Veritas - Spring 2019

VERITAS

Journal of Theology and Philosophy

Issue VII Spring 2019

Haberdashers’ Aske’s School for Girls

Contents Introduction

1

Business Ethics - An Oxymoron?

3

Essay from Old Haberdasher

19

Senior School

31

Middle School

49

Junior School

71

Open Submissions

91

Editorial Team

122

Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION Mr Raven It has been a great pleasure to be involved again with the publication of Veritas. I owe particular thanks to Mrs Opie, Head of Religion and Philosophy at Haberdashers’ Aske’s School for Girls, for agreeing to partner with us and encouraging entries from the Girls’ school. The journal is no doubt enhanced by our partnership and I look forward to seeing what shape Veritas will take as we continue to collaborate in years to come.

I also owe special thanks to the student-editing team, made up of skilled and enthusiastic editors across both schools. I will not name them all here, but they are mentioned at the back of this edition. Much credit to them for giving their time to publicising the journal and editing the competition entries.

Thanks also to the support of colleagues—particularly Mr Lawrence, Head of Theology and Philosophy, who has himself contributed to the journal—and of course all students who submitted entries. Reading many of the quality submissions has reminded me of the healthy status of our subject across both schools. I am therefore pleased that this journal reflects both the brilliant ability of our students and the great value of studying our wonderful subject.

1

Introduction You will find in this journal three essay competitions with submissions addressing fundamental questions related to the study of theology and philosophy.

Winners and runners-up have been chosen from a pool of students across both schools by our student editing team. Other works have been submitted as ‘open entries’—these include mainly academic essays and some creative pieces. Finally, we are pleased to include an undergraduate essay by Jonathan Stelzer, OH 2018 and current student of Divinity at the University of Cambridge.

The painting on the cover, by Joao Glama Stroberle, is called Allegory of the 1775 Earthquake. It portrays the immediate aftermath of the famous earthquake that destroyed almost two-thirds of Lisbon in 1775. This was a devastating event that caused people to question the role God plays in human affairs. If you study the painting closely, you will see that the artist is aware of this connection: angels appear holding swords (are they there to protect or to judge?), a lone figure kneels at the foot of a cross, and many people find safety behind a priest who stands with his arms outstretched.

This year, the Junior School essay competition required students to respond to the question if God exists why is there evil in the world? As you read their essays, look back and the picture and see if it holds any clues as to how some would choose to answer this ageold and hugely significant question.

2

Business Ethics—An Oxymoron?

2. BUSINESS ETHCS—AN OXYMORON? Mr Lawrence This essay was originally published in Dialogue, Journal of Religion and Philosophy Issue 51: November 2018.

The paper explores deontological and teleological approaches to decision making in the context of business ethics, featured on the A Level Theology and Philosophy courses. Through an exploration of contemporary issues, the paper applies Kantian ethics and utilitarianism to business ethics, considers whether or not the concept of corporate social responsibility is nothing more than ‘hypocritical window-dressing’ covering the greed of a business intent on making profits, and questions whether globalisation encourages or discourages the pursuit of good ethics as the foundation of good business.

Business Ethics “Stakeholders want companies to make a profit, but not at the expense of their staff and the wider community” (Brian Gosschalk, CEO, MORI, quoted in Financial Times).

3

Business Ethics—An Oxymoron?

While the raison d’être of businesses is to make money, it is increasingly common for organisations to integrate ethical values into their day-to-day practices.

Businesses do not have to ignore ethical standards to flourish and indeed some of the most successful profitmaking organisations manage to thrive financially at the same time as upholding core key values. The ethical dilemma for businesses is this: if a business’ key aim is to make money, is there a duty to do so in a moral way?

Despite being an historical approach to decision making, ethics is relatively new on the scene to businesses as we see an increased provision of corporate social responsibility initiatives and a global awareness of the impact of making wrong business decisions both on individuals and the wider communities in which businesses operate.

So, what is ‘Business ethics’? Business ethics is the study of business situations, activities, and decisions where issues of right and wrong are addressed. 1 This may be as simple as a company contracting with an environmentally friendly supplier or it may involve a business spending money on personnel specifically hired to ensure that ethical practices are integrated throughout a business and its policies. The application

A. Crane and D. Matten, Business Ethics: A European Perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2004, p. 8.

1

4

Business Ethics—An Oxymoron? of Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism to these decisions are fundamental to the study of Business ethics.

Kantianism From a deontological ethical perspective, Kant’s theory raises many questions for business decisions as it considers the goodness of an act in itself as opposed to the goodness of the act in accordance with its result or outcome. Kantian ethics is an absolute theory where a decision that goes against one duty is absolutely wrong regardless of circumstance. In a finance driven environment, making decisions based on this guidance becomes very tricky indeed, particularly when stakeholders have a primary aim of making money.

Stakeholders may have a focus on a business’ EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization) to evaluate performance and considering ethics will, for some, be a secondary consideration. A stakeholder is a third party to a business impacted by the work of an organisation, including customers, clients, shareholders and employees. In other words, anyone with an interest in or affected by a business.

‘Duty for duty’s sake’ can therefore be difficult in many business decisions where the financial drive behind a decision is so important. Whilst doing the right thing in business because it is the right thing to do makes sense, financially it may have the opposite effect and be detrimental to a company’s EBITDA. A duty to do the right thing compared with the outcome of a 5

Business Ethics—An Oxymoron? decision may be two very different elements to consider in a decision, yet the two go hand in hand. For Kant, only the good will is truly good. While Kant is interested in the will behind a decision, a critic would argue that for a business struggling to keep out of the red, the will and practicalities in running a business are two very opposite ends of the spectrum. Consider this scenario: Ethical dilemma Company X is in arrears for rent, bills and is just about managing to pay its employees at the end of each month. Its customers are not always the most reliable at paying invoices on time and the market is unstable with significant competition from competitors offering similar goods and services at lower rates.

One of the directors is contacted by a potential new customer with a prospective large order which would give the company financial stability for several months. The only catch is that the potential new customer has stipulated a condition that only male staff are to be placed on the account.

While this may be possible to arrange it is not something that the Director is happy 6

Business Ethics—An Oxymoron? with and may also have legal implications.

Nevertheless, this is a large customer that could really turn around the company’s financial standing.

Questions for discussion: 1. What are the ethical issues at stake in this scenario?

2. Set out the main influences that would impact the Director’s decision whether to accept the new customer’s order?

3. What would you say to the new customer if you were the Director?

4. What do you think most people would do in this situation?

5. How could the Director apply Kant’s moral teaching and categorical imperative in this scenario?

Utilitarianism A Utilitarian would no doubt respond differently to a Kantian ethicist in the above scenario. A Utilitarian decision based on teleology and relativism would seek to ensure that the result is the moral goodness through an application of the Principle of Utility. Applying Bentham’s hedonic calculus would be relatively straightforward in the above scenario through a consideration of the pleasure ascertained through the supply of goods and services to the new customer. For example, what would the impact be on the female colleagues who were not permitted to work for that 7

Business Ethics—An Oxymoron? client? How likely is it that the decision will result in pain for them knowing that they had been disregarded? In addition to any legal considerations the Director may have to consider, it would presumably not result in pleasure for these colleagues ostracised from the work (assuming it is a customer they would want to work for).

A. C. Grayling in ‘What is Good? The Search for the Best Way to Live’, questions who is to tell which pleasures are higher than others. Grayling explores Mill’s essay On Liberty, in which he concludes that ‘it is essential to the best life that everyone should be at liberty to develop those faculties, and to seek the pleasures that will reward their exercise’. Liberty is therefore integral in this decision-making process.

Mill’s argument that individual liberty is a fundamental right can be summed up in the following way: ‘The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forebear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right’.

8

Business Ethics—An Oxymoron?

Act utilitarianism considers the consequences of an action as essential in assessing whether an action is right or wrong. In contrast, rule utilitarianism requires compliance with the rules which would lead to the greatest happiness if followed by everybody.

Important questions to consider in this scenario would include: What rules should be followed? What are the possible consequences of the Director’s actions? Would rules applicable in this scenario be applied to everybody through workplace legislation? It may be easier for the Director to follow a rule utilitarian approach and of course the business would have best practice policies and procedures to adhere to. Act consequentialism would consider actions morally right or wrong as dependent on their consequences and nothing else. An act would be morally right if it maximised the good. However, this is a struggling business that would do well financially if the Director accepted the proposal.

Extension Task: Explore Robert Nozick’s “The Experience Machine” in Anarchy, State and Utopia. 2 Corporate Social Responsibility One way in which businesses attempt to adhere to good moral behaviour is through Corporate Social Responsibility (“CSR”). This is the practice that a business has ethical responsibilities in the work that it 2

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nozick-political/#Uto

9

Business Ethics—An Oxymoron? carries out together with an expectation of behaviour by the community in which it operates and beyond.

In October 2013, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said when speaking to business and faith leaders that any society that wants to call itself ethical in its finances ‘has to find a way in which it values human beings and cares for them right across the board in every part of the society, and not just within the M25’.

His speech referred to Matthew 20: 1 – 16, in which Jesus tells a story about an employer who behaves in a way that would ‘cause a riot today’. 3 The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard reveals an employer who pays workers the same amount for working shorter hours as workers who have been working all day; such business practice would be considered unethical today.

Often interpreted as a promise of eternal life in the presence of God for those who convert to follow Christ late in life, it is clear that Biblical writers were interested in the practice of labour and making right and wrong decisions accordingly. Business ethics is not merely a modern notion of how to behave; it is deeply rooted in scripture.

How does this apply to CSR then? CSR is selfregulated by a business so it decides to what extent it wants to engage in actions considered to be of social

3

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5167/archbis hops-speech-to-the-blueprint-for-better-business-conference

10

Business Ethics—An Oxymoron? good and to benefit the local and wider community.

CSR may be implemented within a business supply chain to ensure that suppliers adhere to similar values and codes of practice as their customers. In 2013 the United Kingdom witnessed a horse meat scandal in which food advertised as containing beef was contaminated by horse meat. Many Irish and British supermarkets, including Tesco terminated their relationship with certain suppliers as a result and went so far as placing full page adverts in national newspapers apologising for the contamination.

Analysts described the impact on Tesco as ‘a public relations blow’. 4 The most commonly practiced form of CSR is based on Archie Carroll who offers a variety of levels of responsibility within a pyramid suggesting that true responsibility involves the exercise of all four levels.

Carroll and Buchholtz (2000:35) offer the following definition: Corporate social responsibility encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic expectations placed on organizations by society at a given point in time.5

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21054688 A. Crane and D. Matten, Business Ethics: A European Perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2004, p. 43.

4 5

11

Business Ethics—An Oxymoron?

Philanthropic Responsibilities desired by society Ethical Responsibilities expected by society Legal Responsibilities required by society Economic Responsibilities required by society

It is these expectations that are crucial to a business’ decisions in every aspect of its operations. In 1970, the Nobel prize winner, Milton Friedman published an article titled ‘The social responsibility of a business is to increase its profits’ and ‘vigorously protested against the notion of social responsibilities for corporations’. 6 This was based on the view that only humans can be responsible for their actions, managers should act in the sole interests of shareholders and social problems belong to the state rather than corporations.

A. Crane and D. Matten, Business Ethics: A European Perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2004, p. 39.

6

12

Business Ethics—An Oxymoron?

Questions for discussion: 1. To what extent do you agree with Friedman?

2. In what circumstances would it be negligent to apply Friedman’s premises?

3. How would a Kantian ethicist respond to Friedman?

Whistle Blowing A whistle-blower is someone who raises concerns over wrongdoings in their workplace. Organisations will make available to their staff their Whistleblowing Policy which will outline the process for flagging a concern through their appropriate channels, either internally and/or externally.

What issues does whistle-blowing raise? To what extent is an employee obliged to act beyond the remit of their individual provision of services according to moral standards, professional codes, internal policies and expectations by members of the public?

Is there such thing as moral luck in the context of whistleblowing and should a whistle-blower’s motivations ever be taken into consideration? The impact of whistle-blowing on an individual and organisation can be substantial and involves the individual placing themselves in very vulnerable position.

At first glance, it may seem obvious that one would blow the whistle against wrong doing but there may be ramifications against them on a professional and 13

Business Ethics—An Oxymoron? personal level.

Their job security, professional reputation and trust by industry colleagues may be placed at risk. The retaliations against whistleblowers and the pressure placed on them to a large degree outweigh the obligations imposed on them because of a wrong doing by a colleague or colleagues.

The most crucial consideration for someone disclosing wrongdoing by their employer is that it will have an effect on their contract of employment. Ultimately the individual will be breaking the trust in the relationship and it will be the decision of the individual whether it is more important morally to abide by the contract of trust or to disclose wrongdoing.

If wrongdoing goes against the Principle of Utility and results in negative effects on people then arguably disclosure is one’s moral duty.

Questions that whistle-blowing raises: 1. Is it possible to blow the whistle and have a career afterwards?

2. What are the deontological and teleological approaches to whistle-blowing and how helpful are they to an employee raising a serious concern about a wrongdoing in their workplace?

3. Does the Principle of Utility provide a helpful method of professional moral decision-making when there is a whistle to be blown and a significant cause for concern to do so?

4. What impact does whistle-blowing have on the contract between employer and employee?

14

Business Ethics—An Oxymoron?

Extension Task: Research the Libor scandal or Ponzi schemes.

Work-life balance Estimates from the Labour Force Survey reveal that for May to July 2017 there were 1.46 million unemployed people not in work but seeking and available to work (Office for National Statistics). The antithesis to unemployed candidates desperately seeking job opportunities is the problem of the worklife balance and trying to establish one. As businesses become increasingly conscious of the need to penny pinch and spend their money wisely and in accordance with good ethics and business needs (i.e. to make a profit), establishing a healthy balance of free time and time spent working is a hot topic. Problems employees face of balancing work commitments with child-care for example or couples working to maintain a loving relationship with the burden of work on their time are very real problems people face. The worries of job security, reduction of skill and desire to climb the ranks often form a conflict for employees. Such problems for some have been deemed to be a ‘significant challenge for long-run economic and social sustainability’. 7 Work-life balance is a focus for individuals yet not necessarily employers. The issues around establishing A. Crane and D. Matten, Business Ethics: A European Perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2004, p. 260.

7

15

Business Ethics—An Oxymoron? a balance between work and personal life are gaining increased air time especially in German politics. It would be an interesting comparison to contrast working hours and public opinion between the United Kingdom and Germany.

Globalisation Globalisation is the notion of reaching beyond borders to a global market which has arisen through the development of technology, free movement of trade and movement of people throughout the world. The application of ethical theories to globalisation is endless as it raises questions such as the exploitation of labour, resources, impact on developing countries not forgetting the political concerns along the way.

What is the impact of a company acting for itself as opposed to the wider community for a Kantian ethicist? Is there good will involved in this practice and are people or nations being treated as means, not as ends? The bishops of New Zealand addressed this in 2015: 95. The natural environment is a collective good, the patrimony of all humanity and the responsibility of everyone. If we make something our own, it is only to administer it for the good of all. If we do not, we burden our consciences with the weight of having denied the existence of others. That is why 16

Business Ethics—An Oxymoron? the New Zealand bishops asked what the commandments ‘Thou shall not kill’ means when ‘twenty percent of the world’s population consumes resources at a rate that robs the poor nations and future generations of what they need to survive’.

Pope Francis: Laudato So’. 2015.

The effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union in 2019 will no doubt impact on globalisation and we wait to see the ramifications of this in March 2019 and beyond especially church teaching in respect of reaching beyond borders to a global market.

Conclusion Business ethics have gained momentum in recent years with significant funds invested in good business conduct. Are ethics integrated into business practices altruistically or through a fear of not adhering to current trends? It is unquestionably the outcome of business ethics that is fundamental to wider communities as global and local organisations impact on the socio-economic structures in which we live.

Questions for discussion 1. What moral values should a company uphold?

2. Why do you think ethic issues arise in relation to firms’ suppliers and competitors?

17

Business Ethics—An Oxymoron?

3. Do you think all business have a corporate social responsibility?

4. How are business decisions made in practice using ethical theories?

5. To what extent do these ethical theories fall within the boundaries of corporate legislation?

6. What individual and commercial influences are there on ethical decision-marking?

18

Theological Language and the Doctrine of God

3. THEOLOGICAL LANGUAGE AND THE DOCTRINE OF GOD Jonathan Stelzer, OH (Deputy School Captain 2017-18) and Divinity candidate at the University of Cambridge (St John’s College)

Fundamentally, theology is derived from two different Greek words: theos meaning God, and logos meaning ‘study of’. Therefore, the capability, or indeed as will be explored, the incapability to comment on God is a dilemma rooted deep within central theological discussion. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae 1: 34 highlights the dichotomy in the study of God: his 1 existence is necessary given he is the first uncaused cause yet, by virtue of his transcendental nature, he remains ineffable and therefore any comment about his nature is bound by the limits of human sensibility.

‘His’ carrying value as a pronoun rather than being suggestive of God’s gender.

1

19

Theological Language and the Doctrine of God Indeed, Aquinas explores the nature of God, or perhaps more accurately he describes exactly what God is not, with his categorisation of God as ‘simple’ being of paramount importance. In a theological or philosophical context ‘simple’ does not refer to the opposite of ‘complex’ or ‘advanced’ for example, but rather refers his inability to be synthesised into a more basic form both physically and conceptually.

Therefore, by this definition, simplicity must thus be seen as a correlate of divine transcendence- a notion which underpins the difficulty of speaking about God given human finiteness. ST 1: 3-4 within its exploration of Divine Simplicity, explain the characteristics of God using negation (e.g. he is incorporeal, indivisible) given to comment positively of God would assume an understanding of his nature- a task which is logically impossible. This essay will argue that whilst his existence may not be a matter of illusion, conversation about him must necessarily be, given human knowledge is orientated around the abstraction of generalities from particulars: it relies on the analysis of things into conceptual parts which is an inapplicable process to God. The difficulty of talking about God arises from his very nature. To talk about God would be to treat God as an object among others: God is transcendent and thus surpasses our conceptual categorisation illustrated by Aquinas’ description of God being ‘deus non est in 20

Theological Language and the Doctrine of God genere’ and ‘totaliter aliter’ (wholly otherwise).2 Therefore, this seems to vindicate the statement entirely: talk about God is an illusion insofar as it is restricted due to the limiting boundaries of human comprehension. However, this does not infringe on God’s existence given the inability to talk about him is more a testament to his transcendence rather than absence. And so, there is a key distinction between an inability to discuss the Divine, and his existence: they are not mutually exclusive. One particular faculty of God’s nature which seems to vindicate talk about God is an illusion is explored in Article 1 of Summa Theologica 1:3, entitled ‘is God a body composed of extended parts.’ Here, Aquinas demonstrates how God cannot be conceived in terms of having a body and therefore the inability to anthropomorphise him renders him inconceivable. Indeed, whilst scripture such as Job 11:8 attempts to humanise his wisdom‘God is higher than heaven’- such attempts at tangibility are erroneous. Aquinas states that ‘God is the greatest possible being’ 3 however given the human body is contingent and potential (e.g. it can live, and it can die), no body can be representative of God given his actuality and greatness juxtaposed against the body’s potentiality and fallibility.

Thus, Aquinas demonstrates how God cannot be a body. Therefore, Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 5 ‘can one distinguish in God genus and difference?’

3 Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 1 ‘is God a body composed of extended parts?’

2

21

Theological Language and the Doctrine of God this demonstrates how talk about God is an illusion, but his existence isn’t, because the lack of literal accuracy of Scripture in its description of God demonstrates how he exists beyond human comprehension due to his lack of objectivity. This idea of God’s nature and complexity rendering conversation mere illusion is furthered by Aquinas’ analysis that there exists no distinction between essence and existence. In potential things there exists a difference between essence and existence- suppose a fire: something can be on fire by participation, without itself being fire.4 For example a blank of wood can be on fire. Here the essence of the wood- on fire- is different to the existence of the wood, for the wood’s existence in not fire. However, if God’s essence is not existence like the plank of wood, then he owes his existence to something else, which supposes God is dependent on something else, in the same way the wood is dependent on the fire to be categorised as ‘on fire’. Given he is the first possible being and therefore it logically follows he is independent to anything else, his essence and existence must be identical- his essence is simply ‘to be’ (existence). This demonstrates talk about God in some sense must be an illusion because to think of God at all, we can’t help treating God as any object like any other, however Aquinas outlines how this methodology is fallacious given his

22

Theological Language and the Doctrine of God dissimilarity to abstract generalities (that which we are used to studying).

Nonetheless, it would be an oversimplification to gloss over the intricacies of ST 1 3-4 and jump immediately to the conclusion that due to God’s nature, everything must be an illusion. Whilst Aquinas convincingly demonstrates the questionability of a literal interpretation of scripture that attempts to anthropomorphise God, it is not completely devoid of usefulness so long as it is interpreted cautiously and correctly. For example, Aquinas cites the example of God assuming a posture in Isiah 6:1 when the ‘lord is sitting’ and famously Genesis 1:26’s proclamation ‘come let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.’ Whilst Aquinas immediately dismisses the literal accuracy of such a statement, scripture holds value in its use of bodily metaphors to convey truth about God. For example, ascribing a posture to God is metaphorically significant: sitting symbolises his authority and steadfastness and standing his might triumphing in the face of all opposition.5 Therefore, scripture uses ‘bodily extensions to symbolise the extent of God’s power’ and to ‘talk about God.’6 Hence, Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 4 ‘can one distinguish in God nature and existence?’

5 Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 1 ‘is God a body composed of extended parts?’

6 Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 1 ‘is God a body composed of extended parts?’

4

23

Theological Language and the Doctrine of God perhaps not everything said about God is an illusion given he may be understood through means of symbolism that act as a bridge to reconcile the problematic gap between the potentiality of humanity and actuality of God. To further elucidate this point, an example may be used: one may not be able to quantify their love for someone but to reconcile this, they may compare the extent of their love to the distance between the earth and the moon. In this very same way, metaphor can be used in talk about God: it does not claim literal and accurate value, rather it paints a generalised illustration despite the topic’s ineffability. Thus, whilst at face-value it appears that Wittgenstein’s infamous adage ‘whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent’7 is the best approach towards God, Aquinas’ analogical view of scripture explored in ST offers a solution to break the silence and comment meaningfully. And so, a key distinction ought to be made in relation to the question: whilst everything we say through a literal lens about God may be an illusion, this does not reduce a metaphorical approach to illusion given its symbolism helps in our inquiry of God. Whilst Aquinas dwells on the difficulty of talking about God, he also demonstrates how God must

Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921), W. Ostwald's Annalen der Naturphilosophie 7

24

Theological Language and the Doctrine of God necessarily exist8 and thus his existence is not an illusion. Indeed, science has launched vicious criticism on any notion of God given there is no direct evidence of his existence, for he cannot be observed, but also there is no indirect evidence of his existence: God is not needed to explain any phenomena. However, Aquinas’ ST 1-3:4 highlights the erroneous nature of such a line of argument. Aquinas’ God (‘wholly otherwise’ and therefore transcendent) must thus- by definition- be separate from the phenomenal nexus of cause and effect meaning he is not to be understood as an explanatory hypothesis. Therefore, the implications of Aquinas’ definition of God mean any scientific criticism of his existence is inapplicable for he exists in a realm that is separate and therefore immune to any scientific process. This conclusion defeats the argument that due to God’s unknowable and unspeakable nature, he is an illusion: indeed, there is a difference between the illusion of talking about God and his existence being an illusion: his inability to be examined by the limits of science is not a sign of his non-existence.

Under closer analysis of ST 1:3-4, to some extentalbeit ultimately unconvincingly- it could be argued that not everything we say about God is an illusion illustrated through invocation of apophaticism.

8Outlined

rigorously in Article 1 Question 3 through his infamous ‘five ways’ in which one can prove the existence of God.

25

Theological Language and the Doctrine of God Apophaticism, or via negativa, is hinged upon the fact that God is transcendent and so cannot be talked about by ascribing certain predicates to him, but it remains possible to talk about God through denying predicates.

This is evidenced in ST 1-3:4: for example, instead of outlining what God is, the divine attributes rather exist in an apophatic form- God is incorporeal (he has no body), God is immense (his nature cannot be fathomed) and God is simple (e.g. he has no parts), to name a few attributes that are expressed in this negative form. Therefore, through Aquinas’ outline of the characteristics that make conversation about God immensely difficult, he perhaps coincidentally provides a basis for meaningful conversation about God given it leads us one step closer in our inquiry of his nature (e.g. we know what he is not which is an advance on knowing nothing). This point can be illustrated through a novel example: whilst a detective may not be able to correctly identify and know the key suspect in a homicide murder (in the same way, humans cannot correctly identify and know God), the detective will deem the endeavour of eliminating potential suspects a useful task, given it leads the detective closer to the actual suspect through establishing who they cannot be. In this very same way, the language used in ST 1:3-4 could be seen to show how not everything we say about God is an illusion given the use of negation- like that used in 1:34- tells us exactly what God is not thereby leading us one step closer in our inquiry of his nature. Pseudo26

Theological Language and the Doctrine of God Dionysus found this approach attractive arguing that it is ‘through the negation and transcendence of all things’9 that one is able is able to talk about God in the most coherent fashion.

Nonetheless, scholars such as MacFarlane have identified fatal problems with this methodology, with its crippling weaknesses paying testament to the fact that any conversation about God is potentially illusion as the statement suggests. Indeed, in denying predicates one invariably begins to begin to sketch out a positive picture of God, which is impossible given the established acknowledgement of God’s transcendence.

He gives the example of how there are two methods of drawing a triangle outlined in Figure 1 and 210: the first is to simply draw a triangle directly, but the other way would be to fill the whole page with ink but leave a triangle shape clear of any ink. Critically, in both instances the outcome – despite a difference in methodology- is the same given both are left with a triangle. The same can be applied to negation to describe God. Ultimately one sketches a ‘positive’ picture of God: a task which is impossible given the simplicity and transcendence of God. Therefore, whilst Aquinas’ 1:3-4, at face-value, attempts to talk about God through describing what he is not, ultimately even

9

Pseudo-Dionysus, The Divine Names, Page 152 Authors own, inspired by Macfarlane’s example in his lectures.

10

27

Theological Language and the Doctrine of God this is an ‘illusion’ given it is associated with the same problems as directly and positively talking about God.

1

2

In conclusion, Summa Theologiae 1:3-4 acts as a testament to the sheer difficulty that conversation about God entails. Given the ‘simplicity’ Aquinas immediately ascribes to God, and the associated transcendent characteristics that follow, such conversation about God is bound to fail given it is subject to the limits of human understanding and comprehension. To reconcile this dilemma, Aquinas places a certain value on the metaphorical interpretation of scripture to begin to fathom God’s supremacy as well as using negation to establish what God is not. However, in Aquinas’ very description of God he demonstrates how talk must necessarily be an illusion: human knowledge is orientated around the abstraction of generalities form particulars therefore relying on the analysis of things into conceptual parts a process which cannot be applied to Aquinas’ ‘totaliter aliter’ (wholly otherwise) God. Importantly, the inability to talk accurately about God does not render his existence an illusion given it is more a testament 28

Theological Language and the Doctrine of God to his transcendence rather than absence illustrated

by Evelyn Underhill who comments ‘if God was small enough to be understood, he would not be great enough to be worshipped.’ Therefore, it is to a large extent that—in relation to Aquinas’ Summa Theologica 1:3-4— everything we say about God is an illusion, without God being an illusion himself, as the statement in question suggests.

29

30

Senior School

4. SENIOR SCHOOL Essays addressing the question Does Religion have a Positive Impact on Society?

Winner: Eli Tapnack (L6R1), studying A-Level Theology and A-Level Philosophy In the following essay I will be assessing whether religion has positive impact on modern society within the Abrahamic faiths, and will be led to conclude that yes, it indeed does.

Religion: the most valuable myth to ever to grace humanity.

Jeremy Bentham kick-started the modern way of thinking about what it means for an action to be good or bad. For Bentham, and many others who came after him, what matters to us as mankind is seeking happiness, as “we are governed by two sovereign masters; pain and pleasure*.� This is the utilitarian ideal. For followers of the principle of utility, the belief that pain and pleasure are the only two ends available to man is known, and therefore all actions we take

31

Senior School have the end to either maximise pleasure or minimise pain.

Although Bentham’s ideal of act utility is mostly disregarded in the philosophy of today, his overarching principle of aiming towards “the greatest happiness of the greatest number**” can almost certainly be said to define many of our day-to-day actions, whether it be conscious or not. J.S Mill, Bentham’s disciple, expertly proved the principle of utility, that happiness is the only good, by arguing in the following manner: The only way we can prove something to be desirable is if we desire it. Similarly, no reason can be given why happiness is desirable, other than the fact that we each desire our own; this is the most we can say factually in terms of happiness. Given what we have now established, Mill proves that happiness is a good to each person and therefore a good to the aggregate of all persons. He then takes his argument a step further by proving any desire we seek (truth, beauty, peace etc.) Inevitably arrive at happiness. Some desires lead to happiness (e.g. you desire beauty to then be happy with your looks) and other desires consist in being happy (e.g. knowing the truth for its own sake is part of their happiness). Therefore, we always desire happiness, as it is the only good, so it necessarily follows that one should only act to try and maximise it.

32

Senior School If Bentham’s theory was along the right lines, (which we may safely it is assume he is, at least according to Mill’s proof) for religion to have a positive impact on society (society being made up of people seeking happiness) it must produce general happiness as its telos.

Taking into account both Bentham and Mill’s teachings, I would reason that for happiness to be apparent in our world, peace is a predicate of the utmost necessity, and thus I will base my argument on the Abrahamic religion’s impact on society based on their ability to yield peace.

Many would argue that wealth is just as essential, if not more, but evidence turns it back on such a hypothesis. Take Syria, for example, the only significant oil producing country in the Eastern Mediterranean region, and the host to potential for large economic prosperity. Conversely, due to its political instability giving rise to civil war and lack of peace, it ranks 4th from bottom on the World Happiness Index (WHI). On the other hand, a country such as Burkina Faso, with one of the world’s lowest GDPs per capita at just $600 (far lower than even Syria’s GDP PC of $2058 (and that’s during war time)), ranks 30 places higher than Syria on the WHI. The trend is obvious throughout the WHI, with the most war-torn countries near the bottom (Ukraine, Sudan, Yemen etc.) and the Scandinavian countries that stay furthest away from conflict making up the entire top four, 33

Senior School despite not having the highest GDPs by any means.

There should be no debate on whether wealth matches peace on the level of importance in order to obtain happiness; the evidence is clear and concrete.

It is fairly indisputable that the majority of the world desires peace. The facts are etched into human culture, with formations of peacekeeping groups such as the United Nations being at the forefront of world politics.

The world, as a whole, longs for and is in dire need of peace; now more than ever - premise one.

What man is in need of he “makes his God,***” the celebrated idea of 19th century atheist philosopher, Ludwig Feuerbach. The idea is one that many atheists of today have run away with as an answer to why the theists invented themselves a supernatural being in the first place. Feuerbach’s answer is simple and compelling: the unattainable human desire towards perfection, evidence of which is rooted back to the earliest of philosophers, with much of Plato’s most accomplished work growing out of a desire for perfection that he could not find amongst our world, hence his invention of the Realm of the Forms. So, for centuries, man has looked to employ Godly powers to create supernatural alternatives to imperfection, yet the lack of any empirical evidence should cause the rational thinker to discard any such claim of a supernatural being, universe, or whatever else it may be, just as most modern thinkers have discarded Plato’s Realm. Based on the what we have already 34

Senior School established, the fact that man desires peace will therefore means he will make his God one of peace.

This is evidenced through our three relevant Holy Scriptures, which display an overarching image of a “God of peace.” (Romans 15:33) So, we build our God as one of peace - our second premise.

For the faithful 84%**** of the world God provides the inspiration on how to live. God is the mirror that believers gaze upon, the ‘perfect being’ that all should strive to replicate. After all, “God created mankind in his own image” (Gen 1:27). So, whether you believe that our desire for peace is a result of divine inheritance, or simply from trying to embody our designer-God’s characteristics, for the faithful (which accounts for the overwhelming majority) it surely arises from God and religion. Man is in need of peace, but does not know how to achieve it. By projecting it unto our idea of a ‘God,’ we are then able to parrot these attributes within ourselves, as if God exemplifies them, we must therefore manifest them in ourselves too. Religion compels us to duplicate God’s peace that we built for him: our final premise.

So, it may now be said that religion is a fabulous fiction that encourages the emergence of world peace through a Godly figure unto which we project our desires for peace, which we then attempt to emulate. Our conclusion must indeed then be that religion brings about peace, which stands as a predicate for happiness.

The fact that religion plays a sizeable role in producing 35

Senior School happiness leaves it self-evident that it is a positive force on modern society.

To further illustrate our example, we can use the teachings of 16th century political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes argued that mankind is by nature too selfish to establish any sort of benevolent community without an omnipotent sovereign residing over us from the top*****. A sovereign of authority such that his word be law, and power such that rebuff be a crime.

Such a sovereign is a role played by God throughout religion. God instructs all his subjects to laws as “The Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our King” (Isiah 33:22) and threatens “punishment of those who reject faith” (Surah Al-Buqara, 90) in order to keep his followers in a functional society. Just as Hobbes argued that a King was needed to reside over the people in his country to prevent civil war and communal breakdown, each God rules over the people in ‘his’ religion to keep them in check. Once again, this is not to say God exists (as Hobbes so firmly believed), but rather that he is the primary tool in ensuring human cohesion and maximising peace. Following the same line of argument as previously stated, we might once again conclude that due to providing opportunity for peace, religion has a positive impact on modern society.

Religion also plays the role of being the hope of the down and the humbler of the up. For those dealt with life’s weaker cards, struggling to feed, clothe and wash themselves and their families; religion provides hope.

36

Senior School Hope that someday, the loving God will reward them for their suffering. If not in this world, then in the next.

God is the shining light at the end of the tunnel, maintaining hope in those stuck in its crevices. With no hope there would be no reason to continue living, and so by providing it to men stuck at the unfortunate end of life with, religion is a force for good in the world, having a positive impact on modern society.

Religion is of equal benefit to those on the divergent side of life’s unforgiving scale, the fortunate, prosperous one, albeit in a slightly subtler manner. In cases of such, the role of religion is in keeping men of opulence grounded insofar as they understand a power above them allowed for all this to be possible, and created all human life equally. The impact this has on society as a whole is in creating a more relatable and kind community, with the likelihood of the rich acting with contempt towards the poor being reduced due to the humbling nature of religion. Great examples can be found within Judaism. The custom of eating unleavened bread on Passover is taught to teach the Jews modesty, and metaphorically teaches to avoid arrogance and boastful behaviour (represented by leavened bread), and to stay low from time to time.

Furthermore, an established interpretation of the Jewish custom of wearing a skullcap is that its purpose lies in metaphorically lowering one’s head, in recognition of a higher power above, in order to not

37

Senior School allow one’s ego to supersede the size of his place on earth (that place being equal to all others).

The screams of the opposition ring loudly in my ear, cursing my argument for failing to account for actions wherein religion brought about violence. What about ISIS, the crusades and tragic events alike? Even the holocaust would not have occurred were it not for religion! How can religion be justified as being a positive impact of society whilst horrific acts and mass genocides have been carried out on its behalf?

The question is valid, as is the response. Firstly, we may discard the crusades and any other religious acts of violence in the distant past as we are arguing for religious impact on modern society. The cultural norms of mankind in biblical and ancient times are so far from what we experience today that it cannot be used in evidence for modern religious impact.

Secondly, in modern examples, we must look more closely at the wording of the argument regarding religious association with violence. It is not religion being the cause of violence, rather the excuse. Those who turn to manipulating religion in order to satisfy their evil inner-cravings are not religious representatives, and the rational religious man would class them as anything but faithful. Agnatology (culturally induced ignorance) leading to violent acts is the fault of no religion, but of man himself. The desire for evil has always been present and would always 38

Senior School have been brought into fruition; it is just often the case that religion is used as the excuse. If religion didn’t exist, the excuse would be found elsewhere (in race, creed or culture). Arguing that no religion would have meant no holocaust is a very basic approach to the subject, it simply would have been a different holocaust. Hitler’s campaign strategy was always going to be based around the scapegoating of a particular group or community. This was his way of making the ‘true Germans’ feel better about themselves, thus gaining their vote as they associate their newfound self-value with Hitler’s rule. Had religion not existed, and Hitler could not have picked on Jews, it simply would have been the blacks, or the gays, or the disabled and so on. Violence is never intrinsically religious; it just occasionally relies on religion as its extrinsic excuse.

Given all that has already been established, the fact that those of extreme ‘religious’ beliefs account for such a minority of religious believers deems it palpable that religion in its entirety has a positive impact on modern society. As with all rules, there will be exceptions, and there will be cases spread far and wide where religion may provide a somewhat negative impact on a local scale but is the exception that makes the rule. The religious myth of today is a positive one.

39

Senior School Sources * The Principle of Utility, Jeremy Bentham, Ch1 **Extracts from Bentham's Commonplace Book, Jeremy Bentham, in Collected Works, x, p. 142; *** Lectures on the essence of Religion, Ludwig Feuerbach, 21st Lecture ****https://www.agethesage.org/mysticism/world_re ligions_populations.html *****Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes, Of Commonwealth

40

Senior School

Runner-up: Jed Wagman (L6C2), studying A-Level Theology and A-Level Philosophy In today’s society, at first glance it can certainly look like religion doesn’t have a positive impact with the large amounts of religion-based terrorism and crime.

Whether this is people being physically affected or just emotionally affected by the abuse or hate they get due to their religion, it can be very clear as to why one might say religion has a negative impact on modern society. But religion does have many positives. Many people feel that by believing in a God and dedicating their entire life to one, it allows them to be better people. In this essay I shall be discussing why it might not be the case that religion has a negative impact on society.

One way in which religion could have a positive impact on people is through charity. There are many religious charities out there such as Christian Aid and The Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (CAFOD) that aim to stop poverty and to improve people’s lives.

Charity manages to achieve two very good things.

Firstly, it improves the quality of life for many people and secondly, through giving to charity it helps us become better people. With regards to the former, these religious charities all aim to improve some aspect of life whether that’s living in poverty or something else and these charities are making a big difference to 41

Senior School the world and this has a positive impact on modern society as so many people’s lives have been transformed for the better thanks to charity. People giving to charity also has positive impact on society due to the fact that the people giving are making themselves better people in the process. By giving and choosing to help others it is making people better as they are developing qualities such as compassion and kindness which are crucial to being a good person. And so religious charities have a very positive impact on society to both the people receiving the aid and to the people giving.

Another positive impact that religion can have is through the people it connects you with. If you go to your local church or synagogue or temple every week you will meet people similar to you. The similarities could just be that you have the same beliefs about God or you could find a deeper connection with these people and you may really strike up a bond with them.

Through religion, you can meet so many interesting people that you might not have met otherwise. As well as this, by connecting with these people you will become part of a community. You will become part of something so much greater than yourself. This is something so much more powerful than many other social aspects. By being in a religious group or community, hopefully it can help you to be a happier person and enjoy life more. Many religious believers, particularly those of religions that believe in the 42

Senior School afterlife, tend to be happier than non-religious people as they often believe in rewards through devotion to religion. By being part of a religious group or community, it will have a positive impact on your life as you will find yourself feeling happier as you will meet new people and become part of a strong community.

Another way in which religion can have a positive impact on modern society is through the introduction of street pastors in cities and towns in 2003. These street pastors patrol the street at night and they help people in practical ways such as handing out flip flops and blankets outside night clubs. This is increasingly beneficial in the modern day as people are often going out more frequently or drinking more and so these street pastors are very good as it means there is someone there to look after this people if they need help. These street pastors aren’t there to try and convert you and they won’t talk to you about religion unless you bring it up, so they really are there just out of the goodness of their hearts as they believe it is the right thing to do.

Religion also has other positive impacts on society as it provides people with someone to talk to if they need to speak to someone. In modern society, awareness about mental health issues are getting bigger and bigger and so religious figures are perfect people to talk to about your problems. Currently 1 in 4 people in the UK suffer from mental health problems every year 43

Senior School but this can be combatted by talking to someone. If you don’t want to talk to any of your close family or friends about an issue regarding mental health, or any other issue for that matter, most religious figures- be it a rabbi or a priest or an imam- would be happy to speak to you and to help you, whatever religion you are. This shows how religion can have such a positive effect on people as religious leaders and figures are very often very kind-hearted people who would be happy to help you or even just listen to you, even if you are not of their faith. They just want to help others and to make the world a better place.

Religion, however, can have negative effects on society too as it can lead to social hierarchy and sexism. Many religions say that men are more important than women. For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:34 it says “women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak”. Whilst most churches nowadays probably don’t feel bound by this one verse and do let women speak in the church, it still can lead to divide and conflict within or between religious communities.

In today’s society political correctness is taking over and everyone has to be very careful about what they say. But religious texts were written before all of this and so many people will get offended by them. Another example of this is in Leviticus 20:13 as it says, “if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death”. Whilst, again, people may not agree with 44

Senior School and follow every word from the holy texts, this still can cause conflict. Many people may feel offended by a certain religion and so may have a prejudice against followers of that religion. This is bad as you may have a prejudice against people of a certain religion even though they themselves have done nothing wrong, yet you still have a disliking towards them.

Religion can also have a negative impact on society as it can cause many people to live their lives in fear. This is due to sin. Some religions are based around the idea of sin and that if people don’t cleanse themselves of it by the time they die, they will be sent to hell by God and experience everlasting suffering. As I’m sure you can agree, this doesn’t sound too appealing and so many religious believers, for fear of being sent to hell or somewhere similar, will spend their whole life not doing certain things and trying to avoid sin. If you believed you were constantly being watched by an allknowing, all-powerful God you would find yourself living in fear with your mind constantly filled with anxiety and worry that you will be sent to hell for eternity. This can severely affect people’s lives as sometimes it can cause people to become psychotic or neurotic. Having people living their lives in fear of God is not right and it all comes through religion. If people didn’t believe in an omniscient God, they would live their lives freely without worrying about sin and so religion can be bad for society through the effects it can have on people.

45

Senior School Another negative impact that religion has on society is through discrimination and conflicts. Religion has been the cause of many injuries and deaths in recent years. Very recently we can see an example of this in the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. The gunman reportedly said that he wanted “all Jews to die”. Eleven people went to their local synagogue one Saturday morning to pray and connect with God, but they never came home because one man didn’t like their religion.

Religion clearly can’t be good for society if it is causing deaths purely due to people’s religions. Another example is the Holocaust. Over six million Jews died because they were Jewish. People are being killed very frequently in modern society because of their religion and this just isn’t right. It’s a horrible thing to do to someone especially if the only reason you are doing it is because you disagree with some of their views.

People should be able to co-exist with many other religions existing around them. Religion should not result in violence, but it clearly does. This religious violence is clearly bad for society and it doesn’t look like it’s going to stop any time soon which is very bad for modern society.

But in these examples above regarding violence, it is not actually the religions themselves causing the violence. It is the few people who have problems with other religions that causes the problems and the negative impact on society. If people learned to accept other people’s religions, then this violence would 46

Senior School hopefully cease to exist. And so, it’s not necessarily the religions themselves that cause the violence but the bad people who can’t accept and tolerate other people’s beliefs and views.

And so overall, whilst religion does have many negative impacts on society, it does have a host of positive impacts as well. And even if the positives don’t necessarily outweigh the negatives, there are still lots of positives that people often forget about that do help make the world a better place and do have a positive impact on society.

47

48

Middle School

5. MIDDLE SCHOOL

Essays addressing the question to what extent should scripture be the basis for religious belief?

[NB runners-up are listed in no particular order]

Winner: John Hillan (9R1) From the point of view of a Christian, scripture, as collected in the Bible, is the divinely inspired Word of God. That scripture is at the heart of Christian practice is fairly clear. Examples include prayers such as the Lord’s Prayer (Mat. 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4), meditation on scripture such as Lectio Divina and the basic principles of Christian life set out in the ten commandments (Ex. 20:1–17 and Deut. 5:4–21) and the beatitudes (Mat. 5:3–12). However, to explain why this should be the case requires several questions to be answered.

The first question to answer is what “scripture” is, as there are some disagreements between Christians over which texts constitute inspired scripture. For example, 49

Middle School the Catholic Church recognises as canonical seven Old Testament books that are not recognised by most Protestant churches. The Catholic Church view the disputed texts as consistent with the overall message of the New Testament and approved them as divinely inspired scripture in church councils as early as 393 C.E. In contrast, the Protestant reformer Martin Luther was one of the first to create a biblical canon that left out these seven books. He did so because he felt that they contradicted the message of parts of the New Testament and therefore could not be of divine origin.

Further issues arise in relation to how meaning should be extracted from scripture. The Bible in itself is simply a collection of books and, like all literature, becomes a “dead letter” without interpretation.

Scripture is traditionally interpreted by analysing four senses, also known as the Quadriga: literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical. Some scripture, the Gospels for example, is written in a literal sense, which is to be taken at face value even though it may have additional layered spiritual meanings. Many Old Testament events can be viewed allegorically, for example as predictors of the life of Christ. Another sense of scripture is the moral sense, which provides moral guidance. As St. Paul says of the Exodus, “These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.” (1 Cor. 10:1). Lastly, 50

Middle School the anagogical sense involves interpreting Biblical events as alluding to aspects of the afterlife. Applying these methods allows Christians to gain a much deeper understanding of the true meaning of scripture and deepens their faith.

When using these methods of interpretation, account must also be taken of the historical events and cultural practices which affected the author and the situations written about. Some knowledge of the historical Holy Land is very useful for understanding the context of scripture and interpretations made in ignorance of these factors risks error.

However, the overarching key to use of scripture is that it must be interpreted in the light of the Holy Spirit. Again, there are differences between churches as to how this is achieved. For example, there are differing views as to who has the right to authoritatively interpret scripture and on the status of tradition. Prior to the Reformation, the main Christian denomination in Europe was the Catholic Church. The view of the Catholic Church was and is that the teaching authority of the apostles was handed on to bishops of the church via apostolic succession and continues to be vested in them to the present day. Only bishops possess this authority. This belief was first articulated by St. Irenaeus in his Adversus Haereses c.180 (3.3.1). According to him, the unity of bishops in geographically distant early churches, where physical 51

Middle School separation severely hindered communication, proved that the individual bishops and their scriptural interpretations were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Through this apostolic succession, teachings have been preserved and transmitted from Jesus Christ to the present day. The Catholic Church teaches that authoritative interpretation is therefore reserved to it, more specifically to bishops in communion with the Pope, the spiritual successor of St. Peter and head of the church on the basis of Mt. 16:18.

This teaching authority (the “Magisterium”) has resulted in some teachings which are not specifically mentioned in the Bible. Examples of this include the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, inferred from her freedom from original sin (Catechism of the Catholic Church #966) and Purgatory, inferred from prayer for the dead in 2 Maccabees, a book of the Bible not recognised by most Protestant churches. Because the doctrines are not specifically mentioned via scripture, they could be viewed as “non-Biblical”.

However, in developing such doctrines, the Catholic Church sees itself as being guided by the Holy Spirit in its interpretation of scripture.

A very different view of authoritative scriptural interpretation is presented by Protestantism.

Protestant teaching on interpretation is based on the doctrine of sola scriptura. The basic definition of this is that scripture is the only infallible, self-authenticating source of belief. Several implications arise from this.

52

Middle School The principle does not teach a simplistic approach to the Bible, but rejects any other infallible teaching authority, including the teachings of any particular church, or private revelations such as visions. It leaves the role of interpretation to each Christian, trusting the Holy Spirit to reveal its meaning to each individual, provided that those individuals are rational and reasonably knowledgeable. This methodology tends to produce more varied interpretations of scripture and is reflected in the large number of different and distinct Protestant denominations.

In conclusion, I see the place of scripture at the heart of Christian belief and practice as justified and essential. However, opinion varies as to exactly what constitutes scripture, how the message of scripture should be derived and the role of authority in deriving its meaning. While, as a Catholic, I am content with the concept of a central authority being used in the interpretation of scripture to guide members of the church and develop doctrines, members of other denominations insist that all Christians are equally responsible for authoritatively interpreting how scripture should form the basis for their religious belief.

53

Middle School

Runner-up: Anisha Malhan (M5 Aske) In the twenty first century, there are two major branches of religion; the Abrahamic religions and the Hindu based religions. The three main monotheistic Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam constantly debate on which one of them represents the true word of God. The three main Hindu based religions are Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism which are more philosophical in nature and more accepting of differing interpretations of ‘God’. I contend that although the sacred scripture represents religious belief, this should be open to interpretation with the advent of science, which challenge them.

Abrahamic religions, by basing all their religious ideas on written scriptures, has numerous contradictions over who wrote it and when, with internal and external conflict over which scripture was truly written, or guided, by God. Whilst there are scriptures passed through oral dictation, the written Jewish scriptures believe that God dictated the Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai to show how God wants Jews to live. It contains hundreds of commandments and Jews refer to the ten best known of these as the ten statements. However, while Christianity is similar, they believe in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, written by Christians in the First Century AD, as their holy scriptures. In Islam, they believe The Qur’an, revealed over twenty-three years to the Prophet Muhammad as the sacred word of God, was intended to correct any 54

Middle School errors in the Old and New Testaments. Not only do the Abrahamic religions contradict each other, but sections within each religion do so too, with Catholics and Protestants having distinct views on the meaning and the authority of the Bible. Protestants believe in the ‘sola scriptura' or ‘five solas’ that arose from the Protestant Reformation of Luther who wanted the exclusivity of the Bible with the priests to be given to all believers instead. Catholics reject the doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’ with followers believing both the Bible and the sacred Roman Catholic traditions, such as purgatory or praying to the Saints, although this has little or no basis in Scripture. In Judaism, the main difference between Orthodox and Reform Jews is the approach to the Torah and its implications. The Orthodox approach is devolved to rabbis, descendants of the Pharisees, who probably began teaching during the Babylonian Exile. The authentic understanding of the Torah is encapsulated in the ‘halachah’; the law.

They believe that God is the lawgiver whose literal words must be obeyed whereas, for Reform Jews, the Torah is the God-inspired attempt to understand their surroundings and their relationship with God. Similarly, in the two main branches of Islam; Sunni and Shia, they worship the same holy book but differ in beliefs and interpretations from the Qur’an as Sunnis follow only Muhammad (pbuh), but Shias follow Muhammad and his extended family (Ahlul Bait).

55

Middle School Hindu based religions do not appear to have this issue, as they are lot more accepting of each other and are willing to welcome ideas like science and opposing views and interpretations. They believe and accept that every path leads to the Divine, with the aim of reaching ‘Nirvana’ or enlightenment. A Hindu monk, Swami Vivekananda, gave a speech in 1893 at the World Congress of Religions with this clear differentiation; “I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal toleration but we accept all religions as true.”

Similarly, a Buddhist monk called Ajahn Chah said ‘All religions are like different cars all moving in the same direction.’ This mirrors the Dalai Lama who believes that all religions are the same as they strive to achieve permanent human happiness. Sikhs believe that there is only one God but that this is the God of all religions. No single religion can claim to be the only true way to Waheguru, or the Divine light. Hindu based religions have a more philosophical view to God as they are dictated orally, before being eventually written down. Vedic scriptures, such as the Rig Veda were orally dictated through the generations.

Likewise, Buddha's teaching, orally conveyed over forty-five years, adapted the teaching to suit the group he was addressing; therefore, there is duplication in the texts. The monks memorised the teachings, and there were group recitations at festivals and special occasions. The teachings were rehearsed and 56

Middle School authenticated at the First Council, and were handed down from generation to generation accurately by means of these group recitations. The oral tradition continues to this day, with the Sikhs orally reciting the stories of miracles and legends of Sikh Gurus. As a result of this, the stories and teachings were not rigid, and were open to interpretation for many years before the teachings were eventually written down, creating more fluid religions.

Another difference to look at is the moral codes of the two major branches of religion. In Abrahamic religions, there is a distinct idea of heaven and hell, with only one chance on earth. In Christianity, they refer to it as ‘heaven’, ‘purgatory’ or ‘hell’. In Judaism, they call hell 'Sheol'; a region ‘dark and deep,’ ‘the Pit,' and ‘the Land of Forgetfulness,’ where human beings descend to after death. In Islam, they believe in a place called ‘Jahannam’, which is an afterlife place of punishment for evildoers and in paradise, ‘Jannah’, which is their form of heaven. In order to reach these places, the believers must do something very specific or lose the chance of going to heaven. In Christianity, on Judgment Day, God weighs up your good and bad deeds. In Judaism, they believe that you can get to heaven by doing good deeds or ‘mitzvahs’, and by praying whereas failure results in Sheol, which is their type of hell. In Islam, you will also reach paradise through good deeds, prayers, as well as the ‘5 pillars’, to show you are living a responsible life as a Muslim.

57

Middle School By having such strict rules dictated to by their respective scriptures, it provides only one path to ‘heaven’.

Hindu based religions with its divergent views believe in reincarnation, not heaven and hell. Instead of just having one life, they believe in a cycle, which consists of births, deaths, and rebirth, called Samsara as well as Karma or 'intentional action' which determines the atman’s, or the soul’s rebirth: ‘Just as a man discards worn out clothes and puts on new clothes, the soul discards worn out bodies and wears new ones.’

Bhagavad Gita (2.22). They believe that living life according to the teachings in the scriptures will eventually lead to ‘nirvana’, thereby breaking the cycle. Buddhists believe in the same idea, however, they believe in energy, not souls. The Buddhist scripture of Dhammapada has Buddha stating ‘Long is the cycle of birth and death to the fool who does not know the true path.’ Likewise, Sikhs believers say that the Waheguru lives inside everyone like a ‘reflection in a mirror or fragrance within a flower’. Through a long series of reincarnations, they will be purified and be able to return to Waheguru. According to their main source of authority, the Guru Granth Sahib, meditation is the way to reach nirvana; ‘Those who meditate on God attain liberation. For them, the cycle of birth and death has been completed.’ These Hindu based religions also believe in ‘Dharma’, or moral behaviour such as honesty and servitude in order to be 58

Middle School a good citizen which fulfils the highest purpose on earth. In Buddhism, the word ‘Dharma' represents the teachings of the Buddha, such as The Four Noble Truths. For Sikhs, the word ‘Dharm’ means the path of righteousness and proper religious practice. In the Guru Granth Sahib, in Hymn 1353, it suggests that dharma means duty. These flexible ideas are acceptable as long as it does not involve hurting others.

Everything has a karmic consequence of cause and effect, which is more scientifically feasible than the idea of heaven and hell. It caters more to the Dharmic behaviour, which focusses on serving society rather than the individual, albeit misused by priest and rulers with the introduction of the Caste system.

In conclusion, having evaluated and compared the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions and the Hindu based religions, it is clear that Abrahamic religions have a dogmatic; some may call ‘archaic’ view of the correct behaviour to attain enlightenment. Hindu based religions evolved orally through philosophical discussions and guidance, which to this day, continues to change in order to meet the needs of a fluid society of differing viewpoints from science and globalisation.

The strict rules of behaviour that were apt in medieval times may not be relevant to the educated, global societies in our current world that is continually challenging the scriptures. The sacred scriptures should be the ‘springboard’ for discussion around religious beliefs and behaviour rather than 59

Middle School constrictive rules based on rigid guidance for a modern society with all its complexities. The scriptures, like society, has to continually evolve to stay relevant for the modern generation.

Runner-up: Nikhil Baid (11C2) Before delving into the question at hand we have to first define a religious belief. Start by defining religion and though it has a multitude of definitions, generally speaking, it is a collection of beliefs, values and practices that a group holds to be true and sacred.

Additionally, to believe in an ideology is to accept it is true. Hence, to have a religious belief is not necessarily the same as to follow a religion as it is distinct from the act of practicing and behaving in a certain way dependent on a religious basis. On the contrary, religious belief often relate to things such as existence, divine intervention in human life or deontological explanations for values and practices sometimes centred on a spiritual leader. Religions tend to differ in terms of what parts are defined by scripture, how scripture is represented and whether there are many interpretations or contradictory beliefs within a set of scriptures in a religion. This makes the topic quite convoluted and sometimes misinterpreted as scripture can vary hugely on what it represents so I will break it down by discussing different religions and scriptures.

60

Middle School Many may argue that scripture cannot be the basis of religious belief as it is direct and dated in the sense religions have become modernised in a way in which people do not completely follow scripture word to word.

For example, in Christianity there is a line in Leviticus (20:13): “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination, they shall surely be put to death.” This statement, when initially read, puts Christianity in a light that would be seen as unethical in the modern world so many Christians would claim it is absurd and would claim to not follow that part of scripture as our society looks down upon prejudice. Hence, people come to the conclusion that we cannot use scripture as our basis for religious belief. Moreover, this idea is often followed by certain Christians as some believe male and female are made for each other and it is natural. However, this argument is not compatible with the modern world as another Christian could argue ‘God made us to be naked so why is it wearing clothing the norm’ and we obviously do wear clothing to allow us to stay warm in the earth’s environment- it is beneficial to society. This works the same with homosexuality as it allows for a more open and free society where people are respected but it is also compatible with one of the most famous quotes from Mathew (22: 36-40) where it says ‘love thy neighbour’ which essentially means to respect others and regarding their needs and wants as highly as your own. Essentially the quote shows how two parts of Christianity’s scripture may contradict as by 61

Middle School respecting others you respect their sexuality as it is a part of them. It is evident that from this example scripture is often confusing and religious belief should inherently not be based on scripture but should be from the true beliefs of the individual and their interpretations of chosen texts. In addition, many religions do have different sections and many will have diverging opinions on scripture and whether to follow certain ones so even though we genralise religions it is often the case that many individual ones will have a plethora of beliefs that contradict each other so scripture can often be a weak base for belief but they are all dependent of interpretations of certain text. The reason for the importance of having different scripture is based on an individual’s interpretation and view on religion and we have fundamentally read and understand scripture using our own intellectual capability but often in religion we believe in things that are far beyond us in terms of understanding and intellect so there is no one person that can claim the definite meaning of sacred scriptures, even if it seems literal, especially when many are believed to be the words of God. This shows how we cannot disregard others’ interpretations on texts as we, ourselves, can never be certain on meaning of text, even if true, because they are far more complex than our understanding goes to and we just have to try live life the best we think we can. This is why different interpretations can lead to different opinions on texts and allowing people to know form their own religious 62

Middle School beliefs, even the fundamental basis are all off interpretations of texts. For example, in Islam the Quran has a number of teachings but even more ways to interpret certain belief and it literally states only God knows its true meaning showing how humans can never have one certain understanding of it. This illustrates how although scripture may seem to be morally wrong we cannot completely disregard it as the basis of out belief as we have the option to believe the parts we want to and interpret them in the most subjectively logical way.

There are examples of religions with a variety of texts of different opinions and ways of interpreting them so scripture can be the basis of peoples belief as it can change from person to person. Scripture also gives clear guidance to certain values someone can hold. In Hinduism you have the Vedas which are some of the main and fundamental standings of the religion however within these you can base your belief dependent on your own interpretation. For example, the Bhagavad Gita, the world’s longest poem, is essentially a story and dialogue between prince Arjuna and Krishna however the messages taken from it have given over 1500 documented interpretations of the Vedas. Coming back to the bible, it says that (Leviticus 20:17) ‘if a man shall take his sister’ it is a ‘wicked thing’ however Abraham goes onto marry his halfsister and God (Genesis 17:16) ‘blesses her’ showing the hard contradiction and how religions have to be 63

Middle School interpreted through knowing knowledge of the religious scripture, that allows people to understand and have their own belief.

Religions are not straightforward things as we often see them in the media and in society today where certain beliefs and ways are generalised and scripture creates the building blocks of religious belief.

Essentially everyone has their own religious belief in the sense whatever they truly accept is based on their own interpretations and religion cannot be straightforward as it largely based on a supernatural being not within our intellectual capability range.

Even though much of scripture can be seen as offensive and absurd in the modern world it all depends on interpretations and selection of scripture as many contradict each other. This shows how scripture has to be the basis of religion as it carries the information and data which you decode into your own beliefs. In addition, without the scripture people would not be able to form their own religious belief.

Runner-up: Arshia Hendi (11M2) Today, the majority of religious believers base their beliefs and practices on the sacred scriptures, which are key for all faiths, may that be the Bible (in Christianity), the Qur’an (in Islam), The Torah (in Judaism) and the Dhammapada (in Buddhism).

64

Middle School However, for those who lived at the time or close after the scriptures were created, it would have been impossible for all of them to have access to one, or even for them to have the literacy skills to read them. In this essay I am going to discuss the question, to what extent should sacred scriptures be the basis for religious belief.

To a great extent sacred scriptures should be the basis for religious belief as fundamentally, within the Abrahamic faiths mainly, the aim of many, if not all, religious believers, is to follow God’s commands and pass this test of this lifetime in order to get to Heaven in the afterlife. This is because all three of the scriptures act as guidelines for religious believers to act upon, for example the Bible tells Christians to help those in need, Parable of the Sheep and the Goats [Matthew 25:31-46], and this quote in the Qur’an on how believers should act “The believers, both men and women, are allies of one another. They enjoin good, forbid evil, establish Prayer, pay Zakat, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Surely Allah will show mercy to them. Allah is All Mighty, All-Wise” (9:71). This therefore shows that sacred scripture is essential for religious believers in order to perform good deeds and to not commit sins in order to please God and achieve their primary aim of getting to Heaven.

Furthermore, sacred scriptures should be the basis for religious belief as within these sacred scriptures, they recount the stories of the lives of many important 65

Middle School people within faith, which is could be important and helpful for those who have faith in God. This is because it gives them someone to idolize which could help people follow the way they lived their lives to strengthen their relationship with God and improve their faith. An example of this is the Hadith in Islam, which is a record of the traditions or sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, revered and received as a major source of religious law and moral guidance. It is second only to the authority of the Qur’an. Furthermore, the New Testament in the Bible recounts the life of Jesus from birth to death which is pivotal for Christians as fundamentally they aspire to be more like Jesus and act in the way he did through forgiveness and love for one another, seen in the quote “love thy neighbour” [Mark 12:31], which Jesus preached heavily. This therefore shows that not only are primary religious scriptures (Bible, Qur’an Torah and etc.) should be the basis for religious belief, but also secondary religious scriptures like the Hadith should also be used and be the basis.

However, many religious believers to a great extent would disagree with this and say that religious scripture does not need to be the basis of religious belief. This is because they believe that belief in God should be a personal and private thing and that there is no necessity for religious scriptures, which were written by humans, to be the basis for religious belief.

Moreover, they think that you can have a relationship 66

Middle School with God and religious belief without the need to follow the books. This can be seen through those who lived during the times before scriptures were written, as firstly, many people were illiterate, so sacred scriptures would be of no use to them with 12% of the world’s population being able to read in 1850. And secondly, many people were able to live good lives with little sin without being able to read sacred scripture through their basic sense of morals and free will given to them by God, thereby making the necessity of religious scripture being the basis of religious belief less.

However, many would disagree with this point of view, as today, it would be difficult to know how God wants humans to act without any reference to sacred scriptures. This is because the three main Prophets, lived a long time ago, Moses (1500 BCE approx.), Jesus (40 A.D approx.) and Muhammad pbuh (571 A.D approx.), thus making it impossible to know what they preached without reference to scriptures which were written about what they said and did. Prophets were God’s way of communication to us thereby showing the importance of them and the sacred scriptures that came after them.

Many Buddhists would argue against this question, as although many use the Dhammapada as the basis of their religious belief, they believe there is no need for it to be their basis for religious belief. This is because there is many Spiritual people alive today whom 67

Middle School Buddhists listen to and follow what they say for example the Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso). Although what the Dalai Lama says could be as a result of reading sacred scriptures, it could be argued that the people that solely listen to the Dalai Lama are not basing their religious belief on sacred scriptures thereby making sacred scriptures the basis for religious belief.

However, this point of view raises the question of: is the belief Buddhists have religious or philosophical?

This is because the definition of religious belief is ‘the belief in the reality of the mythological, supernatural, or spiritual aspects of a religion.’ Buddhists do not believe in a God or that humans have spirits. However, their religion is fundamentally based off the life of Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) whose life is debated on whether it was a myth of it actually happened. This therefore makes it ambiguous and open to interpretation on whether or not Buddhists have religious belief per se.

In conclusion, while perhaps 2000 years ago it would have been easy to have religious belief without it being on the basis of sacred scripture as they were mainly illiterate and also they had not been written yet, with the last of the Gospels being written towards the end of 90 A.D (approx.), the Qur’an at 609 A.D (approx.) and the Torah 1312 BCE (approx.), in today’s world, it would be hard to have religious belief without reference to any scripture as fundamentally religions 68

Middle School are based on their scriptures. Therefore, I believe that to a great extent religious scripture should be the basis for religious belief as they hold the key for religious believers to get into heaven and follow God’s command.

69

70

Junior School

6. JUNIOR SCHOOL Essays addressing the question if God exists why is there evil in the world?

[NB runners-up are listed in no particular order]

Winner: Kayla Tapnack (L4 A) God is something that is not physical. This means that he/she/it is untouchable and all up to belief and signs such as miracles. If God created us this means that we are a part of him/her/it and surely we, like God, should be perfect. As we can tell, this is far from the case. So why is there such thing as evil if God is the essence of all and controls all. Why would God want to destroy or harm his/her/its creations?

71

Junior School

In this diagram, we can see that each corner has a different statement. It seems in the world that we live in that you can only ever have one side of the triangle, connecting to two corners. If you were to have God is all-loving and evil exists, God would not be allpowerful because he clearly does not have all the control over Evil. If we were to have God is all-powerful and evil exists, this would lead to the conclusion that God does not love us enough to prevent evil. In our life, we do have evil. Therefore, it seems to be the case that God is not both all-loving and all-powerful. Doesn’t this go against everything we know about God? To attempt to solve this problem of evil, we must first begin with some definitions.

72

Junior School There are two types of evil: evil caused by humans, such as terrorism, rape and theft, and ‘natural’ evil, such as: volcanos, earthquakes and tsunamis.

Let’s begin with human evil. Human evil is when people harm other people using their own human powers. This is a familiar action that happens all across the globe. For example, Hitler taking power in Germany during World War II resulted in millions of tragic deaths across Europe. This was done using his own powers. Or even recently, the Manchester bombings in May of last year. How could this be if we have an all-loving and all-powerful God? I have come up with a solution to this problem: free will. Free will is the idea that whilst God exists and created the world initially, with his generosity and loving-kindness, he has given us a mind of our own with which we have the power to control our bodies, the way we act and the decisions we make. Free will is a gift from God to human beings because if we were simply programmed to be “polite” or “generous”, this would not be a ‘good’ thing because we had no choice in the matter. It would simply be the way things were. In the book ‘The Giver’, it was clear to me that the citizens did not have free will. This was evident as they were unable to love, share opinions, or express themselves in any specific way. They were simply controlled by the Chief Elder who made the decisions on the behalf of all the citizens. In the world that we live in, we should be grateful that God does not play the role of the Chief 73

Junior School Elder. Rather, he restrains from intervening and allows us the gift of freedom.

It seems to me that, on the other hand, the problem of Natural Evil is a lot more complicated, so we need more than one solution.

As I stated before, if one is to do an act of kindness in a world without evil, this simply would be a neutral act. Just like how in a painting, you need a light background for a silhouette. In other words, Good can be defined with respect to Evil and is otherwise meaningless. For example, if we take the catastrophe of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in Pompeii (79AD), we can see how God allowing for evil in this scenario has made us appreciate the good in contrast to the bad.

Everything that God has created in nature can now be seen as beautiful.

However, there is a problem. There have been many eruptions since 79AD, so why do we need all of these?

Surely we can learn from one, if not two? For God to make us understand goodness, do we really need so many disasters and innocent deaths? I have a solution: God uses evil as a tool for punishment for those who have sinned. Although this may not apply to all humans that are harmed by nature, I believe that this is a central message from God to all humans. That if people realise that their actions have very bad consequences for innocent people across the World,

74

Junior School this could potentially prevent people from acting in a bad manner.

In actual fact in our world, we don’t just have one side of the triangle. We can have all three. God is making the world perfect through free-will and by allowing us to recognise evil and prevent it. God is all-loving by allowing us to have free will and all powerful by being able to give it to us. Funnily enough, he even does this through evil!

Runner-up: Rayhan Anwer (7C) We all know that God is very kind and loving so some people ask ‘If God is so loving and caring why is there suffering and evil in the world ‘. I will answer this question below.

I think that God is trying to test us. I think that this life that we are living in right now is a big test on where we are going to go in the afterlife. God has made a world that is good, but with freedom to choose wrong or right, and we use our freedom to disobey God or obey him. God sometimes allows some people to test others and how they react to them. When you see a person who is sick, poor and needy, then you are tested by God. God is there with that suffering person to test your charity and your faith. If we pass the test

75

Junior School one will get the prize of entering heaven and if we fail, then we will enter hell in the afterlife.

Also, humans do not have as much wisdom as God has -It is like when children are scolded by their parents for something they want to do, such as eating too many sweets. The toddlers usually cry or have a tantrum because they think how bad their mum or dad are, but the child does not realise why the parent would have objected them eating the sweets (in this case, too many sweets are bad for their teeth/health). This is the same thing between humans and God. Humans being the toddlers and God being the parents. We do not have the same amount of wisdom as God. God is the creator of the world and the human being, which makes Him the wisest. God does everything that happens to humans for a reason. We as humans are not aware what the reason are.

God has given laws for people to follow in this universe. God allows suffering to occur when one or more of these laws are broken. Sickness comes if one does not take care of one’s health or is exposed to infections. A car accident occurs when one is not alert, or drives in a careless manner, or if the cars are not checked, roads are not made and kept in the right shape, or the traffic laws are not right or not properly enforced. We should keep in mind that God often saves us, and he does not let us suffer from every 76

Junior School mistake we make. This shows that God is so merciful that he does not punish us for every mistake we make otherwise there would be even more ‘Evil’ in the world.

Suffering also tests people’s patience and steadfastness. Even God’s Messengers were made to suffer. Prophet Jonah (Prophet Yunus in the Quran) is an example of a Prophet who did not obey Gods order and was punished by being swallowed by a large fish/whale. When the Prophet repented what he did he was freed from the fish. This shows that evil can happen to the very best of people if the laws of God are not obeyed.

In summary, we can say that sufferings occur to teach us that we must adhere to God’s laws. It is sometimes to punish those who violate God’s laws. It is to test our faith in God and to test our commitment to human values and charity. Whenever we encounter suffering or evil, we should ask ourselves, ‘Have we broken any law of God? ‘, or ‘Could it be a punishment?’, or ‘Could it be a test or trial?’.

Runner-up: Aryan Janjale (8C) This is an interesting question with many reasons from different perspectives. A perspective from a very famous author is quite intriguing. This is the former atheist C.S. Lewis who had written a book called “Mere 77

Junior School Christianity” which shows his argument using the knowledge of evil to provide evidence of God’s existence. He first thought that there was no God but this argument about evil changed his mind about God’s existence. He quoted “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.” C.S. Lewis used the knowledge of us understanding what is evil and know what is considered righteous to determine that there must be an ultimate moral giver.

This gives evidence to the existence of God. However, this does not show why evil exists. There are more indepth arguments about evil ‘s existence which I will be discussing.

God has given us free will. This means that we can make choices that are contrary to his desires. We can say evil is anything that is against God’s holy will. All choices which are against God’s perfection is considered evil. This is the risk of being able to have freedom of choice. Evil and suffering is the result of making bad choices. The bible tells us that God disciplines those whom he loves and that no true child of God is without discipline and instruction. It is obvious that the results of our rebellion against God brings suffering and it is also true that we can learn through our suffering that such rebellion is bad. We could then praise God during and after our suffering by proclaiming the truth of his word that urges us to follow him and his ways. Sometimes we learn our greatest lessons after having suffered the 78

Junior School consequences of our actions. Biblically speaking, evil is the result of a sin. An example of this is Adam, who represents all of humanity as well as creation, who had rebelled against God. All sins are more than simple rebellion, it is permeating throughout God’s creation bringing famine, disease, earthquakes etc. This means that God did not create evil, he is allowing it for his divine plan.

This is further shown in the sense of evil and suffering being a warning about breaking God’s law and to see the necessity of following God’s truth. Suffering is manifested in the consequences of disobeying God. A different argument can be from the perspective of a pantheist. If God is seen as an all-powerful being and a doctrine, meaning that God is everything and everything is God, you cannot have opposites like good and evil. Therefore, evil is an illusion. A naturalist believes that there is no good and evil and that it is just a subjective preference. There are many perspectives who believe that evil does exist with God. This is a summary of the perspectives. All other philosophies can’t explain the problem of evil in the world. If you don’t have a good creator, and a fall – then what’s running the universe is random chance or an evil being. People in rebellion against a good God explains the evil acts of men.

To conclude, these are the reasons why evil exists and have given evidence. C.S Lewis’ book is an example of how he changed his mind in God’s existence and 79

Junior School questioned how there must be someone who made this moral law to identify what evil is. When God’s law is broken, the action is considered evil. I would like to finish with a quote from C.S. Lewis.

Runner-up: Madison Sinclair (L5 Alpha) Implicit in the question ‘If God exists why is there evil in the world?’ is the assumption that there is a contradiction between the existence of God and the existence of evil. This contradiction reflects the belief that key attributes of the Abrahamic God (other Gods will not be the focus of this essay) include omnipotence and benevolence. David Hume, the Scottish philosopher, summarised the conflict: ‘is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? ….then is he impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then is he malevolent?’

Theologians attempt to reconcile omnipotence and benevolence in many ways. One approach, associated with Judaism, is to acknowledge that God is the creator of everything and therefore created evil: ‘I am the lord and there is none else, I form light and create darkness, I make weal as against it.’ [Isiah 45:6-7] However creating evil does not mean God is not benevolent. Evil is the result of His gift of free will. As Eve showed humans don’t always choose wisely. But this argument does not resolve the problem of God and evil. The concept of free will could explains evil caused 80

Junior School by humans. It does not explain why a benevolent God permits natural evils, such as leukaemia or earthquakes.

An alternative approach, associated with Catholicism argues that God permits evil because it ultimately leads to good. As Augustine put it God ‘would never allow any evil whatsoever in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself’. This is a stronger argument than the argument from free will because it deals with both suffering and evil. Evil could lead to good, and thus be evidence of God’s benevolence. Whilst this argument is consistent it doesn’t actually explain why evil exists. It suggests instead that humans cannot know the mind of God, they cannot truly understand evil as they cannot see the good that will ultimately come. Taken to its logical conclusion, as the philosopher Boethius did, followers of this approach argue that as all evil leads to good, there is no such thing as evil.

Another way of explaining why God permits evil is to challenge the assumption that God is both benevolent and omnipotent. Christopher Hitchens, in his book God is Not Great, provided multiple examples of God’s supposed malevolence, from the slaughter of Noah’s flood to the genocide of Amalekites. But Hitchen’s argument is just a cover for his broader argument that God doesn’t exist; Hitchens was an evangelical atheist.

And, as shown above, demonstrating that God has done what might seem to humans as evil doesn’t prove 81

Junior School that God is evil; we can’t know if God is doing evil to deliver a later good.

Hume, a sceptic rather than atheist, argued instead that there was no reason to assume God’s omnipotence.

Certainly God never claims omnipotence other than to ask Abraham, rhetorically, “is anything too hard for the Lord” [Genesis 18:14]. Hume points out that “this world, for aught [we] know, is very faulty and imperfect, compared to a superior standard; and was only the first rude essay of some infant deity, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance”. Hume’s line of thinking sets out multiple ways of reconciling the apparent paradoxes of God and evil: God may no longer care about earth, it could be one of his many. He could be ashamed of how earth has turned out and how corrupt the human race can be and has turned this back on humanity. Or maybe this Earth was created by an inexperienced God, who was just experimenting. Under any of these options there need be no contradiction between the existence of God and the existence of evil.

The Bible provides some evidence for thinking that God might not be omnipotent. For example after Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit they hide and God calls out to them “where are you” [Genesis 3:8] implying he doesn’t know where they are. In Judges (1:19) God is shown able to defeat a tribe in a mountain “but he 82

Junior School

Runner-up: Dejhor Samten (7R) The existence of God despite the presence of evil poses a puzzle to many people. How can a God who is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient stand Evil? Surely it would know of Evil, want to stop all Evil and have the power to do so. There are, however, some arguments that explain this state. They are: . To have balance in the universe . To reinforce reality . To assure the people’s freedom There is Evil in the world because there must be balance in the universe. Just as Light was created from shadow, Evil was created from Good. Evil is defined as being profoundly immoral and wicked especially when regarded as a supernatural force. Where there is a lack of Good, there is an abundance of Evil Only If God did create nothing, there would be no Evil. By creating the world, God allowed Evil to emerge. In the creation story Adam and Eve were tricked by an evil snake into eating a fruit from the Forbidden tree. This shows how Evil has been present since the story of creation.

Therefore, Evil could have come from original sin. It is believed that we are all descendants of Adam, so we contain a small piece of Adam’s sin inside of us. This would explain in what form Evil exists, we all contain 83

Junior School a small piece of Evil which originates from sins of the father, Adam.

If God were to remove pain and suffering, which are the consequences of Evil, and hide them from us, we would live in an illusory world. We would have the impression that we are acting in accordance with God’s wishes without being reconciled to him. If we did not experience the consequences of Evil, we would never be dissatisfied in our state of separation from God. If God were to deliver us from our sins, he must first make us aware of them. Thus, God permits the existence of Evil as a signal of our transgressions. In the story of Moses, many of the Jewish people leaving Egypt lost faith in God and started worshipping false idols. God then made hundreds of snakes infest their tents. He did this to raise the awareness of the villager’s evil behaviour and he then provided them with a remedy. By looking at the bronze pole, they would be instantaneously healed. But some of the villagers continued to reject the opportunity to be healed as well as to have faith in God and thus they lost their lives. By suffering the consequences of their actions, they act as a warning to believers to act in accordance with God’s commands.

God wanted the people of the universe to have their own freedom as God could have easily stopped Evil from occurring by forcing the humans to stop themselves before they are able to carry out any evil behaviour. However, is a world without freedom of 84

Junior School choice good? NO. What would the world be without free will? Nothing. Following that logic, there would be no point of having a God if in the first place all he has to do is control people. But God does care for the people’s free will and even made his own son, Jesus, suffer and die for the sins of mankind. However, when the world does become evil like in the fable of Noah’s ark, God takes extreme measures to bring a halt to the evil in the world by deciding to flood and exterminate the whole world’s population save for one family.

To conclude, it is not that God doesn’t know of Evil in the world, it is that he loves mankind so greatly he does not want to harm us. He can easily just force us to stop before we carry out any evil behaviour, but he does not think he needs to as God believes enough to know that we will not be evil. Unlike many other thinkers, God does not believe in the harm principle, in which people’s freedom should be limited if it infringes on another’s, he permits Evil as it is a natural consequence of freedom, with God leaving mankind limitless possibilities from the greatest good to the greatest Evil. He also wants to reinforce reality because God does not want us to think that we are in accordance with his wishes when we are being evil.

Runner-up: Zain Hemani (8M) In many religions they have different perspectives about suffering and why there is evil. As humans, we think of God as being superior to us, that he is above 85

Junior School all and is just. A ‘’good God’’ would not make us suffer if he is good because he is described as just. Due to this reasoning, people believe that God does not exist. Evil is also a type of suffering. There are two types of evil: moral evil - the acts of humans which are considered to be morally wrong and natural evil—natural disasters, such as earthquakes or tsunamis. These two types of evil can work together, e.g. human evil can make natural evil worse. If natural evil, e.g. a drought brought on by lack of rainfall, causes crops to fail, the policies of a government can make the food shortages for the poorest people worse (moral evil). Suffering is the bearing or undergoing of pain or distress. Suffering is often a result of evil. Most people experience suffering at some time in their life. Religions attempt to explain suffering, help people to cope with it and learn from it. For some religious people, the fact that people suffer can raise difficult questions about why God allows this to happen. Some, people say that God allows humans to make decisions for themselves and that suffering is caused by the choices that people make.

Islam is a monotheistic religion. In Islam, they believe that suffering is related closely to sins and that God is testing us to see how we deal with suffering. In Islam, we believe in free will. This is why Allah allows us to follow him, but at the same time, allows us to follow the devil Shaytan. This is a test for Muslims to see whether they are loyal to Allah or not. Allah sometimes 86

Junior School allows some people to suffer to see how they act. If the person is morally evil, they will commit bad deeds and use bad methods to get out of troubles. This is all a test from Allah to see how you cope when you are suffering.

If Muslims commit bad sins such as stealing, punching, disobeying etc, they will go to hell. In the Qu’ ran it is stated that in hell there is serpents and spiders that are poisonous. However, if you do good deeds, you will go to heaven, and over there, you will be treated like Kings and Queens. One way to go to heaven is to pray regularly, five times a day and in Islam, prayers are taken very seriously and should be done on a daily basis.

Hinduism is a polytheistic religion. They believe in the Trimurti which is the three main gods: Brahma (Creator), Vishnu (Preserver) and Shiva (destroyer).

Vishnu takes care of the world and in order for him to keep the world ‘’good’’ he brings down avatars. An avatar is God taking human shape and coming down to earth to destroy all the evil. In Hinduism, there has been many examples of God taking human shape, but the main two avatars were Krishna and Rama. The story for Krishna was: One day, Vishnu came down to the earth in human form as Krishna and was fated to kill the evil demon. Vishnu was fated to be the child of Vasudeva and Devaki and be the 7th child. When each child was born, the evil demon killed all their children, until Krishna came. When Krishna came, all the guards on duty fell asleep and Vasudeva swapped 87

Junior School Krishna for an ordinary child. Krishna then grew up with a different family and made many friends within the community. The other child that was swapped with Krishna was killed. After many years, Krishna eventually battled the evil demon and killed him. Also, Hindus believe in karma. Karma is if you do something bad to someone, something bad will happen to you.

They believe that previous actions and deeds need to be made up for. Additionally, they believe that it is about not making mistakes again. If someone is suffering, you should always be compassionate and kind otherwise you will have bad karmic consequences.

In Christianity, they believe in an infinite and permanent God. They believe that God came down as an avatar, (Jesus), to atone for all our sins. Jesus came down on earth to reduce the suffering on Earth and many people try to follow Jesus. When Jesus came down to Earth, he atoned all of mankind’s sins by hanging himself to death. This atoned everyone from sin. We know this is true because the temples curtains ripped which meant that humans are able to come close to god. It is believed that evil entered the world through Adam and Eve and due to them everyone was born with original sin. The evil in Christianity was ended by Jesus.

In Judaism, they believe that after something bad has happened to you, something good will come out of it.

Jews believe that it is a test for them to see how they cope with evil upon them and how loyal they are to 88

Junior School God. They believe that when they have coped with the evil upon them, they believe that they will come closer to God. In Buddhism, they believe in no god, but still they have an explanation for evil. They believe that evil can be explained with the four noble truths which are Dukkha (suffering is a part of life), Samudaya (the cause of suffering is craving), Nirodha (there can be release from suffering) and Magga (follow the middle path; the eightfold path). In Buddhism, they say that you have to accept evil because it is in everyone’s life.

Overall, In Islam they believe that God is testing them to see how the person copes with evil. In Hinduism, they believe in avatars, and karma which is if you do something bad something bad will happen to you. In Christianity, they believe in avatar such as Jesus who atoned for all the sins. In Judaism, they believe that after a period of suffering, something will good will happen. In Buddhism, they believe that evil can be explained with the four noble truths.

89

90

Open Submissions

7. OPEN SUBMISSIONS Anya Myers (L6) won the A.C Grayling Philosophy Prize for her essay Should prisoners be allowed to vote in elections. Her essay is included below and is followed with an essay by Deborah Smith (L6) which was awarded runner-up in the same prize.

Following these entries are pieces by Lara Bassalian (Y9) on the ethics of abortion, Jack Saideman (L6) on Sartre, and Ethan Fox (L6) on ethical egoism. The journal ends with two creative pieces from Adam Smith (Y7).

91

Open Submissions

92

Open Submissions

Should Prisoners be Allowed to Vote in Elections?

Anya Myers (L6RMH) Incarceration serves three main purposes in today’s society: retribution, or the punishment for the transgression; deterrence, in order to reduce the occurrences of such transgressions; and rehabilitation, so that the transgressor may not repeat their actions and fully re-join civil society. This essay will examine the British policy of felon disenfranchisement from a philosophical view and show how it does not effectively correspond to any of these three categories and therefore cannot be justified under this framework.

First, let us examine disenfranchisement through the lens of retribution. Democracy is founded upon the principle of the right for each citizen to be able to vote.

It can therefore be said that to deprive a citizen of that right is for that democracy to neglect its fundamental duty: the right of the people to choose the laws and the lawmakers of their own country. Prisoners in the UK face “civil death”, in which a convict is stripped of rights and privileges on account of his criminal actions, one of the only ancient British legal precedents to survive into modern day.1 That the British government maintains the right to disenfranchise the convicted See Drapkin, Israel. (1989) Crime and Punishment in the Ancient World. Massachusetts: Lexington Books.

1

93

Open Submissions criminal indicates that it views voting as a privilege, not a right, and suggests that Britain is slow in moving into the future, and are slow in progressing the rights of prisoners.

For the majority of the democratic world, voting is indeed a right. In Hirst vs. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the UK had infringed upon Hirst’s right to vote following his disenfranchisement for a conviction of manslaughter.2 Britain continues to defy the ECHR’s order to enfranchise prisoners, valuing the voice, and therefore intrinsic worth, of one person over another.

Prisoner disenfranchisement does not constitute fair retribution, but instead its justice system conveys a kind of tyranny of the state over an individual as they obtain sole power over that individuals’ freedom. In other words, it opposes the very principles of democracy which the country is supposed to uphold.

Moreover, it is an unfair method of retribution on account of timing. Roughly 45% of UK prisoners serve four years or less and, given elections’ infrequency, disenfranchisement could be merely technical for some

European Court of Human Rights. (2018) ‘Prisoner’s right to vote’, Press Unit. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Prisoners_vote_ENG.pdf.

Accessed 05 Sep 2018.

2

94

Open Submissions yet consequential for others. 3 A person imprisoned for 6 months on 23 November 2016 would have missed the 22 May 2017 registration deadline for the General Election, whereas someone sentenced for the same period on 21 November would have been able to register to cast a ballot on 8 June. Is this a justifiable discrepancy? Indeed, perhaps this only occurred because the former’s court date was delayed by a couple of days. What possible judicial justification can there be in the former being disenfranchised and the latter enfranchised? The British government’s valuation of a citizen’s voice and societal worth is here seen to be arbitrary.

Finally, retribution should be representative, ironically, like a democracy. The realities of sentencing already reflect this: cannabis possession carries a maximum five-year sentence, whereas rape carries a maximum of life. Yet, in the eyes of British law, both (and all) felonies should carry the punishment of the denial of the fundamental right of democracy – a right they have done nothing to threaten. In this way, the French system, amongst others, handles the enfranchisement of felons in a more effective manner.

The French encourage prisoners to exercise their right and vote in elections, whilst disenfranchising those Prison Reform Trust. (2017) 'Prison: The Facts’. Available at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/portals/0/documents/bromley %20briefings/summer%202017%20factfile.pdf. Accessed 05 Sep 2018.

3

95

Open Submissions who commit treason.4 This contextual punishment is nothing unusual: a child sex offender has a court order ensuring they stay away from areas where children gather, such as schools; a drunk-driver is stripped of their licence; white-collar criminals are restricted from serving in public companies.

Felony disenfranchisement should be used as contextual retribution in this vein, as like-for-like punishment for those who attempt to undermine the structures of democracy. This is truly “punishment befitting the crime”.

We shall now move on to the second purpose of imprisonment: deterrent. Disenfranchisement can function as an additional deterrent above and beyond “serving time”. However, it is a weak deterrent because 45% of prisoners serve less than 4 years,5 meaning that almost half of prisoners are never actually deprived of the right to vote. Further, in twentieth-century Britain, at least three in every ten voters generally do not exercise this right.6 Thus, on average, for three out

Human Rights Watch. ‘Disenfranchisement in other countries’.

Available at: https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/vote/usvot98o04.htm. Accessed 05 Sep 2018.

4

Prison Reform Trust. (2017) 'Prison: The Facts’. Available at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/portals/0/documents/bromley %20briefings/summer%202017%20factfile.pdf. Accessed 05 Sep 2018.

5

The Electoral Commission. ‘Electoral Data Files and Reports’.

Available at: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/our6

96

Open Submissions of every ten felons, this is an inconsequential deterrent. Finally, it is the responsibility of a democracy to encourage voting as the act which provides it with political force and legitimacy. To threaten sections of society with disenfranchisement, even as a deterrent, is a fundamental loss of a democracy’s main duty towards the citizens it governs.

Lastly, if perhaps most importantly, imprisonment is meant to serve as a means of personal rehabilitation.

By refusing to give prisoners the votes until they have been rehabilitated and are ready to receive that privilege, infantilises them, equating them to under18s. As a society, we have decided that prisoners are incapable of caring for themselves and keeping the laws and the peace. As with under-18s, they are put in someone’s care, in this case the care of the officers and the state until they are rehabilitated and re-educated to a sufficient degree, so as to participate independently in civil society. Therefore, this system of purported rehabilitation functions more as one of humiliation and degradation.

By means of incarceration to rehabilitate, prisoners are already isolated from society, and the removal of suffrage constitutes another layer of societal isolation. work/our-research/electoral-data/electoral-data-files-and-reports.

Accessed 05 Sep 2018.

97

Open Submissions One may ask the question who is being rehabilitated here, the prisoner, into a society from which they have been isolated, or the society, by isolating elements it considers threatening? Nonetheless, prisons do provide rehabilitative services; educational programmes have been shown to reduce offending rates from 26% to 19%.7 Clearly, these programmes are effective rehabilitators; disenfranchisement, on the other hand, is not. With the removal of the right to vote, we take away the opportunity for prisoners to have a say in how prisons are governed, despite them being the ones to spend time in prison. In practice, this means that the 32,204,124 voters in the 2017 General Election decided the living conditions of another 85,000 (0.18% of the electoral roll) Britons, who could not have their own say.8 Given also that prison and criminal justice reform features on all major parties’ manifestoes, prisoners, the direct beneficiaries of such policies, should be able to vote in an election.

By enfranchising prisoners, the government suffrage to educate prisoners about the UK’s system and democracy as a whole. During season, prisons could encourage civil encouraging prisoners to involve themselves

can use political election debate, more in

Blakey, Robert. (2017) ‘Rehabilitation in Prisons’. House of Lords Library. United Kingdom: House of Lords. p4.

7

Sturge, Georgina. (2018) ‘Briefing Paper: UK Prison Population Statistics’. House of Commons Library. United Kingdom: House of Commons. p8.

8

98

Open Submissions politics and could potentially increase their feeling of national belonging and lead to a reduction in the rate of reoffending prisoners, one of the more serious problems with the release of prisoners. However, in a prison environment it is not inconceivable that some prisoners may be pressurised to vote for a certain party by others, thereby undermining that sacred democratic principle of freedom of choice. Similarly, some prisoners may have no interest in politics and just cast an uniformed and uninterested ballot. Yet, this could be said for thousands of other UK citizens who do not actively participate in politics, except, perhaps, to cast their ballot on election day. In which case, why should a prisoner who may be well educated in politics not deserve the right to vote as much as a British citizen who pays no attention to politics and may not even exercise their right to vote?

To conclude, felony disenfranchisement is not an effective method of retribution, rehabilitation, or deterrence, except perhaps as a “punishment befitting the crime�. The blanket ban is an unjust form of retribution, does not allow for rehabilitation of prisoners into society, as they are instead isolated from being able to partake in a democracy and is not an effective deterrent. Moreover, it bears no relation to the crime. Other systems, such as the French, allow prisoners to vote, which means that they are not isolated from society and are treated as adults instead of being infantilised. The French only faced 59% of 99

Open Submissions reoffenders in five years in 2002, whereas the UK faced 72% after five years in 2000.9 The main difference between the two systems is the treatments of prisoners including enfranchisement. From this it is evident that the French system uses better punishment than the British system. As this essay has made clear, felony disenfranchisement is an unjust system which undermines the very principle which the idea of a free vote is designed to uphold.

Would it be desirable to live forever?

Deborah Smith (L6TXD) The answer to this question is heavily dependent on the context under which it is based upon. Would it be desirable to live forever if one does so alone, where immortality is a gift possessed by an individual; or if humanity managed to achieve supreme knowledge and eradicated disease, natural disasters and crime, thereby managing to make natural death a distant memory. In this essay I want to discuss this question by addressing how immortality would impact our lives and whether death is something that we should fear.

Fazel Seena, and Wolf, Achim. (2015) ‘A Systematic Review of Criminal Recidivism Rates Worldwide: Current Difficulties and Recommendations for Best Practice’, PLoS One, 10(6).

9

100

Open Submissions A life where one lives forever, and their loved ones do not, must be a very sad one, if we are to assume that nearly every person has people that they care deeply about. However, the life the person leads would be dependent on their motives: Are they driven by their careers and a thirst for knowledge; therefore enjoying the opportunities immortality provides, or do they find joy when with loved ones, thereby living a life of sadness and one would longing.

A never-ending life, however, has many possibilities.

The wonders that a scientist or historian could achieve with the time to deepen their knowledge and the potential to advise governing countries, in order to avoid repeating mistakes from the past.

Onto whether it would be desirable to live forever in a so called 'perfect world' where we have acquired great knowledge, and therefore in the process have conquered death itself. At first, it may seem appealing to some, however, in this situation we need to question what meaning do we have when everything has been achieved?

If one looks at our plays, tragedies are a common genre; powerful, emotional, and capable of moving an audience, with the final scenes making the most impact. If we take Shakespeare’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’ as an example, how would an audience take the final scene, where each of the lovers kills themselves, in an 101

Open Submissions age where death makes no impact to an individual. In a post-mortal era, it is likely that we would fail to understand the depth of emotions: pain, fear, grief, felt as a consequence of our mortality. Our emotions therefore reaching a state of monotony.

Bernard Williams, in his essay: ‘The Makropulos case: reflections on the tedium of immortality’, discusses a similar idea centred around the Czech opera, ‘The Makropulos Affair’. In this, a woman takes an elixir of life that allows her to live for 300 years at her current age, after this time she is given the opportunity to take it again, to which she declines, resulting in her death.

He talks about how during those 300 years she has done everything a woman of her age, 42, could do, resulting in a state of boredom and apathy, a state we would surely all reach in a similar situation.

Williams distinguishes two types of desires: those which could be satisfied by either achieving the aim or extinguishing the desire, and desires which can only be satisfied upon reaching the desired aim. The latter, which he names ‘categorical desires’, giving us our ‘raison d’être’. For someone who lacks categorical desires there is no great reason to live, so death would not be regarded as evil, but for another, who does have such desires, may fear death and as a result may wish for immortality. The problem with immortality, however, arises when they have satisfied them all and thereby eliminated their original need for immortality.

102

Open Submissions Williams concludes that, although death in itself is not a good thing, immortality is worse and that we are ‘lucky in having the chance to die’.

Another philosophy is the Lucretian Symmetry argument, which agrees with those of Epicurus who believed both that ‘one’s death (being dead) is not bad for one and that one should not fear death’. This argues that the state of pre-natal non-being is not bad for us, and since post-mortem non-being is equal to this, death is not a negative. Continuing this, if death is not bad, and it is irrational to fear something that isn’t bad for us, fear of death is irrational.

Williams explains another of Lucretius’s points: that ‘it is all the same whenever one dies, that a long life is no better than a short one.’ Williams rejects this by arguing that by living a longer life, we can reach and fulfil more of our categorical desires, whereas in a shorter one there are fewer that we have the time, or opportunity, to satisfy. This thereby concludes that living a longer life, without immortality, would be better than having either a short life, or one in which one has immortality.

William’s argument, however, is not without fault. He believes that an immortal would run out of categorical desires and thereby have no reason left to live, but why would someone necessarily run out of interests to pursue? Throughout our lives we continually develop 103

Open Submissions new passions and hobbies, as well as grow as individuals and after living 100 years it is likely that the same person would become dissimilar to the person they once were, shaped by their experiences in that vast lifetime. William is not wrong in that as you grow older, the number of possibilities for these desires diminish, but for these to become zero, I find it unlikely to happen quickly.

One must also look at religion and question its existence in a post-mortal world. What drives us to our beliefs and religion? Is it ourselves wanting to make the world a better place, or a product of our fear of what happens when we die? Religion can be a pivotal role in one’s life, it can give someone values, serving as a driving force for people to do good. I believe that immortality would not benefit religion and the diminishment of it would alter how people treat one another in society for the worse.

In conclusion I believe that it would not be desirable to live forever. Whilst I do not entirely agree with Williams, I do think that a regular life with desires unfulfilled is significantly better than one left empty with no founding purpose remaining. To live forever would consign one to a life with reduced meaning, our relationships with others and our actions would not hold the same gravity as they do currently, due to their lack of consequence.

104

Open Submissions

‘Abortion is morally wrong’.

Lara Bassalin (L5 Alpha) Abortion means to end a pregnancy deliberately before a baby is born. In my answer, I will argue that abortion is right in all circumstances therefore meaning I disagree with the statement. My main reason for arguing this is that woman own their body and should be able to make their own choices about it whenever necessary. I don’t see abortion as murder since I believe a foetus is only a life as valuable as our own when it is born and isn’t dependent on its mother.

The Catholic Church would agree that abortion is always wrong. A reason they would give for this is that they believe abortion is the same as murder which therefore means killing an innocent person. A source of wisdom and authority found in the beginning of the Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill,” in the sixth commandment. Therefore, Catholics believe it is wrong to murder no matter the circumstances meaning they are absolutists. Also, the Catholic Church believe that a foetus is a life from the moment of contraception which is shown in the Catechism of The Catholic Church; “ From the first moment of existence, a human being must be recognised as having the same rights of a person.” To support this, the Catholic Church would say that it is impossible to choose a moment in which the foetus becomes a life since that would mean there would be one second where it is and another where it 105

Open Submissions isn’t which doesn’t make sense. In the Bible, Jesus taught the importance of each person and how each and every human is precious to god so by killing one, it is as if you are taking part of god away. They believe in Sanctity of Life meaning God has made each person in his image so there should be no reason to abort babies since each life is holy and sacred and belongs to God. On the other hand, Utilitarians disagree with The Catholic Church and therefore believe abortion is morally right in some circumstances meaning they are Relativists. They would give the following counterargument to support this: Someone is only a person when they have preferences. Singer and other Utilitarians believe that a foetus is only a person if they can make their own preferences and care about what is happening and have life goals so, foetuses are not people until they are born and are independent.

Utilitarians also believe that abortion is morally acceptable if the outcome maximises happiness and minimises unhappiness. If the child is handicapped, an abortion would lead to less unhappiness in the child, mother and family which makes it morally right to abort pregnancies in some scenarios. They believe if the pregnancy is carried out, the baby may live a life full of suffering and low quality of life meaning in these circumstances it is acceptable to abort the child.

Of these two reasons, in my opinion, the second view is more compelling. This is because it is more logical and 106

Open Submissions reasonable since it doesn’t make sense that at contraception, the embryo is already a life as valuable as our own since it doesn’t even have a heart beat. I agree that if abortion increases happiness then it is morally right in most circumstances. The Utilitarian view is more compassionate to those affected by the pregnancy because it would be selfish to continue the pregnancy if it puts other people’s happiness and quality of life at risk.

Another reason why abortion is wrong is given by Judaism who would say that life is a gift from god and should be respected and protected by all means, therefore meaning abortion destroys something made in God’s image. The Tenach (24 books of the Torah) teaches that God has a plan for everyone so there is no need for abortion since God is responsible for the presence of an unborn child in the womb so , it would be disrespectful for anyone else to make that call for him. In Jeremiah, the Torah states, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I set you apart…’ This quote found in the Tenach proves that God has a plan for everyone no matter their strengths and weaknesses. The Torah also teaches that “once the head has come forth”, the child may not be harmed in any way because it is considered born and a full human being meaning it has the same rights as anyone else. The Torah however does subtly state that abortion is only morally acceptable if the foetus will endanger the life of the mother. In this 107

Open Submissions circumstance, the foetus is seen as a rodef ( an aggressor against her life) meaning the woman has the right to defend herself if she wants to.

However, a counter argument to this is that it is part of woman’s right to choose whether or not she wants to abort the pregnancy, not only if the pregnancy risks her life. This secular view justifies the fact that women have the right to be able to decide what happens to her own body. Pro- supporters may also argue that abortion is a woman’s right to choose whenever she feels it is necessary because it enables her to have control over her life and fulfil her potential. Sarah Weddington states that,” A pregnancy affects a woman’s life. It disrupts her body…Such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or terminate her pregnancy.” This source of authority stated by a feminist and lawyer for woman rights, believes abortion should be consented to any woman at any time so, that no babies are born unwillingly.

Of these two, above reasons, the second point is more reasonable and compassionate since it is more realistic and considerate to woman and their babies. This is because currently, 12.2% of woman must undergo pregnancy unwillingly because they are not legally allowed to have an abortion since they do not fit the criteria . This shocking statistic shows how important abortion is and exactly how many woman want it.

108

Open Submissions Overall, I conclude that the reasons against the statement are stronger than the reasons agreeing with the statement. Having evaluated all the reasons, I believe that abortion is morally right because you don’t have cruel intentions when choosing to abort a foetus.

I am a absolutist meaning I believe that abortion should be consented in all circumstances because, it is a woman’s right to decide if they want to keep or abort a pregnancy. Although there are alternatives to abortion in most cases for example counselling and adoption, it is difficult for a woman emotionally and physically to go through nine months of pain just to have a child that they don’t want to look after. Lastly, I believe abortion is morally right since it is not the same as murder as the life of a foetus does not start until birth so in abortion, you are not murdering a child but instead, helping the mother.

An examination of Sartre’s principles of Existentialism and what makes up ‘man’s existence.

Jack Saideman (L6S2) Existentialism is defined as “a philosophical theory or approach which emphasises the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will”. The 20th century French philosopher Jean109

Open Submissions Paul Sartre was a significant advocate for existentialism, and he explains the concept in his work, titled ‘Existentialism Is a Humanism’, in 1946.

It is through analysing Sartre’s tenets, from an anthropological and philosophical perspective, that we begin to learn an existentialist viewpoint about what ‘man’ truly is.

Sartre’s first principle is that “existence precedes essence”. Essence is the fundamental set of properties of an entity, and traditional philosophers, such as Aristotle, argue that man is defined by these properties i.e. essence precedes existence. Sartre rejects this idea and explains that “Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself”. What can be taken from this description is that Sartre believes man has no predestined purpose given by nature; rather, man is decided by our choices, and this is the way in which we are not simply passive objects. Most people regard existentialism as just an approach to life with ‘radical freedom’, but this first tenet conveys the concept as being more insightful into ‘man’s existence, as it is an explanation of what truly gives our lives meaning. Sartre might not mean that we are “nothing else” without our choices in a literal sense, but the idea that our consciousness shapes our life, instead of simply our basic human nature, highlights existentialism’s focus on what truly gives value to our existence, and that without our consciousness, it would be as if we are nothing. This tenet is an insight into 110

Open Submissions what it truly means to be a ‘man’, by expressing what makes us more than simply matter.

Sartre goes on to declare that “[T]here is no reality except in action”. Here Sartre explains that what makes up what a human’s life is, are the actions and decisions (“what he makes of it”). This links even more so than the first tenet to the existentialist view of living with freedom and to develop through acts, as it is through the actions that you want to do which builds the aspects of who you are. Sartre explains “[T]here is no love apart from the deeds of love”, which highlights the necessity for applying characteristics to make those characteristics form who you are. We learn that existentialism stresses the importance of humans expressing themselves, and it is through how we act and our lifestyle that we have meaning as a human.

Some might respond to existentialism that there are acts which are not ‘free’ acts, so we cannot live with radical freedom and proceed in acts that improve our meaning in life with free choices. Sartre might respond that people are lying to themselves about whether they have a choice to do an act.

While existentialism believes everyone is radically free to choose how they live, it is important for others to recognise you as being a certain way, as “I cannot attain any truth whatsoever about myself, except through the mediation of another”. This principle is arguing that the nature of what you do is for everyone 111

Open Submissions else to determine, as man cannot be anything as long as others do not see them as such. It is the “revelation of the other as a freedom that confronts mine”. Also, the lack of given purpose in the first tenet is opposed by this tenet, as you are constituted by how others perceive you. Existentialism leads to certain questions, such as whether we can judge others. Sartre says that we cannot judge purpose, but we can judge authenticity. You could rely too much on what others tell you that you are, or too much on what you think that you are.

Existentialism is an intriguing outlook on how we should live our life and what it means to be human. In his work, Sartre expresses these views about the importance of existence over essence, our actions, and our interactions with others, in order to formulate an existentialist answer to what makes up man’s existence. This summary of his principles is only a slight insight into the vast beliefs of existentialists.

Can we define Ethical Egoism having looked at the objections from conflict and inconsistency?

Ethan Fox (L6M1) In my essay I will argue that, as well as ethical egoism being a shaky moral doctrine to begin with (as it 112

Open Submissions argues it is morally acceptable to harm others if the ethical egoist gains from it), it is also unable to counter the objections from inconsistency and conflict by modifying the definition. First, I will clarify the meaning of key terms before looking at the objection to ethical egoism from conflict. I will conclude this is a rather weak argument, and then look at the objection from inconsistency. I shall conclude that this is a strong argument and finish the essay by looking at the crucial counter argument by critics showing why ethical egoists can’t adequately respond to this objection.

To write this essay, it is of vital importance to understand the meaning of the word ‘definition’, and to find a starting point for the definition of ethical egoism. By ‘definition’, I am looking for a statement of exact meaning, and to start with, I shall use Glasgow’s (the main protester of ethical egoism) definition of ethical egoism: ‘the doctrine that the agent has but one duty, to produce for himself the greatest balance of good over evil’ (1968).

The first big challenge to ethical egoism was presented

by G.E. Moore in 1903, claiming that ethical egoism asserts the logically impossible. We can use an example to demonstrate this through a competition with 3 ethical egoists, Andy, Bob and Charles.

Assuming it is in the best interests of all three to win the competition, ethical egoism seems to show a contradiction (Daniels, 1972 and Regis, 1980). This is 113

Open Submissions because Andy wants Andy to win while Bob wants Bob to win while Charles wants Charles to win. While all three agree that they have the same duty (to produce the greatest balance of good over evil for himself), all three also argue that, following ethical egoism, their own good must take precedence. The argument follows by showing that is it impossible for all of them to come out on top and win the competition, so ethical egoism involves contradictions when looking at ethical egoists in conflict. However, this is seen as a weak argument as a tweak of our definition can stop the inconsistency.

The ethical egoist argues that his moral doctrine doesn’t argue that there is one person whose good must take precedence, but instead argues that everyone should pursue their own good. So, here, Andy, Bob and Charles should all try and win if it is in their best interest, but conflicts are not contradictions.

Consequently, ethical egoists would argue that the definition of ethical egoism is ‘the moral doctrine that every agent ought to pursue for himself the greatest balance of good over evil’.

Now we have changed the definition of ethical egoism, a stronger objection arises (Glasgow, 1968). This objection asks us to imagine a situation where another person (P) ought to do an action (A), but A is not in an ethical egoist’s (E) interest. According to ethical egoism, E cannot advise P to do A, as that is completely immoral. E should really discourage P from doing A. However, since E has recognised that P should do A, it 114

Open Submissions is implied that E approves of P doing A (because if E was P, E would do A), so E is therefore forced to admit the P ought to do A. In admitting this, E has given weighting to P by respecting P’s autonomy, which is inconstant with ethical egoism. This is because the whole point of ethical egoism is that E himself is the one absolute individual, so respecting P as an absolute individual is against ethical egoism. This is a very strong argument, but ethical egoism can withhold the objection by changing the definition, so an ethical egoist can recognise, but not respect the absoluteness in others. This can be done by using different powers of ‘ought’ in the definition. The ethical egoist would argue that, following this objection, the definition of ethical egoism is ‘a moral doctrine where I ought to pursue for myself the greatest balance of good over evil and everyone else ought to pursue for themselves the greatest balance of good over evil, but my good takes superiority over everyone else’s good’.

Having looked at two objections, it seems like we have a definition of ethical egoism which is able to stand.

However, critics of ethical egoism, such as Goldstick, argue that, even though our definition does depart the objections seen, it also departs from the doctrine of ethical egoism itself. Goldstick argues that, for ethical egoism to be a moral doctrine, ethical egoists need to have some concern that their belief is realised and followed (1973). A complete ethical egoist, however, believes his good takes superiority over everyone else’s 115

Open Submissions good. If ethical egoists wanted people to be ethical egoists in general and have undivided attention with his personal gain alone, there is a contradiction. This is because there will be a circumstance at some point where there is a conflict between these two people.

Even if this results in a very small disadvantage to the original ethical egoist, this is still against ethical egoism as his actions have resulted in his good not taking superiority. Therefore, our definition suggests ethical egoism isn’t a moral doctrine. This is a very strong objection, and one which seems that the ethical egoist needs to accept.

In conclusion, even though the definition of ethical egoism being ‘a moral doctrine where I ought to pursue for myself the greatest balance of good over evil and everyone else ought to pursue for themselves the greatest balance of good over evil, but my good takes superiority over everyone else’s good’ can stand up to the objections from inconsistency and conflict, the definition also defeats the point of a moral doctrine.

Therefore, I believe that, having looked at objections against ethical egoism, ethical egoists cannot form a standing definition for ethical egoism as a moral doctrine.

116

Open Submissions

The Beginning of the World Adam Smith (7H) God sighed. He was lonely. There were no humans, or Angels, or Archangels.

He created an infinitesimally small sphere of begotten matter which blew up. Well, not so much blew up but inflated like a balloon. Plasma rippled through the cloud of nuclei while Heaven grew above.

Thousands of years later God looked down on his impeccable work as bright blue dots burst into short but brilliant light. The stars got thought. He came down from Heaven and waved his giant hand and scattered the stars into magnificent constellations.

A very special star, billions of God's Almighty years later, a bright yellow star smiled at the small but numerous grains encircling her beautiful light. They clumped together in perfect forms and Almighty God picked the sacred ones, the perfect ones, the obedient ones and laid them in the perfect positions.

One, a clump that came from heaven itself, grew and grew. It was the third of these clumps and the perfect one, too. It was thanking the Sun and God for its creation. However, one evil clump that hid behind the Sun, was jealous of the impeccable clump who was called Earth. Jealousy swelled in the evil clump, called Theia, and soon he could take it no longer. He rammed 117

Open Submissions into Earth, causing his demise but flinging grains of her. Her tears rolled into the holes he had given her and thus her blue salty seas formed. She wept to God "my Lord, my Lord, whatever shall I do?"

God thought for a moment, "This debri shall make a companion for you, who will help you through your life".

Her tears of sorrow turned into tears of joy as a small body snuggled up to her and run around her like a dog.

Her smile then outshone the entire Universe.

Millions of years later, God granted the wish that Earth was hoping for. Trees sprouted on her and fish swam in her seas. Happiness flowed through them as they were so free. God went down and created cells, lizards, birds, grass and finally humans.

Humans named everything. From horses and cows to sharks and rays. Earth saw civilization grow and fall.

God stopped wars, and humans made great towns and cities. Earth saw man take to the sea and sky and God saw humans visit space. He saw how far his Universe had come and blessed it with his spirit forever.

118

Open Submissions

Over the Horizon Adam Smith I have always wondered what is over the horizon. I have often sat on the dock watching great ships go over the horizon. Now it is my turn to see.

People who return are never the same again.

As the boat pulled away from the harbour, I waved to my family and they looked with tears in their eyes. I saw the horizon shoot towards me; the sea was determined not to let us go to this realm.

The boat shot off the edge and we saw the world in all its glory. Africa, Asia, Antarctica, the Americas and Europe. I saw stars shoot past us and joy blew me off my feet. The old boat creaked as I saw a beautiful cloud approach. We blasted through and pulled into a harbour. I stepped on the cloud and found I could float.

I saw Angels flying about and there sat God. He said: "Adam, welcome to Heaven."

I was gobsmacked. God said: "only the pure survive this trip and you can ask one question and have one wish."

119

Open Submissions I simply stuttered: "M-m- -my q-q-question i-i-s what is the meaning of life?"

"Aaah, " said God, in his silky voice, "It is to be kind to everyone and everything, respect, love and be happy."

I was shocked that God had even answered.

God

inquired,

"And

what

is

your

wish?"

Now this I could not stutter about. I said, calmly: "For everyone to stop fighting."

God nodded: "It shall be done." And I will show you.

A television appeared in front of me and it was a programme about a war going on now. A flash lit up the sky and all the weapons disappeared. Wary at first, the soldiers crossed over to the enemy trenches and gave the people there a big fat hug.

I was overjoyed and I thanked God. I stepped back on the boat and shot home.

And life was never the same again‌

120

Disclaimer It is the editorial policy of Veritas to write out God’s name in full (as opposed to G-d). This is not a reflection of individual authors’ preferences or beliefs.

121

Editorial Team

8. EDITORIAL TEAM

Staff editors: Mrs Opie, Mr Raven

Student editors: Amy Allman Lyla Basu Amirali Hendi Nicolas Johnston Freya Kay Talia Swillman William Upson Ben Young

122