Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Anselm's Cur Deus Homo defines honor as the fitting order of rational creatures rendering God His due obedience and worship.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Defining honor as obedience risks making morality servile rather than noble, reducing rational creatures to instruments of divine will.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The equation of 'fitting order' with 'obedience' assumes hierarchical subordination is the only rational relationship between God and creatures.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
This framework struggles to account for honor concepts in secular ethics that don't presuppose theological hierarchy or divine obedience.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Honor inherently involves proper hierarchical ordering: creatures acknowledging their dependent status relative to God reflects metaphysical reality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Anselm's framework explains why sin is fundamentally dishonoring—it disrupts the rational creature's proper orientation toward its source and end.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
This definition unifies moral obligation with cosmic order, making ethics objective rather than merely subjective human preference.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.