Name: Gracely M.

De Juan
Section: BSLM 1B Activity 1 For Finals

One of the other issue with Epicureanism is it’s overemphasis on the self. Deep and loving

relationships with others have an unavoidable vulnerability to pain and suffering. Epicurus seems to

recommend "the absence of pain" as a pleasure more sought than pleasure itself. The state of no pain
is not a pleasure.

The Epicurean paradox's main flaw, in my opinion, is that it makes a semantic error. It assumes
that if a thing has omnipotence — the ability to do anything — then it can do everything at the same

time. It boils down to the simpler and more obvious question: "If God can go left and right, why can't
she? “Of course, an omnipotent being could go left and right at the same time, but how would it have

to change the world as we know it to make that possibility a reality?" Is a contradiction.

Based on what I read, some scholars have even argued that Epicurean egoistic hedonism, no

matter how foresighted, must be logically self-defeating. If the viewpoint is universalized, the egoist
must advocate maximization of his adversary's pleasure as well as his own, which may result in actions

that are painful to himself. As a result, the entire branch of ethics that deals with advising or judging
other agents is barred from consideration, and it is debatable whether such a viewpoint can be

considered an ethic at all. On the other hand, it has been argued that humans are subject to
antinomies, or contradictions, from which no system can escape; there are aspects of human nature

that go beyond the rational level. Thus, whatever its rational credentials, Epicureanism, as an attitude
toward life that Epicurus theorized in its purest form, remains one of the important forms that human

behavior has frequently assumed; and, at its best, it has achieved a type of asceticism that, even in
retirement and solitude, does not negate but welcomes company, finding the purest joys of life in the

unique richness of human encounters. Epicurus also believed that pleasure implies the limitation of
social relationships, because social relationships can lead to sacrifices for the sake of others. Such

sacrifices may be incompatible with avoiding physical pain. Furthermore, there are those who enjoy
living with and helping others.

While theocentrism is having God as central interest and ultimate concern. Here are some
loopholes, critique or problems of theocentrism; Human rights discourse in the West is deeply rooted in
Christian theology and what is known as 'theocentrism,' which situates human rights in the God-created
order of the world rather than in the capacities of sentient individuals. Some contemporary theocentric
ideas are examined and critiqued in this article. It focuses on the contention made by some theocentric
human rights defenders that secular individualism and democracy are misguided and contradict Christian

doctrine.
A critique of recent theocentric arguments about human rights and briefly discusses an alternative that
locates rights in the capacities of sentient beings.
It is obvious that this critique is inextricably linked to a broader political and ethical critique of
secular society. Another concern expressed by the late Pope John Paul II is that secular human rights
language can be used to support claims about the right to privacy and the right to satisfaction, which can
then be used to support perverse sexual practices, the right to abortion, the right to assisted suicide, and
other ideas that appear to violate God's created order. While sexual immorality is a minor concern,
supporters of the theocentric argument argue that recourse to some idea about the right order of the
universe and the endowment of the human species is the only way to include disabled people, fetuses, or

even human embryonic stem cells in the class of beings with rights. I believe that people who reject
theocentrism in their thinking about rights must find a method to ground rights in basic capacities without
excluding disabled individuals of our own species. In order to do so, we may have to acknowledge that
some nonhuman species have rights as well.
The theocentric perspective, which locates rights in God's endowment of human beings, is based on the

ostensibly God-created distinction between humans and nonhuman creatures. A differentiation like this
makes sense only within the context of a theistic worldview that takes the Genesis story at least partly
seriously and believes that species distinctions are God-created facts. However, after Darwin, such a
manner of viewing the world is extremely difficult to support. It is more plausible to assume that humans
are not more sacred by nature than non-humans. We have some abilities that other species do not.

However, these disparities in capability do not result in qualitatively different types of creatures. Another
issue is that the theocentric approach sees no need to tolerate those who disagree with this religious
belief. According to this reasoning, rights discussion is absurd without a specific type of religious faith.
Because the absolute foundation of rights is supposed to be found in God's fiat, other rights traditions or
conceptions are regarded as wrong or inadequate. Any attempt to establish human rights in an absolute

other than God's fiat is rejected as ultimately illogical. This is problematic because it leads to bigotry
toward non-religious individuals, whereas I believe everyone has the right to believe or not believe in a
creator.