More handpicked essays just for you.
How religion impacts morality and ethics
Morality and its relation with religion
Relationship between religion and morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Craig’s argument
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.
Craig’s main argument is summarized as follows
1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values do exist.
3) Therefore, God exists. (Craig 249)
The very first thing Craig states is that morality is objective, and presents two counter examples from two atheists, Bertrand Russell and Michael Ruth, to prove that morality is not objective without the existence of
…show more content…
I do not agree with him. For example, if I am try to convince you ‘1+1=2’, and you say you do not think so because you do not believe in me. Then I state that Johann Karl Friedrich Gauss, the great mathematician say so, so you should believe that. Then you reply you do not believe him either and you do not believe in mathematics at all, then any great mathematician or any reasonable mathematics proof on 1+1=2 cannot be your reason to believe 1+1=2. And then my ‘1+1=2’ argument is thus weak and inconvincible. Similarly, it is not fair to convince atheist that God is the foundation of objective morality, because being an atheist means do not believe in
Finally, in Beckwith’s fourth point, he evaluates the absurd consequences that follow moral relativist’s arguments. In his final critique, Beckwith uses typical philosophical examples that Mother Teresa was morally better than Adolf Hitler, rape is always wrong, and it is wrong to torture babies. Beckwith argues that for anyone to deny these universal claims is seen as absurd, yet it concludes with moral objectivism that there are in fact universally valid moral positions no matter the culture from which those individuals
Today's topic is on whether morality is completely relative or whether there are any moral absolutes. We as individuals and as a culture have certain sets of morals and ideals that we stand by. Whether or not certain morals carry over to various cultures or if morals are unique to that culture is left up to debate between Ruth Benedict and James Rachels. Today I will try to show that James Rachels argument is logically stronger than Ruth Benedict's argument
Dr. William Lane Craig supports the idea of existence of God. He gives six major arguments, in order to defend his position. The first argument is quite fare, Craig says that God is the best reason of existence of everything. He gives the idea, that the debates between all the people, cannot reach the compromise, because the best explanation of the reasons of existence of everything is God, and nothing can be explained without taking Him into consideration. The second argument of Craig is from a cosmological point of view: he says that the existence of the universe is the best proof of the existence of God. Because, the process of the creation of the universe is so ideally harmonious, that it seems impossible to appear accidentally. The third argument is about the fine tuning of the universe. The universe is designed in such a way that people always have aim of life, and the life of people and the nature are interconnected. The fourth argument of Dr. Craig is about the morality: God is the best explanation of the existence of the morality and moral values in people’s lives. The...
The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a very important one. We each have our standards of right and wrong, and through the reasoning of individuals, these standards have helped to govern and shape human interactions to what it is today. No other beings except “rational beings,” as Kant calls us, are able to support this higher capability of reason; therefore, it is important for us to consider cases in which this capability is threatened. Such a case is lying. At first, it seems that lying should not be morally permissible, but the moral theories of Kant and Mill have answered both yes and no on this issue. Furthermore, it is difficult to decide which moral theory provides a better approach to this issue. In this paper, we will first walk through the principles of each moral theory, and then we will consider an example that will explore the strengths and weaknesses of each theory.
Religion and morality exist together in parallel according to Alan Keyes. Alan Dershowitz stated that if religion and morality are not separated, it could have negative discourse. James Fowler followed Piaget, Kohlberg, and Erickson when selecting the stages to his development of faith across the life span. These three men all selected different ways to look at religio...
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
The Canadian philosopher J.L. Schellenberg has recently put forward an argument for atheism based on the idea that God is supposed to be perfectly loving and so would not permit people to be deprived of awareness of his existence. If such a deity were to exist, then, he would do something to reveal his existence clearly to people, thereby causing them to become theists. Thus, the fact that there are so many non-theists in the world becomes good reason to deny the existence of God conceived of in the given way. I first raise objections to Schellenberg’s formulation of the argument and then suggest some improvements. My main improvement is to include among the divine attributes the property of strongly desiring humanity’s love. Since to love God requires at least believing that he exists, if God were to exist, he must want widespread theistic belief. The fact that so many people lack such belief becomes a good argument for atheism with respect to God conceived of in the given way. Some objections to this line of reasoning are considered, in particular the claim that God refrains from revealing himself to people in order to avoid interfering with their free will or to avoid eliciting inappropriate responses from them or some other (unknown) purpose. An attempt is made to refute each of these objections.
Morality and ethics have always been a large source of debate and contention between different factions of various interests, beliefs, and ideals due to its centrality and foundational role in society and civilization and incredible importance to everyday life and decision making. In many of these disputes religious belief, or a lack thereof, serves as an important driving force behind one or both sides of the argument. In the modern world, one of the bigger instances of this can be seen in the many debates between Atheistic and religious individuals about the implications of religious belief on morality. One of the most famous Atheists, Christopher Hitchens, asserts that religion is not only unnecessary for morality, but actually impedes it. In his work God is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything, Christopher Hitchens challenges religious believers to “name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer”, and proudly states afterwards that many have made the attempt but no one has given him a satisfactory answer. However, the best response to this challenge is to point out the inherent flaws in his logic, the unfairness of his challenge, and the fact that Hitchens is asking the wrong question in the first place.
The position that I hold regarding the essay’s question is that I do not believe in an objective morality or in objective moral truths, I believe that all morality is entirely relative and subjective based on cultural norms because moral relativism is the philosophized meaning that right and wrong are not absolute values and that they are personalized based on the individual and the circumstances or cultural orientation. Morality applies within cultures but not across them. Ethical or cultural relativism and the various schools of pragmatism ignore the fact that certain ethical percepts probably grounded in human nature do appear to be universal and ancient, if not eternal. Ethical codes also vary in different societies, economies, and geographies
...ouple of spots in his argument may be hazy, you are able to make a logical leap from statement to statement, in my opinion. His argument should also convince anyone else with a remotely open mind about where morality really comes from.
There are many arguments for moral realism, one of which is presented by David Enoch, who posits a unique explanation of how normative truths can exist. He argues for moral realism by using his Indispensability Argument, which explains the necessity of normative facts in deliberation. I will argue that Enoch’s claim is valid in that it fairs well against opposition, however it shows weakness by not addressing moral subjectivity.
Harman, G. (2000). Is there a single true morality?. Explaining value and other essays in moral philosophy (pp. 77-99). Oxford: Clarendon Press ;.
That there is a difference between religion and morality is uncontroversial. How can atheism be interpreted as a moral alternative? Although religion and morality reflect different values, they are deeply tangled for most individuals. In many cases, a person’s moral principles are grounded in religious commitments. In other cases, people find the source of morality outside of religion, such as the inherent value of all human beings. My central claim is that atheism rather than a theologically based value system offers the moral high ground.
Morality and the Bible & nbsp; Both the legal and salvation philosophies of the Old and New Testaments reflect those of the cultures around them, due to much copying and borrowing of laws and ideas. Furthermore, all societies around the world have similar moral and legal codes -- which is certainly not an accident. & nbsp; 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. & nbsp; Christians may then object that there is something unique about the Bible that makes it a superior moral code.
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.