In “The Brothers Karamazov” by Fyodor Dostoevsky made a famous claim that establishes the link between the existence of God and morality. Apart from the controversy related to the scope of the quotation, the discussion on the proper translation and interpretation of the words of Ivan Karamazov. For instance, in his article “Dostoevsky did not say it” D.Cortesi claims that Dostoevsky did not make such claim (Cortesi 1). However, the research by Russian-speaking authors shows that the original text of “The Brothers Karamazov” contains the statement under study (Volkov 1). Coming to the scope of the claim, one should concentrate on the reasons for making such claim, as well as the relation between the moral beliefs of secular humanists and the beliefs under study.
When one says that the non-existence of God leads to the fact that everything is permitted, one implies that there is a crucial link between the existence of God and morality. In other word, it may be summarized that the statement under study suggests viewing God as the source of morality. This suggestion brings one close to the divine command theory. As one of most well known meta-ethical theories, divine command theory lies in claiming that considering the action morally good is equal to viewing the action as the one, being commanded by God. It is suggested that what is moral is called forth by what God commands, and the only way to be moral is to follow the commands of God.
The statement by Dostoevsky is directly related to the scope of the divine command theory, as it is also based on viewing God as the main source of moral norms, and considering morality impossible without the existence of God. Let us consider the reasons that may have led to both the creation of th...
... middle of paper ...
...litics. Therefore, there are various historical examples of religious norms that contradicted the moral norms, elaborated on by secular humanists, as well as legal norms.
Above-mentioned arguments lead me to the conclusion that the identification of religious and moral norms, exemplified by Fyodor Dostoevsky, cannot be viewed as a proper approach to the detection of the roots of moral norms. However, religion-based moral norms and the ones, containing in the works of secular humanists and legislation have much in common and often exert simultaneous influence on the same social relations.
Works Cited
Blackburn, S. Ethics: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print.
Cortesi, D.E. Dostoevsky didn’t say it. The Secular Web, 2000. Web.
Volkov, A.I. Dostoevsky did say it: a response to D.E.Cortesi. The Secular Web, 2011. Web.
The pervasive problem of evil in the world has pleagued the Christian faith that proclaim God as a good and perfect God. There has been a need for theist to address this issues as a disclaimer for those that use evil as an reason to disprove that God could be good, perfect or even exist. Therefore, theist theologians and philosophers have turned to theodicies to attempt to explain the problem of evil. Theodicy is an attempt to explain why God permits evil in the world. This essay will show the historical approach to theodicy, the opposition to said theodicies and why theodicies could still play an important role today.
Morality derives from the Latin moralitas meaning, “manner, character, or proper behavior.” In light of this translation, the definition invites the question of what composes “proper behavior” and who defines morality through these behaviors, whether that be God, humanity, or an amalgamation of both. Socrates confronted the moral dilemma in his discourses millennia ago, Plato refined his concepts in his Republic, and leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi would commit their life work to defining and applying the term to political reform. Finally, after so many years, Martin Luther King’s “A Letter from Birmingham Jail” reaches a consensus on the definition of morality, one that weighs the concepts of justice and injustice to describe morality as the
Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky was among those philosophical thinkers who grappled with the task of explaining why evil exists in a world created by a perfect god. Despite the powerful influence of Christianity in his early childhood and throughout his life, Dostoevsky encountered difficulties in answering this question, which he described, “Nature, the soul, God, love – all this is understood by the heart, not by the mind” (Gibson 1973, 9). Nevertheless, Dostoevsky not only felt obligated to discover a solution to the problem, but also “responsible to his fellow believers for its success or failure” (Gibson 1973, 169). This quest for a solution to the problem of theodicy ultimately led Dostoevsky to write The Brothers Karamazov, a novel that attempts to explain the need for evil in the world. In posing his solution to this problem, Dostoevsky explains the necessity of suffering for the realization of human redemption, as well as the role of Christ’s atoneme...
This philosophical study will define the relationship between morality and religion in the Socratic dialogue of the Euthyphro by Plato. The primary argument put forth by Socrates is to determine the causality of morality/piousness in and unto itself or by the approval of the gods. Socrates attempts to question the moral and religious authority of Euthyphro, which defines the important originations of the “moral good” through the command of the gods. However, Socrates defines the original presence of the morality/piousness before the gods can “approve” or disapprove” of its goodness. This is the theoretical position of denying the issue of "divine command” of the gods’ existence before morality/piousness, which Socrates refutes in the arguments
In Western society and culture, religion and morality have often intertwined and they have reflected their values onto each other. Today it is sometimes impossible to make a distinction between the two, since their influence has transcended generations. In modern Western culture, religion and society preach conformity. In order to be a “good” person, one must conform to the values imposed by the church1 and state.
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. Despite the differences between The Divine Command Theory and Cultural Relativism, they both are theories that just fall short of their
Broadly, the divine command theory is a religious moral code in which God’s commands determine what human beings should or should not do. As such, it is expected for theists to subscribe to the divine command theory of morality. The deontological interpretation of the divine command theory separates actions into one of the following categories: mandatory for human beings to perform, prohibited for human beings to perform, or optional for human beings to perform. Those actions that are mandatory to perform are ones which have been expressly commanded by God. Failing to commit a mandatory action would be defying God’s commands, and thus, according to the divine command theory of morality, immoral. Actions that are prohibited are ones that God expressly commands human beings do not perform. Consequently, to perform a prohibited action would be immoral. Finally, those actions that God does not expressly command that human beings should perform or should avoid performing are optional; there are no moral implications to performing or not performing such acts. The rightness or wrongness of an action is inherently and wholly dependent upon th...
Further to the idea of how the obedience of religious standards prevails over the materialistic impulses
Many of us have wondered about the role of a Deity, in defining our moral code, and this has been a subject of discourse among scholars and philosophers since centuries. Many define morality as the innate ability of the human conscience to draw input for decisions which they believe is present there by itself. While some say that the (belief on the) presence of God gives them strength and inspiration to overcome their inability to follow moral standards (which are already defined) especially when they conflict with their self-interests. Although, some people argue that social stimulus imposes limits to one’s actions even if God does not exist. 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.
While confronting Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground seems a difficult task initially, one must be able to transcend the elaborate diction and parodies, and comprehend the author himself, while also taking root the message Dostoevsky had originally intended in the time it was addressed. Understanding the author himself, along with the period in which the work was written, augments one’s overall discernment of the passage. In the age he wrote, Dostoevsky must have seemed eccentric and outlandish; nevertheless, looking back on him from today with a literary understanding of modernism, he appears ahead of his time. His central premise, although difficult to determine amongst the satire, is humanity’s necessity for freedom and religion, specifically Christianity.
In God and Objective morality: A debate, Craig interprets the objective morality and states that the existence of God is the only foundation of objective morality. My purpose of this paper is to argue against Craig’s argument. My thesis is objective morality does exist in society to both theists and atheist, and the foundation of the moral value to individuals does not have to be God. For an atheist, God is also an abstract and not reliable foundation. Social harmony is the general foundation of moral value in modern society, and it is objective without the existence of God. In §1, I present the Craig’s argument and explain the motivation of each premise. §2, I present my critique and show that Craig’s argument fails. In §3, I defend against possible rebuttal.
Dostoevsky’s noteworthy literary works each contain similarities in theme, character development, and purpose when analyzed beyond face value. Dostoevsky’s early life and ideals, intertwined with life-changing events that shifted his ideologies, and critiques of fellow Russian writers during his time period lay the groundwork for Dostoevsky’s recurring arguments for the way which Russian society would be best-off, as well as ways in which the people of Russia would be suited to live the most fulfilling, non-corrupt lives.
Interestingly enough, the moral codes of the world's religions bear a striking resemblance to each other, with only minor variations. Religions as different as Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism all have proscriptions against killing, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. This is not an accident, for reasons we shall explore below.
The relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.
When considering morality, worthy to note first is that similar to Christian ethics, morality also embodies a specifically Christian distinction. Studying a master theologian such as St. Thomas Aquinas and gathering modern perspectives from James Keenan, S. J. and David Cloutier serve to build a foundation of the high goal of Christian morality. Morality is a primary goal of the faith community, because it is the vehicle for reaching human fulfillment and happiness. Therefore, great value can be placed on foundations of Christian morality such as the breakdown of law from Aquinas, the cultivation of virtues, the role of conscience in achieving morality, and the subject of sin described by Keenan.