m.r wk6 phil101

Discussion Prompt

(Sign right, wrong, it depends)

Please pick one of the following questions to answer for the forum this week:

• How does medieval philosophy build on ancient ethical traditions and transform moral philosophy in light of the Christian religion? Considering the debates between natural law theorists and divine command theorists in the Middle Ages, does medieval ethics still fall victim to the Euthyphro Dilemma?
• Evaluate the modern effort to remove the question of God from moral philosophy. Was this a positive development overall, and in the absence of God, do we have sufficient reasons to feel obligated to live according to moral principles? Provide reasons, keeping your Discussion in conversation with specific philosophers discussed in this week’s lessons.
• Moral relativism and emotivism represent modern efforts to resolve debates over how to ground and explain morality under the impact of trends towards the secularization of moral philosophy and the encounter with a diversity of moral traditions and cultures across the world. On the face of it, these traditions seem to provide explanations of where our morality comes from, in our feelings about moral questions or in the relativity of our experience or our cultural contexts, but are these really logically plausible and practicable theories to guide our decisions about right and wrong in everyday life? Explain, keeping your Discussion in conversation with specific philosophers discussed this week.

Discussion Guidelines

• Three posts minimum.
• The initial forum response is due by Thursday at 11:59 p.m. EST and should be a substantive response to the Discussion prompt.
• For peer replies, respond to at least two (2) of your classmates by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. EST and give meaningful replies that advance the Discussion.

Before you post, please thoroughly edit your writing to ensure it is professional and academic. For more details about how the initial post and peer replies are graded, see and the linked .

This Discussion aligns with the following:

Rubrics

• RAMP LD Discussion V.4 Rubric [APR 2025]

reply to:

David Watkins posted Feb 9, 2026 3:23 PM

Good morning class and Dr. Cervantez,

I chose to answer the first question.

When I look at medieval ethics, what stands out to me is how much is builds on ancient philosophy while reshaping it around Christianity. Medieval thinkers didnt throw out Aristotle or Plato; they leaned heavily on ideas like virtue, reason, and purpose, but tried to reinterpret them in a world where God wasnt optional. Ethics had to line up with Christian belief, whether if fit neatly or not.

Natural law theorists, especially Thomas Aquinas, argue that moral truths are built into the structure of reality. Humans can use reason to discover what is good because God designed the world with a rational moral order. That feels close to Aristotle, just grounded in in a Christian framework. Morality isnt arbitrary here; its something we can reason our way toward.

Divine command theorists take a different approach. For them, moral rules are right because God commands them. That puts Gods authority front and center, but it also raises concerns for me. If something is good only because God wills it, then morality starts to feel less stable. This is where I keep thinking abut Euthyphro and its dilemma: does God command what is good, or is it good because God commands it?

What complicates all of this is the historical context. Medieval philosophers werent working in a safe or neutral environment. Straying too far from God-centered thinking could lead to serious consequences such as loss of status, imprisonment, torture, or worse. Knowing that makes me hesitant to say these debates were always pursued with complete freedom. Its possible that some arguments about Gods nature, Gods will, and morality were framed carefully; not to just solve philosophical problems, but to preserve ones life, reputation, or standing in society.

So while medieval ethics clearly builds on ancient philosophy and tries to address the Euthyphro Dilemma, Im not sure it fully escapes it. The solutions offered may reflect genuine insight, but may also reflect the boundaries of what could safely be said.

To what extent do you think medieval arguments about Gods word and moral authority were shaped, intentionally or not, by the need to protect the philosophers life, status, and ability to keep doing philosophy at all?

Have a great day.

There is a missing discussion to reply to i will update later.