This treatise provides a critical examination of the Calvinistic viewpoint, presenting arguments against the belief that humans are devoid of moral capacity. Instead, the author asserts that humans possess the ability to make moral choices due to their inherent obligation to select the most virtuous course of action. Additionally, the author suggests that the extent to which an individual comprehends this duty directly influences their capacity to abide by it. Ultimately, the author maintains that humans' moral capability is demonstrated through navigating their innate disposition, thereby demonstrating their ability to conform. It is noteworthy that the author's perspective, which challenges conventional wisdom, is arguably more unconventional compared to that of the pragmatist.Initially, Charlie endeavors to elucidate this ethical capability by delineating the metaphysical conducts in humans that are deemed morally permissible by God, predicated on the mechanisms of human moral operation. This assertion implies that humans do not intrinsically possess a rationale that substantiates their moral proficiency through comprehending their duties. The inaugural transgression precipitated a forfeiture of humans' comprehension of their obligations.Charlie argues that the concept of intellect extends beyond mere knowledge of one's responsibilities. It also encompasses deriving satisfaction from the pursuit of moral excellence. In the case of humans, the intellect enables the comprehension of spiritual goodness through the lens of desire. It serves as the faculty through which individuals perceive the motivation to adhere to moral principles. However, the advent of sin in the world resulted in humans losing sight of spiritual goodness. As a consequence, they not only lost the inclination to strive for spiritual good, but also the understanding of their moral obligations. This perspective on human nature and its inherent incapacity to perform good actions is primarily influenced by an individual's self-perception rather than the external obligations imposed upon them.Charlie holds the conviction that individuals possess the capability to recognize their own capacity to engage in virtuous actions that are pleasing to God, driven predominantly by an innate sense of obligation. However, Charlie's assertion that the failure to fulfill this obligation implies an incapacity to perform any benevolent deeds is fallacious, as it overlooks the presence of a supreme Judge who evaluates individuals based on their endeavors. This notion of perceived capability is not grounded in true aptitude or competence, but rather embodies an inequitable doctrine.