An issue that has come up more than once in class; is it only religious people that can get into heaven?
This article does one side, drawing on God’s mercy and also putting an emphasis on the conscience for humans.
But I’d love to ask the Pope what conscience means to him; is he an Aquinas man or an Augustine of Hippo. I think I know but won’t put words in his mouth…
Pope Francis to dismay reformists with ‘modern families’ document
There should be mercy. A positive message and a big step for catholicism but still a nod to divorce and alternative family life being flawed.
Is it enough? Does it go against traditional catholic beliefs?
I just know I like this pope’s efforts.
Do wishes made verbally before death hold any value after? Is having this child a right in order for potential life to be realised or an emotional reaction for a grieving mother?
Alternatively consider the future impact this could have on you if you were the child. Would it be a beautiful act of true family love or something you could never cope with?
Pope Francis is such an interesting man for RE teachers. Here he is shedding a new perspective on fasting for lent, which echoes some aspects of Virtue Ethics. For him sacrifice is pointless if you help no one and that it is the ‘globalisation of indifference’ that means that we no longer look outwards.
In a world where I admit to rather not knowing details to save myself from some of the deep injustices occurring, this highlights a wider issue that people sometimes have. I recently discussed with my yr13s Tondeur’s approach to living an ethical life with business and he said we must seek to be informed. Many of us admitted to not wanting to know about the ethical practices of our favorite companies for convenience. This is potentially the exact indifference that influences us all.
Not being a Christian, I shall be sacrificing nothing for Lent, but I can’t help but think how the advice speaks to us all.
Watch the ‘controversial’ advert of the weekend. Celebration of faith and diversity in Britain or forcing a religious agenda on a largely secular society?
Life’s short. Have an affair. This is the slogan of this adultery dating website. It was hacked, with those responsible threatening to release personal information in order to shame the site and users.
All for a private life and living life to its fullest…..but surely life’s too short to be in a loveless relationship or to cause someone the pain it would bring.
Maybe an open relationship is better for you, but deception….that’s a time waster.
I mean this isn’t even touching on the morality of this site….
Did Wittgenstein use silly points to make profound ones?
I feel like I’m being tricked into learning about cricket! I tried these cricket specific terms on my husband, who proudly claims to be a sporting man, and he knew from the term ‘nurdle’ that cricket was the game!
In teaching I suppose it is a specific game too. If i was to tell you that my NQT was favouring SEN specialisms and that I am responsible for RE, PDC and SMSC…well you’d have to have QTS and working your way up the framework to get me!
Thomas Cook makes ‘sincere and heartfelt apology’ over children’s deaths | UK news | The Guardian.
Today my 13s discussed the tragic case involving Thomas Cook. A jury concluded that the travel firm had breached their duty of care, so we discussed the duties of a business.
Friedman argues a business’ only duty is to make profit, but in today’s world we see an increase in society demanding moral culpability from organisations! Look at the banking crisis!
But another interesting factor is the money Thomas Cook has won from the hotel responsible for the safety of the site. It was more than what was awarded to the family and after pressure from outside Thomas Cook have given half of it to UNICEF (£1.5 million). Is this a socially responsible company or is it doing it to save face? Should they have given away the full £3 million or does it have a duty to its employees to stay afloat?
Does nature have intrinsic value or does its value only exist for us? Basically if we don’t appreciate it or use it is it pointless. This has been the debate with my yr13s today, many say they really want to hug the ugly creatures….personally I’m ok.
Ethically if you see the environment as valuable in of itself then you have an eco-centric (ecosophy) view. This was an idea supported by Naess; that we are just part of a complex system.
However, some argue that ethics should be anthropocentric and only make decisions for the benefit of mankind. Destroying the environment is morally wrong as it would destroy us, but that is the only reason.
So should we value the blob fish because it is of equal value to us or because of its necessity to our existence?