'God and The Common Good Approach : Allowing Evil to Demonstrate Empathy\r'

'When one looks at the atrocities in the military personnel today and the example used by Johnson of the fair infant burned in a building, a plebeian reaction is empathy and sympathy. If Johnson insists on viewing deity as a mortal and asserting that a human being would non allow much(prenominal) atrocity, so it is useful to look at bettermentes taken by ethical, moral actors in the ground today. feel at the Common- technical approach, we may assert that in pitch for us to have qualities, such as empathy, compassion, and other(a) redeemable traits, we must have situations in our lives that perk up these qualities.Without pain and suffering, in that respect is no need for these autocratic traits, therefore, the argument that deity is not amend does not apply. His position is to ensure that men can vex close of their have excuse go forth. Johnson would argue this approach equates to allowing men to become sliminess on their own spare will, as well. But, this is the essence of free will and of the Common- soundly approach, we must be able to see both peachy and diabolic to decide how to best attain a society that can combat this inevitability of free will.Therefore, graven image can be looked at as human, then human approaches to ethics and the common good must be utilized, so on a lower floor the Common Good approach, idol is good. The Common Good approach essentially deals with an idea that individual good is equated and ensured with public good and that individual, honorable traits should be bundled out as a community in a healthy fashion. In this way, goodness, is not good if it is not sh ared.To apply this to counteract Johnson’s argument, it can be said, then, that in hallow to separate good to share it, we must also be able to recognize bad or â€Å"evil”, in order to know how to counter it in a world of free will. â€Å"Appeals to the common good urge us to view ourselves as members of the kindred community , reflecting on patient of questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society” (Velasquez, et al, 1996, 2).Johnson’s argument to this would be that just as there is an imagined god that promotes good in the actions of man in reference to free will, there could easily be an evil God that does the opposite. â€Å"For example, we could say that God is evil and that he allows free will so that we can freely do evil things, which would make us more rightfully evil than we would be if forced to perform evil acts” (Johnson, 1983, 88). This argument against free will does not preen Johnson’s insistence that we look at God as a human being.Just as societies and groups reach out to make communities better, there are groups, who conspire to do evil deeds and go against the common good. If God is only when human, then God can only hope that others will chose not to do evil with their free will. In conclusion, Johnson is flawed in smell at God as if God is human, then attaching inhuman traits or superhuman traits to action or inaction. If God is made of human qualities, then there will be flaws in even God’s own self and design.But, with the insistence of Johnson to shout God as human, then we can hardly look at ethical human approached to good and evil. We can be hopeful that with the Common Good approach that moral actors will do what is right with the idea that God would act in this same manner. References Johnson, B. C. â€Å"The Problem of God and Evil” in The unbelieving Debater’s Handbook. (1983). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. 99-108. reprint. Velasquez, M. , Andre, C. , Shanks, T, Meyer, S. J. & Meyer M. â€Å"Thinking ethically: A Framework for Moral Decision reservation” in Issues in Ethics (Winter, 1996). 2-5.\r\n'