Be sure to review the prior to participating in the discussions. You’ll want to review the provided rubric for each discussion prior to posting as well. If you need assistance working in the discussions, review this 2-minute video on .

We strive for academic integrity in all aspects of education, and you are expected to uphold these standards when creating and submitting your discussion. View the for more information on what that means at APUS.

Note the rubric full credit with peer replies: “The student substantively responds to peers/instructor with more than the minimum of two replies”

Ideally, you will submit at least 1 follow up post, if applicable. That is to acknowledge someone’s input on your post. EX: “Thanks for your reply, I agree/disagree with you about….” This is to try to build a conversation rather than just a series of comments.

It is also logistically impossible to have a discussion if we all rely on others to respond to our own posts. So, the best work will include:

1 initial post on the topic

2 replies to other people’s posts

1 follow up/acknowledgement to a comment (this can be shorter).

Discussion Prompt:

For this forum, choose one of the following topics to respond to for your initial post.

Topic A: Morality Without God?

• Watch the two videos by Stephen Darwall on God and Morality. He covers a lot of ground in these, so just pick out a point or two that he makes and present your interpretation of the ideas.
• Or, you may refer directly to Crash Course and/or the textbook and lesson material to give your impression of Divine Command Theory.

Topic B: Natural Law

• With reference to the videos and readings presented about Natural Law, present an argument for the notion that there is a natural law humans can follow to determine the right things to do in most cases or that such a law does not exist or is exaggerated.
• There is some discussion of medical ethics in the material tied to the Doctrine of Double Effect and you may consider these alternatively.

Please be sure to tie your responses directly to the material in the lesson, readings, and videos provided and cite them directly.

Peer Reply Guidance:

When replying to peers, focus on advancing the discussion by engaging with their ideas and providing strong evidence from the readings, videos, or research. For a contrary view, respectfully challenge or expand their points with examples or questions that deepen the conversation. For a different topic, connect it to your own, share new insights, or highlight overlaps to keep the discussion thoughtful and engaging. See the .

This discussion aligns with the following:

• Course Objective:

Rubrics

• RAMP LD Discussion Rubric v.5

reply to:

• Grant Farley posted Feb 10, 2026 7:01 PM
• Good afternoon class,
• I will be using Topic A for my discussion.
• Divine Command Theory, as Hank Green defined it in Crash Course, is that it is “the belief that what’s moral, and what’s immoral – is commanded by the divine.” This is a very popular view among many people today. It gives them the answers to morality because it comes from the mouth and direction of God, or the Divine.
• I found Hank’s thought bubble section posing the idea that God, or something appearing to be God, comes and essentially flips the Ten Commandments on its head and commands humankind to do those instead. As it is in connection with the first horn of the Euthyphro problem, which affirms that actions are right because God commands them. I found that hypothetical problem lacking, and this is most certainly due to the fact that I come from a Protestant background. Because of this, I grew up with the idea that God is unchanging (Hebrews 13:8). In the idea that God could not command evil without contradicting His essential goodness.
• Which is why I found William Lane Craig’s and Robert Adams’ answer to be a more fulfilling answer to the dilemma, showing “equivalence between our moral obligations and the commands of a loving God,” as discussed in the textbook. This answer, or Modified Divine Command Theory, avoids arbitrariness since it relies on the nature of God, rather than simply the commands themselves. Overall, this version of DCT offers a more coherent, as well as a theologically satisfying foundation for ethics.
• 0 Unread
• 0
• Unread
• 0 Replies
• 0
• Replies
• 1 Views
• 1
• Views

Week 2 Natural Law Discussion

• Contains unread posts
• Saben Schnebelt posted Feb 10, 2026 4:21 PM
• appy Tuesday Class hope you all are having a good start to your week.
• For this weeks discussion I chose to discuss Topic B:
• With reference to the videos and readings presented about Natural Law, present an argument for the notion that there is a natural law humans can follow to determine the right things to do in most cases or that such a law does not exist or is exaggerated.
• I read through the readings, and watched the videos multiple times and was able to pick up different points each new time. In my interpretation, Natural Law is an exaggeration and humans decide the implications they chose with no outside factors impacting the way we rationalize. The readings state that natural law, is the way humans live in order to achieve a good life. In the eyes of Aristotle, we are in charge of creating out own happiness during the life that we live, and it is not capable for everyone to attain. Based on this theory humans find ways to flourish through rationalization, and not outside factors.
• Aquinas Natural Law Theory, Aquinas argues that God has created all things with a final end, or ultimate goal, built into their nature. Aquinas adds, this process is guided by Gods intentions and purposes and, all human actions, when properly ordered, aim toward reunion with God. With the theory that God has created all things, and he guides all intentions, there is a major contradiction in the two theories. The rationalization under the Aquinas theory would be humans rationalizing in order to accomplish the intent of Gods plan.
• Aristotle believes that we rationalize through ourselves in order to achieve happiness with no outside factor, and Aquinas believes that we rationalize our activity based on the guidance of God. The theories contradict each other, as natural law cannot be both guided, and unguided.