Analysis Of Iris Murdoch's 'Morality And Religion'

746 Words2 Pages

Iris Murdoch, who was born in Dublin, Ireland, was known as one of the most important novelist in English during the twentieth century. In her 26 novels, she explores interesting aspects of psychology and philosophy. In her piece Morality and Religion, she states, “the most evident bridge between morality and religion is the idea of virtue” (Murdoch 363). To some, virtue is still considered a positive idea to pursue, while to others virtue has faded, has lost its positive meaning, and it is now considered “priggishness” or “rigidity”. Murdoch is saying that “the idea” of virtue may be out dated, that it instead is now something that is self-indulging. “An idea (concept) of virtue which not be formally reflective or clarified bears some resemblance to religion, so that one might say either that it is a shadow of religion, or religion is a shadow of it” (Murdoch 363). Virtue and morality are not necessarily interchangeable, but religion and virtue both have duty in common. Duty may be performed without strain or reflection of desire, which means your duty, or responsibility, should be performed without hesitation. “Dutifulness could be an account of a morality with no hint of religion” (Murdoch 364). Religion’s demand for morality and being good trumps a person’s decision to
Murdoch stated that Kilvert is so secure in his faith that he is like a child. According to Hegelian philosopher F.H. Bradley, both morality and religion strive for and demand a unity that’s impossible to grasp. Murdoch states, “Every separate aspect of the universe goes on to demand something higher than itself” (Murdoch 370). Morality and religion searches for a complete wholeness in being good. Reaching this is “the overcoming of the incomplete,” and religion is more effective than morality in expressing

Open Document