Ontological Arguments About The Divine Command Theory Of Morality Essay

Ontological Arguments About The Divine Command Theory Of Morality - Essay Example Plato argues against every other theory that beats the logic of God in that God can only condemn something because it is wrong and something is condemned by the gods because it is wrong. Plato goes disowns the theory by bringing out a logical argument based on what he believes to the truth, especially on the concept of right and wrong and their relationship with the gods. On this topic, he brings up the issue of morality and immorality and the views of the gods on it based on why an action can be moral or immoral based on his argument with Euthyphro. In this case, he asks what if the gods considered what they asked to be done as the correct thing, despite being an immoral thing and one that inflicts pain and suffering amongst the people. In his objection against the theory, Plato argues the theory because it means that the gods that determine morality and human behavior by vouching for or criticizing it. For this reason, the foundation of morality in the case of the divine command th eory of morality, morality becomes an arbitrary issue (Austin). ... Logically, this does not make sense since Plato believes in a state of unambiguity, where such dilemmas do not come up; thus, there must be another form that guides morality. Another argument, by Plato against divine command theory of morality, is that if gods do not call the arbitral change in morality, then they must be mere spectators. This is to mean that they just act as beings with the ability to recognize right and wrong, and cannot direct ethics, which is based on the argument that the gods condemn something because it is wrong. To Plato, this is another absurd idea and basis of morality as it puts the gods at the same as a man; because man can also recognize right from wrong based on the law.

Company Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Company Law - Essay Example On the footing of equitable principles and on some common rules, these general duties have been imposed on a director, and director has to act in accordance with the same without showing any negligence while performing his duty as a director of a company. The general duties will be construed and extended in the same way as under equity principles and under common law rules and due weight will be given to the appropriate equitable rules and common law rules in construing and applying the general duties. As per section 172(1) , a director of a company must function in the style he regards , in good trust , which is most probably to enhance the growth of the company for the advantages of its shareholders in its entirety, and in exercising so, should give due consideration to the following: The probable outcome of any business decision in the long run. The requirement to function fairly as between the shareholders of the company. Further, under CA 2006, statutory statements on directorsà ¢â‚¬â„¢ duties have been included, which covers the following provinces concerning the director’s duties. ... In other words, it is the duty of the director not to act negligently. However, casual failures or sincere commercial misjudgments will not tantamount to the claims of negligence. It is to be remembered that the directors owe their duty to the company and not to any individual. However, in Dorchester Finance Co Ltd v Stebbing,1 a director was found to be negligent in his duty as he left signed blank cheques with another director. In Cohen v Selby, 2 a director was held liable for assigning a task to a specific employee who is not fit for that duty assigned3. In case of business judgment, the courts have been ever unenthusiastic to interfere. Further, the CA 2006 is not precise about how board of directors of a company should report their adherence under section 172 in board minutes. It is advised that companies may find it secure to add a reference to the fact that the directors have adhered to the decision making provisions as demanded in section 172 in their board minutes to escape any charges of negligence later. 172 of CA 2006 demands that a director should function bona fide in a manner that would kindle the success of the company for the advantage of its member in their entirety. In Rgentcrest Plc (in liq) v Cohen , it was held that the directors should act in what they think and should not act in what the court may think, and it should be for advantage of the whole of its members4. The section 173 requires the director of a company to use his independent judgment while making business decisions. This section facilitates the director to take an opinion from experts or in certain case, if a director fails to take proper advice from an expert will be regarded as an infringement of their fiduciary duty. However,