both differ in their
approach. Unlike Descartes, Spinoza begins his philosophy with the problem of the nature
and existence of God. Moreover, Spinoza distinguishes between the three levels of
knowledge and describes how can we move from the lowest to the highest.

Baruch Spinoza was influenced by Rene Descartes’ rationalism, by his method, and by
his choice of the major problems in philosophy. They both turned their attention on the
relationship of a mind and its body. But their similarity of interest and terminology does not
mean that Spinoza was a follower of Descartes. He strongly adopted Descartes example on
mathematics, geometry in particular. He believed that knowledge gained in numbers is authentic
due to its consistency. He also stated that geometry could also explain the theory of the nature of
reality and could also be demonstrated.
God or Nature
Regarding the existence of God, since Descartes is a rationalist, he supported his
argument using the emanation of ideas:
Ideas are effects and their causes must be discovered. Some of our ideas are “born in
me”, while some are “invented” by me, whereas, others “come from without.” But our
reason tells us that “something cannot be derived from nothing.” And also, “the more
perfect” cannot be a product of a “less perfect.” Our ideas possess a different degree of
reality, but “it is a manifestation by natural light that there must be at least as much
reality in the efficient and total cause as in the effect.” In addition, Descartes followed
St. Augustine and St. Anselm argument and offered his own version of ontological
argument. He also added a mathematical thought to support his claim on God’s existence.
On the other hand, Spinoza, a Jewish philosopher, started his philosophical point on the
argument “God or Nature” (Deus sive Natura). Spinoza argues that there is only one substance,
“God is the eternal and ultimate substance and has infinite attributes”, since existence pertains
to substance and substances exist. He further reconciled God and nature as “interchangeable” or
“identical”. He did not contrast God and the world as if they were distinct. Therefore, if we
speak of God it pertains to nature and if we speak about nature it also pertains to God. But
Spinoza distinguishes two aspect of nature, using his expression “natura naturans”, which
means substance and attributes – everything follows from the necessity of the nature of God, or
anyone of God’s attributes. Spinoza then, proceeded to the modes and necessity. Modes for
Spinoza is “everything that follows after the necessity of God”. In other words, it is like a
“Divine Emanation”. And by necessity, it is attributed to “God as the ultimate source or
cause”. Thus, everything else are modification coming from God.

3 Levels of Knowledge
Spinoza introduces a way to know God as the ultimate nature and reality. How can
Spinoza claim to know the ultimate nature of reality? He distinguishes between three levels of
knowledge and described how we can move from the lowest to the highest: (1) Imagination, (2)
Reason & (3) Intuition.
 Imagination. Imagination of ideas are derived from our sensation, as when we see
another person. Our ideas are very concrete and specific, and the mind is passive. Though our
ideas on this level are specific, they are vague and inadequate, for we know things only as they
affect our senses – I know see a person, but as yet I do not know simply by looking what this
person’s essential nature is. I can form a general idea, such as human, by seeing several people
and idea, I form from experience are useful for daily life, but they do not give true knowledge.
Reason. Reason is beyond the level of imagination. This is scientific knowledge.
Everyone can participate in this kind of knowledge, because it is made possible by sharing in the
attributes of the substance, in God’s thought and extension. At this level, a person’s mind can
rise above immediate and particular things and deal with abstract ideas, as it does in mathematics
and physics. At this level, knowledge is adequate and true. Spinoza affirms that, “he who has a
true idea knows at the same time that he has a true idea, nor can he doubt concerning the truth
of the thing”.
Intuition. Through intuition, we can grasp the whole system of nature. At this level, we
can understand the particular things we encountered on the first level in a new way, for at the
first level we saw other bodies in a disconnected way, and now we them as part of the whole
scheme. This kind of knowing “proceeds from adequate idea of the formal essence of certain
attributes of God to the adequate knowledge of the essence of things”. When we reach this level,
we become more and more conscious of God and hence, “more perfect and blessed”, for through
this vision we grasp the whole system of nature and see our place in it, giving us an intellectual
fascination with the full order of nature, of God.

3. Is George Berkeley’s famous dictum “to be is to be perceived” (esse est percipi) denying the
existence of matter? Why or why not?

Berkeley's philosophical view is often described as an argument for “immaterialism”, by

which is meant a denial of the existence of matter. All that exist in the world are our ideas and
perceiving mind. And his dictum “to be is to be perceived” deny the existence of matter. For
Berkeley, matter is really just actual and possible sensory experience.
Example:
There are a lot of ways we can experience a stone – see it, smell it, touch it, kick it. But
Berkeley did not think there was a material object lurking beyond the sensory properties
causing them. In short, the stone was just the experience – to be is to be perceived (esse
est percipi).
But what about if a tree falls in the middle of the forest with no one to see it or hear it?
Common sense would tell us, that it is not perceived. So does it exist? Berkeley contends
that the tree does fall, not just because there would probably insects and birds perceiving
it. But as a deeply religious man, Berkeley argued that God perceives everything, so
everything continues to exist even when no man is around to perceive things because God
always has His eye on everything.
Two additional lurking reasons behind why George Berkeley denies materialism because
it promotes skepticism and atheism: (1) skepticism because materialism implies that our senses
mislead us as to the natures of these material things, which moreover need not exist at all, and (2)
atheism because a material world could be expected to run without the assistance of God.

4. Discuss the Nature of Knowledge.

 a. Stages in the Apprehension of Concepts for Knowledge to be possible.
b. Types of Statements
c. Types of Knowledge

There are three major stages in the apprehension of a concept before knowledge becomes
possible: (1) Perception, (2) Abstraction & (3) Judgement.
Perception. Perception is the ability to see, hear or become aware of something through
the senses. Percept, is an impression of an object obtained by use of the senses. It as an activity
that does not make us different from animals. There are two types of perception:
(a) External Perception. External perception happens when we perceive things using our
five senses, especially the outwards features of objects. A chair’s objective features are
perceivable.
(b) Internal Perception. Internal perception can be done through (1) Imagination & (2)
Memory. Well, internal perception happens inside the person’s mind.
Abstraction. Abstraction is the second stage that distinguishes us from animals. This
process was described by Fr. Charles Coppens, S. J., as a simple apprehension or conception.
(a) Simple Apprehension. Simple apprehension is the act by which the mind grasps the
concept, or general meaning, of an object without affirming or denying anything about it.
Judgement. Judgement involves making a knowledge claim because we are going to take
at least two concepts and put them together in order to make a statement or a proposition that
could either be true or false. It completes the act of the mind for knowledge to become possible.
Types of Statements
Analytic. Analytic statement sentences are true by definition, and are generally self-
explanatory. Additionally, they often have little to no informative value. The meaning is already
contained in the sentence. No additional meaning or knowledge is contained in the predicate
that is not already given in the subject. Analytic sentences are redundant statements whose
clarification relies entirely on definition. Analytic sentences tell us about logic and about
language use.
Example:
 Frozen water is ice
 Bachelors are unmarried men
 Two halves make up a whole
Empirical. Empirical statements, on the other hand, are based on our sensory data and
experience. The truth-value of empirical statements cannot be figured out based solely on
logic. If one had no sensory input from the world, then studying the statement would not yield
the meaning of the sentence, as it would for an analytic sentence. Empirical statements are
descriptions of the world that cannot be taken for granted. Sentences that are possibly true but
not necessarily true.
Example:
 Children wear hats
 The table in the kitchen is round
 My computer is on
Based from the example given, both the analytic statement and empirical statement are
somewhat similar. Are they similar? Analytical statement is a form of empirical statement, but
the difference is analytical statements have internal meanings and thy can be verified by these
meanings.

Types of Knowledge
For contemporary Western philosophers, there are generally a handful of types of
knowledge that are considered important: (1) Knowledge by Acquaintance, (2) Procedural
Knowledge & (3) Declarative Knowledge.
Knowledge by Acquaintance. This is knowing something via first-person experience or
familiarity via direct interaction.
Procedural Knowledge. This is knowing how to do something, a skill. The question in
philosophy is to what degree knowledge-how differs from knowledge-that.
Declarative Knowledge. In philosophy, declarative knowledge refers to descriptive
statements, called propositions, which describe some aspect of reality. Declarative knowledge is
also sometimes called “descriptive” or “propositional” knowledge for this very reason.
Example:
 Roses are red
 There are frogs in France

5. There are different theories of truth that can verify or validate our knowledge claims. Three
of these theories are the Coherence theory, Correspondence theory, and Pragmatic theory.
Also, there are three sources of knowledge: faculty of reason, faculty of experience, and
faculty of intuition. Discuss the theories of truth and the sources of knowledge.
o Coherence Theory. The coherence theory holds that truth consists in coherence
amongst our beliefs. Coherence may be internal to a personal set of beliefs
that are accessible to a subject. In this case, coherence is one way to justify a
belief. Every new belief must be integrated with existing facts to make them
maximally coherent.
o Correspondence Theory. The Correspondence Theory of Truth is probably the
most common and widespread way of understanding the nature of truth and
falsehood not simply among philosophers, but even more importantly in the
general population as well. Theory argues that truth is whatever corresponds to
reality. An idea which corresponds with reality is true while an idea which
does not correspond with reality is false.
o Pragmatic Theory. Put simply, truth does not exist in some abstract realm of
thought independent of social relationship or actions. Instead, the truth is a
function of an active process of engagement with the world and verification.
In other word.
THEODICY/PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

1. St. Augustine’s theodicy claims that God, who alone is supremely and immutably good,
created things that are good in their nature, thus there is no good apart from God.
Therefore, if God is good and created only what is good, how do you account the reality
of suffering, pain, violence, and crimes in the world?

Augustine faced the problem of evil as squarely and searchingly as anyone could possibly do. It
was a serious problem to him. His handling of this difficulty deserves our best attention.

1. NATURE OF EVIL. To him, evil is something entirely negative in its nature. It cannot exist
apart from good. Nature or being, is always good and is necessary to the existence of evil.
2. THE CAUSE OF EVIL. We have seen that Augustine looked upon evil as negative. It is lack
or deficiency in the good. It has no essence of its own. This is the nature of evil. The next
question which naturally arises, is, what is the cause or origin of evil?
 Moral evil on the part of angels and man involves free will. Angels and man by their own
free will choose something less than God, and thus evil entered. Evil began in the
universe not with man but in the angelic order. Satan was not created evil but good.
However, he had a free will, and used that free will to choose himself instead of God,
thus he became evil. Evil thus owes its origin to the permissive will of God. God did not
create it, but he permitted it. God does create punishment for wrongdoing, which is called
an evil.
 He created the possibility of evil but not the necessity of evil. God would have prevented
evil in the universe, but he permitted evil because he knew it was better to allow evil than
to exclude it absolutely. We will consider these points in further detail.

a. Evil is due to creation from nothing.

 God is the one unchanging and immutable good, but all other natures are subject to
change because they are made out of nothing.

b. Evil is not due to an efficient cause but a deficient cause, or a falling away from good.
 "And I think there cannot now be any doubt, that the only cause of any good that we
enjoy is the goodness of God, and the only cause of evil is the falling away from the
unchangeable good of a being made good but changeable, first in the case of an angel,
and afterwards in the case of man."

c. Evil is due to free will whether in angels or men, God created the will free to incline
toward good or evil as it might choose, and God does not take away 'this 'free exercise
of the will.
  The origin of evil, or sin. in the human race was with our first parents in the Garden
of Eden, who chose evil instead of good. This choice was not due to necessity, but to
the sin of pride, which corrupted them. Men did not become nothing by sinning but
his being became more contracted. The secret and sinful turning away from God to
self was already there before the open transgression occurred.

2. St. Thomas implicitly claimed about the relationship between religion and science when
he says, “By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the
world did not always exist.” How do you reconcile the Big Bang theory described as the
literal beginning of space and time with the understanding of the Genesis account
describing God creating from nothing?

 The Big Bang Theory explains that the universe as we know it started with an
infinitely hot and dense single point that inflated and stretched — first at
unimaginable speeds, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.8 billion
years to the still-expanding cosmos that we know today. Although it’s still a theory
up to now, it does not contradict the creation as written in the Holy Bible. In fact, it
even provided a scientific explanation as to what transpired during the creation in
Genesis. This is so because when God commanded that “Let there be so and so…”,
his omnipotence transformed the words into what was intended to exist. The
scriptures were not written to be scientific in context, as it is intended to enlighten
readers’ spirituality and relationship with God.
 The transformation of words to intent is also evident in John 1:1 In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The existence of the
universe and life is causal in its entirety, somebody caused everything to came into
effect. It should be borne in mind that the scientist instrumental in this time and space
origin, Albert Einstein, believes in God, believes in the creator. Further, both science
and religion believe in a beginning.

3. According to Karl Max, the key element of religion is that it is a human product, “it is
man who makes religion, not religion that makes man”; that it is a product of those in
power. He says that religion is not true (is false) consciousness and as such, it diverts the
attention of its followers from the reality of their miseries, the very consequences of
their exploitation. What is the significance of this claim to our life of faith and worship
as Catholics?

Marx’s critique of religion can help Christian theologies be more Christian and so aid
Christian churches in becoming more like the biblical ekklesia. I am not merely suggesting that
Marx’s critique of religion discloses inconvenient truths about the contemporary forms and
practices of the Christian church and, in so doing, aids and abets the church’s rediscovery of
itself, even if, in the end, it dispenses with Marxian thought. On the contrary, my claim is that
Marx ought to be read by the church as an apocryphal prophet who might help us become more
Christian.
So we see that Marx’s critique of religion has as much to do with his moral and political
critique of oppression (something that Christian churches certainly should be able to support!) as
it does with any sort of anti-theological argument about such religious beliefs as divine
transcendence, life after death, et cetera. It has more to do with the effect of religion on social
and political life and the role that religion has in perpetuating oppressive, heartless, and spiritless
conditions. I believe that Marx has something important to say to Christianity about the effect we
are having on the world at large, and if we are wise, we will listen.

The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly the struggle against that world whose
spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and at the same
time the protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of
a heartless world, as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

ETHICS

1. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, his theory of morality centers around his belief that
people, like everything else in nature, have a distinctive end to achieve and function to fulfill.
For him, happiness should be the ultimate end of man. Furthermore, he posited that the
general rule of morality is “to act in accordance with Right Reason.” Finally, he introduced
virtue as the golden mean.

The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle's most important study of personal morality and the
ends of human life, has for many centuries been a widely-read and influential book.
 Main Points of Aristotle's Ethical Philosophy

1. The highest good and the end toward which all human activity is directed is happiness,
which can be defined as continuous contemplation of eternal and universal truth.
2. One attains happiness by a virtuous life and the development of reason and the faculty of
theoretical wisdom. For this one requires sufficient external goods to ensure health, leisure, and
the opportunity for virtuous action.

• The goal of the Ethics is to determine how best to achieve happiness. Happiness depends
on living in accordance with appropriate virtues. Virtue is a disposition rather than an activity.
That is, a virtuous person is naturally disposed to behave in the right ways and for the right
reasons, and to feel pleasure in behaving rightly.

3. Moral virtue is a relative mean between extremes of excess and deficiency, and in general
the moral life is one of moderation in all things except virtue. No human appetite or desire is bad
if it is controlled by reason according to a moral principle. Moral virtue is acquired by a
combination of knowledge, habituation, and self-discipline.
4. Virtuous acts require conscious choice and moral purpose or motivation. Man has
personal moral responsibility for his actions.
5. Moral virtue cannot be achieved abstractly — it requires moral action in a social
environment. Ethics and politics are closely related, for politics is the science of creating a
society in which men can live the good life and develop their full potential.

 To truly be a virtuous person, one's virtuous actions must meet three conditions: (a) they
are done knowingly, (b) they are chosen for their own sakes, and (c) they are chosen
according to a stable disposition (not at a whim, or in any way that the acting person
might easily change his choice about). And just knowing what would be virtuous is not
enough.
 Aristotle - the golden mean. Moral behavior is the mean between two extremes - at one
end is excess, at the other deficiency. Find a moderate position between those two
extremes, and you will be acting morally.

2. St. Thomas’ theory of ethics was influenced by Aristotle’s. Like Aristotle, Aquinas argued
that happiness should be the ultimate end of man. However, unlike Aristotle, Aquinas found
the perfect happiness not in created things but in God. Moreover, the basic moral truth for
Aquinas is to “do good and avoid evil.” This basic moral truth is founded in our human
nature which is called the natural law. From this standpoint, Aquinas distinguishes between
four kinds of law: Eternal Law, Natural Law, Human Law, and Divine Law.
- Doing Good and Avoiding evil. This is the first principle of ethical human action as
articulated by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who relies on the classical wisdom of Aristotle and
represents much of the Catholic tradition (Summa TheologiaeI-II, q. 94, a. 2). In the
contemporary field of bioethics, a similar principle is articulated using the terms
“beneficence”and “non-maleficence,” which simply mean “doing good” and “not doing
evil.”
- The way to understand these four laws and how they relate to one another is via the
Eternal Law, so we’d better start there.
 Eternal law is identical to the mind of God as seen by God himself. It can be called
law because God stands to the universe which he creates as a ruler does to a
community which he rules. When God's reason is considered as it is understood by
God Himself, i.e. in its unchanging, eternal nature (q91, a1). it is eternal law.
 Natural law is a Man’s participation in God’s eternal Law. God gave man a reason
and it is man’s rational nature that directs him to seek the good and avoid evil through
his actions. This reveals the natural law in man. The general precepts of natural law
commands man to “seek the good and avoid evil”. Through our natural nature we are
able to discern what the good is and when in fact that’s the first principle of our
practical reason which we seek the good things.
 Human law could vary with time, place, and circumstance. Aquinas defined this last
type of law as "an ordinance of reason for the common good" made and enforced by a
 ruler or government. He warned, however, that people were not bound to obey laws
made by humans that conflicted with natural law.
 Divine law is a law derived from God himself that leads man to his supernatural end,
which is eternal happiness in what St. Augustine had called the "City of God. God
himself provide this divine law for us to follow that we may attain this goal in life
which is the eternal happiness. Which we can experience not in this world but in an
other world after our existence in this world. What constitutes the divine law? The
commandments of God which we find in the Holy Scriptures constitutes his divine
law. He argues that divine law is necessary and important because for one human
reason is partial and commits error in its judgments. Also human laws that human
creates cannot account to certain human acts or bad action that is why there is a
divine law provided by God to account for those actions as a guide for us.

3. Discuss the two most common patterns of moral reasoning: Deontological Ethics and
Teleological Ethics.

Deontological Ethics
 Deontology is also referred to as duty-based ethics. It is an approach to ethics that
addresses whether the motives behind certain actions are right or wrong instead of
focusing on whether the results of the action are right or wrong. It is based on each
individual’s duty or obligation towards each other, all living things, and the environment
based on moral beliefs and values. It teaches about always acting in good faith and
adheres to the Golden Rule to treat others the way you want to be treated by them.
 The Ten Commandments are examples of deontology. They are moral duties that we
have been taught since we were children, and we are molded by them in the way that we
should treat others, to be fair and not using them to serve selfish intentions.

Teleological ethics
 Teleology or consequentialism is referred to as results-oriented ethics. It focuses on the
purpose of each action and whether there is an intention or meaning for the action. It
deals with the consequences of an action. It involves examining past experiences in order
to figure out the results of present actions. An example of which is utilitarianism which is
also referred to as the greatest happiness principle. It measures how much overall
pleasure can be derived from a certain action and how much pain is averted.

While deontology is based on man’s absolute duty towards mankind and how it is given priority
over results, teleology is based on the results of an action and on whether an action produces
greater happiness and less pain.

4. Is abortion morally acceptable or not? Discuss the fundamental bioethical principles that
support your answer.
 No, it is unethical to terminate the life of the child because it is against the first
principle, that we are called to be ministers of life and we must not destroy it, there must
be no abortion that would happen and decision about ending life cannot be made by us
and the death of a child must be in a natural way not in our own way. In the principle of
Autonomy every human being has a natural obligation and this is to promote life and to
safeguard life that is why we don’t need to kill a fetus because it has life, rather we need
to safeguard and protect it.