Morality and Religion Does religion play an important role in Morality? Is religion the reason behind truly knowing the difference between what is right or wrong? Everyone has their own opinion over this matter. Some people will argue that religion is highly essential while others believe it has nothing to do with the way people express their moral behaviors. Sam Harris claims religion does not play an important role in morality; however, he is incorrect religion is essential in truly understanding morality.
Aristotle’s view is therefore analytically true as it implies goodness and morality are included in the idea of God. This view is also what the three monotheistic religions-Christianity, Islam ... ... middle of paper ... ... unintentionally. Also, what might be said to be the will of God may actually not be, as revelations have been seriously tampered with from generation to generation. This will eventually end in a contradiction in ideas of what God commands is morally right. Lastly, the view that morality and religion are linked leaves out the people that do not believe in God and makes pronounces them as immoral, which may not be right as they might have some code of conduct that they adhere to as well.
Cultural Relativism and the Divine Command Theory both had a tough time explaining why culture and God had the rights to state what is considered moral behavior. Especially when you lay your trust on God to guide you on what is moral or not, you face dangerous risks because there is a possibility that God is just a make-believe person up in the sky. Hence, humans who follow God’s words can misinterpret his meanings and cause immoral behavior in society. On the other hand, Ethical Relativism appeals to an authority that is present on this in this world, society and cultures. Nevertheless, society and cultures should not be relied on to indicate moral and immoral behavior because it is questionable to believe that our actions become moral just for the reason that our culture or society accepts them as normal.
However, a person is at absolute liberty to perform, whatsoever one wants to in the non-existence of God because one does not regard anything as right or wrong in absence of objective moral principles and does not fear any Divine judgement. God (it does not matter whether it exists in different forms or in different numbers because the basic concept of existence is same), is a source of moral strength, but it would seem ignorant to claim that those who do not have faith in God do not often live moral lives. There are, of course many atheists (believers of non-existence of God) who do not refute the principles of morality and are ethical because they realize their importance (either by having credence on any of the other ethical systems such as Kantian ethics, Social Contract theory and Utilitarianism). With the advent of modern liberalism, people have become rational (or at least they believe so). Although they condemn the acts of murder, child abuse, rape and ethnic cleansing but this does not make them more ethical than a believer of God because realization of good or bad is already progr... ... middle of paper ... ... should not be fixed arbitrary and on irrational basis because then it would result in uncertain, surprising outcomes but it should be fixed based on a standard moral code with a clear comprehension of Divine revelations and Supreme commandment in one’s mind, which is possible only in the belief of existence of a Deity.
Whereas Andrea, who is against this theory points out that God is not the key for having moral values. Her argument seems to be more convincing because an atheist can still to do the right thing based on their own interest if it has a rational explanation for moral values. The only difference is that non-believers don't have a supreme ruler to measure the intensity of how moral their actions are. Doing the right or wrong thing should be justified on a level of whether or not your actions hurt or harm someone in any w...
In particular, it robs those who disagree with these silenced opinions. Mill then turns to the reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions. His first argument is that the suppressed opinion may be true. He writes that since human beings are not infallible, they have no authority to decide an issue for all people, and to keep others from coming up with their own judgments. Mill asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is so often in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, and excluding that, in the infallibility of the world they come in contact with.
“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington According to George Washington, morality can only be maintained or exist when religion is there to guide it. While this may seem like a simple concept to understand, matters of religion and morality are more complex. Many religions have value systems regarding virtues and morals that are meant to guide their followers in determining between right and wrong; however, just because a person is religious does not necessarily mean they are moral and just because a person is moral does not necessarily mean they are religious. Although ideas of religion and morality are commonly confused with one another, in his novel, Light in August, William Faulkner confirms his belief that religion and morality are not synonymous.
Atheism is probably the least popular and least understood philosophical position in America today. It is often approached with fear and mistrust, as if one were about to investigate a doctrine that advocates a ... ... middle of paper ... ...imply because it is right, and not because of some ulterior motive. There is no need to create fictions for the purpose of moral motivation and to do what is right because one wants to avoid punishment, whether the punishment take the form of incarceration or eternal damnation. The right thing is for honorable people to act for the sake of a reward, whether that reward is worldly or otherworldly. Moreover, a God who will forgive any and all sins does more to promote wrong acts than any secular philosophy.
We also have inherent instincts of guilt, anger, shame, and pride. Theists and Non-Theists, both, display this natural instinct. Norenzayan proposes, “religiosity and feelings of compassion were statistically unrelated; and for nonbelievers, the greater the feelings of compassion were, the more prosocial their behavior was; however, among believers, feelings of compassion were unrelated to prosocial behavior.” (CITE) This proposal helps to strengthen the argument against needing religion for morality by establishing that theists and non-theists remain mutual on prosociality. If believers and non-believers both possess characteristics concerning the overall welfare of others, then it could be argued
Objectivism is defined as “an ethical theory that moral good is objectively (based on facts rather than feelings or opinions) real or that moral precepts are objectively valid.” (Webster). Demonstrated by Ayn Rand in the book, The Fountainhead, objectivism seems to most, to be morally wrong, and socially impractical, despite seeming to be a stress-free way of life. In The Fountainhead, Howard Roark does not see relationships as necessary, but as a means to an end. For America to be purely objectivist would tear the country apart, in the sense that “normal social relationships” would no longer exist, but hatred and racism would become obsolete. A democratic government would be unable to succeed because no one would look at issues from the perspective of the “common good”, but from the perspective of what benefits the individual.