Philosophy Essay Plans (Paper 3)
(1A) Augustine on human nature (4 plans)
Whether or not Augustine’s teaching on a historical Fall and
Original Sin is wrong
FOR- Augustine’s teachings on a historical fall are compelling and
cohesive
AUGUSTINE: free will to act given to Adam and Eve, and their
subsequent choice to consume the forbidden fruit from the Tree of
Knowledge, is the cause of evil (not God)
NIEBUHR: failure to understand sin leads to colossal mistakes being
made by society; not realising responsibility for sin causes greater
injustices and even more suffering
AGAINST- Augustine’s presentation of the Fall is crucially flawed
HITCHENS: moral lessons derived from stories like The Fall lack
credibility as they conform too closely with the kind of values favoured
by the ancient cultures that produced the texts
DAWKINS: absurd to say corruption of all humanity rests on the free
will of just two individuals, as less-sophisticated life forms could not
have made a decision to rebel
FOR- Augustine’s teachings on original sin are correct
ST PAUL: divided will explains why good people do bad things: rational
enough to know moral good, but weakened by desires so do the
opposite (‘paradoxical will’ in Romans)
FREUD: agrees that libido is central in development of psyche and we
are driven by selfish desires; sexual neurosis transmitted through
society (same concept as original sin)
AGAINST- Augustine’s view of original sin is deeply pessimistic
CONDEMNATION: postlapsarian human nature is utterly corrupt and
original sin is inescapable; only the elect are saved (new-born baby?)
which undermines Jesus’ sacrifice
EASTERN ORTHODOX: does not believe in the doctrine of original sin,
arguing that a son should not be responsible for the sins of his father
(based on Ezekiel in the Bible)
Whether or not Augustine is right that the Fall means that
humans can never be morally good
FOR- Augustine is right that the Fall prevents humans from achieving
moral good
AUGUSTINE: original sin is an ontological condition of human
existence, not just a description of some amoral behaviours; the nature
of man is fundamentally flawed
MCGRATH: analysis concludes that ‘for Augustine, humanity has no
control over its sinfulness’ since the Fall generated a hereditary disease
of eternal collective guilt
AGAINST- Augustine incorrectly discounts the goodness of human
nature
ROUSSEAU: humanity is inherently generous and only deviates from
this when situations and circumstances cause us to act otherwise, often
due to corrupt society and ideals
, JEWISH: Jewish interpretation of Genesis views the symbols of creation,
Fall, and redemption not as historical events but as hallmarks of each
person’s individual life
FOR- Augustine allows for human redemption through Jesus and God’s
grace
AUGUSTINE: concordia can be restored through God’s grace, as
expressed through the death of Jesus, which cleanses the original sin of
mankind (God = doctor of grace)
PRODIGAL SON: although we are broken and life is full of hopelessness
and failure, recognition of this weakness and repentance will elucidate
the reality of God’s love
AGAINST- Augustine’s redemption is selective and exclusivist
CONDEMNATION: postlapsarian human nature is utterly corrupt and
original sin is inescapable; only the elect are saved (new-born baby?)
which undermines Jesus’ sacrifice
EXCLUSIVIST: those unwilling to recognise the Judeo-Christian God’s
authority and undergo baptism are condemned to hell (would an
omnibenevolent God allow this torture?)
Whether or not Augustine’s view of human nature is pessimistic
or optimistic
FOR- Augustine has a too pessimistic view of postlapsarian human
nature
MCGRATH: analysis concludes that ‘for Augustine, humanity has no
control over its sinfulness’ since the Fall generated a hereditary disease
of eternal collective guilt
EASTERN ORTHODOX: does not believe in the doctrine of original sin,
arguing that a son should not be responsible for the sins of his father
(based on Ezekiel in the Bible)
AGAINST- Augustine’s view of human nature is justly pessimistic
HOBBES: humanity is selfish and brutish, the only thing that separates
us from animals is reason, which allows us to conquer our animalistic
nature to create fair societies
NIEBUHR: failure to understand sin leads to colossal mistakes being
made by society; reason and optimism are not sufficient to create just
societies (see global injustices)
FOR- the possibility of redemption through grace is optimistic
AUGUSTINE: concordia can be restored through God’s grace, as
expressed through the death of Jesus, which cleanses the original sin of
mankind (God = doctor of grace)
PRODIGAL SON: although we are broken and life is full of hopelessness
and failure, recognition of this weakness and repentance will elucidate
the reality of God’s love
AGAINST- Augustine’s version of grace is selective and exclusivist
CONDEMNATION: postlapsarian human nature is utterly corrupt and
original sin is inescapable; only the elect are saved (new-born baby?)
which undermines Jesus’ sacrifice
EXCLUSIVIST: those unwilling to recognise the Judeo-Christian God’s
authority and undergo baptism are condemned to hell (would an
, omnibenevolent God allow this torture?)
Whether or not there is a distinctive and universal human nature
FOR- there is a shared human nature as every person inherits original
sin
AUGUSTINE: original sin is an ontological condition of human
existence, not just a description of some amoral behaviours; the nature
of man is fundamentally flawed
PLATO/ARISTOTLE: all humans have weakness of will (akrasia), which
is a very similar concept to Augustine’s description of the will as ‘half-
wounded’ following the Fall
AGAINST- there may be a universal human nature, but it is not
Augustine’s version
KANT: humans may struggle to resist urges sometimes but we are
fundamentally good, and defined by the shared attribute of reason (not
original sin) which directs morality
PELAGIUS: humans have sufficient freewill to overcome personal sin
and people are not born with it: Adam’s sin harmed only him and we are
not all condemned to eternal sin
FOR- Augustine is not pessimistic, but realistically describes humanity
HOBBES: humanity is selfish and brutish, the only thing that separates
us from animals is reason, which allows us to conquer our animalistic
nature to create fair societies
NIEBUHR: failure to understand sin leads to colossal mistakes being
made by society; reason and optimism are not sufficient to create just
societies (see global injustices)
AGAINST- there is no distinctive or universal human nature
SARTRE: existence precedes essence: we have freedom to create our
own nature and destinies, which are not predetermined by nature,
environment, or genes (tabula rasa)
SKINNER: behaviourism argues that nature is the express result of
social conditioning; free will may be an illusion but every human differs
in how they are shaped by society
(1B) Death and the afterlife (5 plans)
Whether or not God’s judgement takes place immediately after
death or at the end of time
FOR- God’s judgement occurs at the end of time when parousia
transpires
JOHN: describes the mass-resurrection and judgement of all people
‘those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done
evil will rise to be condemned’
REVELATIONS: points to the recreation of ‘a new heaven and a new
earth’ in the state of Edenic perfection after humans are raised for the
final judgement (and 144,000 saved)
AGAINST- God’s judgement is personal and occurs at the moment of
death
LAZARUS: parable of rich man and Lazarus indicates that judgement is
immediate and prosecuted on the internal self of humans: judgement is
fair and irrespective of deeds
, JESUS: Jesus’ words on the cross in Luke’s gospel (‘today you will be
with me in paradise’) imply that judgement is immediate and tailored to
each person, potentially through Jesus
FOR- twofold judgement occurs both after death and at the end of
time
JESUS: the meaning of Jesus’ words on the cross depends on where the
punctuation is placed in translation; in the original Greek, it seems
ambiguous when judgement occurs
CATHOLIC: the severity of purgatory varies depending on the severity
of the sin (mortal or venial sin): personal judgement determines the
nature of purgatory before final judgement
AGAINST- God’s judgement is predestined and has always existed
CALVIN: double predestination states that since God is omniscient, he
knows how we are going to act and has designed our fates accordingly,
given his absolute sovereignty
HICK: hell is contradictory to an omnibenevolent God who emphasises
reconciliation, God’s goodness and love require all to achieve salvation,
so judgement is superfluous
Whether or not hell and heaven are eternal
FOR- heaven is an eternal state of pleasure and peacefulness
AQUINAS: beatific vision is an eternal, timeless moment of pure
happiness, where joyous, grounded knowledge of God would overcome
the uncertainty of faith in heaven
REVELATIONS: heaven is a physical place full of angels, which must be
eternal as it includes activities such as singing God’s praise or learning
about God, which take place in time
AGAINST- heaven cannot be eternal as this would cause it to lose all
significance
WILLIAMS: heaven would become boring if experienced eternally; once
EM has lived 300 years, she would not choose to live 300 more given the
futility of her existence
SMUTS: immortality would lead to a motivational collapse because it
would sap all significance: finite temporal existence is what gives
achievements and actions meaning
FOR- hell is an eternal state of punishment for the sins of the wicked
BIBLE: hell is eternal punishment (contrasting purgatory) where there
will be ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (Matthew) and a ‘lake of fire’
(Revelations) to punish the persistently evil
CATHOLIC: hell is ‘eternal separation from God’ for those who have
committed mortal sins without repenting and seeking God’s mercy, thus
it is the result of self-imposed free choice
AGAINST- eternal punishment in hell is not consistent with a
benevolent God
HICK: hell is contradictory to an omnibenevolent God who emphasises
reconciliation, God’s goodness and love require all to achieve salvation,
so hell can only ever be temporary
GREGORY OF NYSSA: hell is not inflicted by God and is not a
permanent state, as it will recede when the world is finally redeemed; it
(1A) Augustine on human nature (4 plans)
Whether or not Augustine’s teaching on a historical Fall and
Original Sin is wrong
FOR- Augustine’s teachings on a historical fall are compelling and
cohesive
AUGUSTINE: free will to act given to Adam and Eve, and their
subsequent choice to consume the forbidden fruit from the Tree of
Knowledge, is the cause of evil (not God)
NIEBUHR: failure to understand sin leads to colossal mistakes being
made by society; not realising responsibility for sin causes greater
injustices and even more suffering
AGAINST- Augustine’s presentation of the Fall is crucially flawed
HITCHENS: moral lessons derived from stories like The Fall lack
credibility as they conform too closely with the kind of values favoured
by the ancient cultures that produced the texts
DAWKINS: absurd to say corruption of all humanity rests on the free
will of just two individuals, as less-sophisticated life forms could not
have made a decision to rebel
FOR- Augustine’s teachings on original sin are correct
ST PAUL: divided will explains why good people do bad things: rational
enough to know moral good, but weakened by desires so do the
opposite (‘paradoxical will’ in Romans)
FREUD: agrees that libido is central in development of psyche and we
are driven by selfish desires; sexual neurosis transmitted through
society (same concept as original sin)
AGAINST- Augustine’s view of original sin is deeply pessimistic
CONDEMNATION: postlapsarian human nature is utterly corrupt and
original sin is inescapable; only the elect are saved (new-born baby?)
which undermines Jesus’ sacrifice
EASTERN ORTHODOX: does not believe in the doctrine of original sin,
arguing that a son should not be responsible for the sins of his father
(based on Ezekiel in the Bible)
Whether or not Augustine is right that the Fall means that
humans can never be morally good
FOR- Augustine is right that the Fall prevents humans from achieving
moral good
AUGUSTINE: original sin is an ontological condition of human
existence, not just a description of some amoral behaviours; the nature
of man is fundamentally flawed
MCGRATH: analysis concludes that ‘for Augustine, humanity has no
control over its sinfulness’ since the Fall generated a hereditary disease
of eternal collective guilt
AGAINST- Augustine incorrectly discounts the goodness of human
nature
ROUSSEAU: humanity is inherently generous and only deviates from
this when situations and circumstances cause us to act otherwise, often
due to corrupt society and ideals
, JEWISH: Jewish interpretation of Genesis views the symbols of creation,
Fall, and redemption not as historical events but as hallmarks of each
person’s individual life
FOR- Augustine allows for human redemption through Jesus and God’s
grace
AUGUSTINE: concordia can be restored through God’s grace, as
expressed through the death of Jesus, which cleanses the original sin of
mankind (God = doctor of grace)
PRODIGAL SON: although we are broken and life is full of hopelessness
and failure, recognition of this weakness and repentance will elucidate
the reality of God’s love
AGAINST- Augustine’s redemption is selective and exclusivist
CONDEMNATION: postlapsarian human nature is utterly corrupt and
original sin is inescapable; only the elect are saved (new-born baby?)
which undermines Jesus’ sacrifice
EXCLUSIVIST: those unwilling to recognise the Judeo-Christian God’s
authority and undergo baptism are condemned to hell (would an
omnibenevolent God allow this torture?)
Whether or not Augustine’s view of human nature is pessimistic
or optimistic
FOR- Augustine has a too pessimistic view of postlapsarian human
nature
MCGRATH: analysis concludes that ‘for Augustine, humanity has no
control over its sinfulness’ since the Fall generated a hereditary disease
of eternal collective guilt
EASTERN ORTHODOX: does not believe in the doctrine of original sin,
arguing that a son should not be responsible for the sins of his father
(based on Ezekiel in the Bible)
AGAINST- Augustine’s view of human nature is justly pessimistic
HOBBES: humanity is selfish and brutish, the only thing that separates
us from animals is reason, which allows us to conquer our animalistic
nature to create fair societies
NIEBUHR: failure to understand sin leads to colossal mistakes being
made by society; reason and optimism are not sufficient to create just
societies (see global injustices)
FOR- the possibility of redemption through grace is optimistic
AUGUSTINE: concordia can be restored through God’s grace, as
expressed through the death of Jesus, which cleanses the original sin of
mankind (God = doctor of grace)
PRODIGAL SON: although we are broken and life is full of hopelessness
and failure, recognition of this weakness and repentance will elucidate
the reality of God’s love
AGAINST- Augustine’s version of grace is selective and exclusivist
CONDEMNATION: postlapsarian human nature is utterly corrupt and
original sin is inescapable; only the elect are saved (new-born baby?)
which undermines Jesus’ sacrifice
EXCLUSIVIST: those unwilling to recognise the Judeo-Christian God’s
authority and undergo baptism are condemned to hell (would an
, omnibenevolent God allow this torture?)
Whether or not there is a distinctive and universal human nature
FOR- there is a shared human nature as every person inherits original
sin
AUGUSTINE: original sin is an ontological condition of human
existence, not just a description of some amoral behaviours; the nature
of man is fundamentally flawed
PLATO/ARISTOTLE: all humans have weakness of will (akrasia), which
is a very similar concept to Augustine’s description of the will as ‘half-
wounded’ following the Fall
AGAINST- there may be a universal human nature, but it is not
Augustine’s version
KANT: humans may struggle to resist urges sometimes but we are
fundamentally good, and defined by the shared attribute of reason (not
original sin) which directs morality
PELAGIUS: humans have sufficient freewill to overcome personal sin
and people are not born with it: Adam’s sin harmed only him and we are
not all condemned to eternal sin
FOR- Augustine is not pessimistic, but realistically describes humanity
HOBBES: humanity is selfish and brutish, the only thing that separates
us from animals is reason, which allows us to conquer our animalistic
nature to create fair societies
NIEBUHR: failure to understand sin leads to colossal mistakes being
made by society; reason and optimism are not sufficient to create just
societies (see global injustices)
AGAINST- there is no distinctive or universal human nature
SARTRE: existence precedes essence: we have freedom to create our
own nature and destinies, which are not predetermined by nature,
environment, or genes (tabula rasa)
SKINNER: behaviourism argues that nature is the express result of
social conditioning; free will may be an illusion but every human differs
in how they are shaped by society
(1B) Death and the afterlife (5 plans)
Whether or not God’s judgement takes place immediately after
death or at the end of time
FOR- God’s judgement occurs at the end of time when parousia
transpires
JOHN: describes the mass-resurrection and judgement of all people
‘those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done
evil will rise to be condemned’
REVELATIONS: points to the recreation of ‘a new heaven and a new
earth’ in the state of Edenic perfection after humans are raised for the
final judgement (and 144,000 saved)
AGAINST- God’s judgement is personal and occurs at the moment of
death
LAZARUS: parable of rich man and Lazarus indicates that judgement is
immediate and prosecuted on the internal self of humans: judgement is
fair and irrespective of deeds
, JESUS: Jesus’ words on the cross in Luke’s gospel (‘today you will be
with me in paradise’) imply that judgement is immediate and tailored to
each person, potentially through Jesus
FOR- twofold judgement occurs both after death and at the end of
time
JESUS: the meaning of Jesus’ words on the cross depends on where the
punctuation is placed in translation; in the original Greek, it seems
ambiguous when judgement occurs
CATHOLIC: the severity of purgatory varies depending on the severity
of the sin (mortal or venial sin): personal judgement determines the
nature of purgatory before final judgement
AGAINST- God’s judgement is predestined and has always existed
CALVIN: double predestination states that since God is omniscient, he
knows how we are going to act and has designed our fates accordingly,
given his absolute sovereignty
HICK: hell is contradictory to an omnibenevolent God who emphasises
reconciliation, God’s goodness and love require all to achieve salvation,
so judgement is superfluous
Whether or not hell and heaven are eternal
FOR- heaven is an eternal state of pleasure and peacefulness
AQUINAS: beatific vision is an eternal, timeless moment of pure
happiness, where joyous, grounded knowledge of God would overcome
the uncertainty of faith in heaven
REVELATIONS: heaven is a physical place full of angels, which must be
eternal as it includes activities such as singing God’s praise or learning
about God, which take place in time
AGAINST- heaven cannot be eternal as this would cause it to lose all
significance
WILLIAMS: heaven would become boring if experienced eternally; once
EM has lived 300 years, she would not choose to live 300 more given the
futility of her existence
SMUTS: immortality would lead to a motivational collapse because it
would sap all significance: finite temporal existence is what gives
achievements and actions meaning
FOR- hell is an eternal state of punishment for the sins of the wicked
BIBLE: hell is eternal punishment (contrasting purgatory) where there
will be ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (Matthew) and a ‘lake of fire’
(Revelations) to punish the persistently evil
CATHOLIC: hell is ‘eternal separation from God’ for those who have
committed mortal sins without repenting and seeking God’s mercy, thus
it is the result of self-imposed free choice
AGAINST- eternal punishment in hell is not consistent with a
benevolent God
HICK: hell is contradictory to an omnibenevolent God who emphasises
reconciliation, God’s goodness and love require all to achieve salvation,
so hell can only ever be temporary
GREGORY OF NYSSA: hell is not inflicted by God and is not a
permanent state, as it will recede when the world is finally redeemed; it
