Recent orders
Morality and Religion
Morality and Religion
Author’s name
Institutional Affiliation
Table of Contents
TOC o “1-3” h z u Morality and Religion PAGEREF _Toc322867786 h 3Introduction PAGEREF _Toc322867787 h 3Morality and Religion PAGEREF _Toc322867788 h 3Moral Arguments PAGEREF _Toc322867789 h 5What Is Ethics devoid of God? PAGEREF _Toc322867790 h 6Is Morality related To Religion? PAGEREF _Toc322867791 h 7Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc322867792 h 9References PAGEREF _Toc322867793 h 10
Morality and ReligionIntroductionCan humanity be morally upright without inclination on a dogma or God? Can humanity be moral devoid of religion? The response to these queries is an undeniable Yes. Humanity indeed does not require to believe in God a deity or to profess to any religion so as to be morally upright or to perform good deeds. However, believing in a religious entity or God can play a significant role in a person’s moral values, but it is not obligatory. This paper will begin with breaking down what it means to be moral with the description of moral, which is relating to values of wrong and right in conduct, or conformity to a standard of appropriate behavior. In that perspective, a human being can be ethical devoid of belief in God, since it depends on the individual to decide to be moral. Humanity does not of necessity to belong to some religion, so as to have a sense of moral wrong or right. Moral righteousness is innate, and not predicated on mystical faith, since morality is a creation of social, but not religious interaction. Unfortunately, the erroneous idea that humanity cannot be moral devoid of professing belief in God or without professing to a religion is dominant in the majority of societies across humanity. This erroneous idea is largely accountable for lack of advancement in those areas of human existence where religions apply moral authority (Craig & Sinnott, 2004).
Morality and ReligionIs there any interrelation between religion and morality? Ethical obligations are often considered as commands with power behind them. Nevertheless, what is the foundation of that authority? Is it appropriate to declare that the single grounds for them being ethical obligations are that they have been instructed by God? The character of the relationship between morality and religion, whether there is one in any way, is a fundamental concern for religious advocates. According to Alston (2006), be religious and to declare religious allegations is to be devoted to a set of moral principles.
Much religious lingo is the expression of morality and consequently religious advocates have devoted themselves to behavioral norms. This includes abstaining from a number of actions in addition to fulfilling others. However, is the interrelation between morality and religion and morality and God the same thing? Is it conceivable that religious morality is perhaps unrelated the moral instructions of God, or is it feasible to be submissive to the instructions of God devoid of being devoted to a religious moral society? Religious believers might argue that, even if a human being gets away with outrageous transgressions on earth, chastisement would follow him in the eternal life. On the other hand, those who have defied the persuasion to do wrong will be recompensed, and, therefore, even if it is likely to evade earthly punishment it is not in the religious believers’ eschatological interests to do so (Wainwright, 2005). There is a close relationship between eschatology and the issue of religious morality, because hell is customarily associated with chastisement for wrongdoing, whereas heaven with recompense for goodness. This is despite the fact that the majority of most Christians may argue that admittance into heaven is not attained merely by performing good works (Street, 2010).
In contrast, an existentialist viewpoint maintains that, in the event that there is no God to maintain the command of the moral law, subsequently there is no risk of chastisement or promise of recompense, and, therefore, morality is pointless. Effectively devoid of God, everything is permissible, since God assumes the role of the custodian of morality, saving humanity from declining into moral pandemonium. According Dostoevsky, God is the lynchpin of morality and order in society, whereby in the absence of God, all hierarchy crumples, and everything can be permissible. Dostoevsky was troubled by afflictions but unable to discard belief in God since God is essential for morality (Pruss, 2009). Maybe God does not require to essentially being present for Him to be the center of morality, as well as the means of controlling moral conduct, this would mean that the notion of God is sufficient to maintain moral order.
Moral ArgumentsMoral arguments in support of theism include efforts to ascertain the God’s existence from a number of alleged facts concerning morality. Several people are of the opinion that objective moral principles are necessary in order to make sense of some features of human life, for example, and that God is the single possible foundation of such principles. The meta-ethical moral case challenges the existence of objective moral doctrine either necessitates God’s existence or at any rate is best explicated by theism. One version of these arguments alleges that:
If there exist objective moral principles, in that case God exists.
There exist objective moral principles.
Consequently, God exists.
The first argument fails since the first hypothesis is baseless. The underlying principle for thinking that objective moral principles require God is the hypothesis that only God can ground the objectivity of morals But, in fact, there seems to be no way that God’s existence can ground moral facts, anymore than it can ground scientific or mathematical facts. The typical objection to the godly command conjecture of ethics demonstrates that the objectivity of morals cannot be grounded in deity (Craig & Sinnott, 2004).
An interrelated epistemological, moral case argues that, conception of the existence of objective moral principles necessitates the existence of God. Other moral viewpoints include the prudential, moral viewpoint. This viewpoint alleges that, humanity should believe in God as well as the afterlife, in order that apprehension of judgment following death will dissuade people from committing acts of immorality (Street, 2010).
What Is Ethics devoid of God?There have been numerous philosophers throughout history who have endeavored to demonstrate that it is feasible to have universal morality devoid of God. Numerous arguments have been presented to sustain this position, and in conjecture, they might be right, although it would depend on what one connotes by the phrase universal. Those in support would declare that, all a person requires to have is an agreement on what is deemed right or wrong behavior. Their position would be; in the event that God is essential for morality, in that case whatever God considers moral is therefore, moral. Consequently, why eulogize God for what His deeds if He could have with equal ease done the contrary and that too would have been considered as equally moral. Secondly, if goodness is a central attribute of God, in that case, God cannot be applied in defining goodness. This would result into circular reasoning in that, if goodness is used in defining God then, God must not be used in defining goodness. Thirdly, if one does not believe in God, then complying with God’s commands will not assist one to resolve any moral problems (Pruss, 2009).
A number of philosophers conclude that the suggestion that a moral law necessitates a divine lawgiver is unsustainable. Other philosophers allege that for God to characterize what is right or wrong is subjective. On the contrary, God is not subjective since He is the foundation of all life and consequently the foundation of all truth. Humanity therefore, has no basis to even comprehend the idea of being arbitrary apart from in reference to an eternal God. Secondly, these arguments fail to distinguish the nature of humanity. If man was not degraded by sin, then humanity would have immeasurable potential to generate from within itself a universal moral system. On the contrary, humanity is corrupted and, therefore, incompetent of fully perceiving what is just. Humanity is incapable of doing what it understands being good. Therefore, the issue of right or wrong has all to do with the foundation of faith, but not merely its substance. No matter how genuinely an individual believes they are right in relation to some moral judgment, the right test is in the foundation of that faith. Therefore, it would be fitting to assert that, God is the single universal, as well as, absolute foundation to all morality (Alston, 2006).
Is Morality related To Religion?Several people believe that religion and morality are fundamentally related, whereby, they may consider this as an argument for the existence of God. One basis why some theists suppose that morality presupposes the existence of God is that their viewpoint appears to grant their lives obvious purpose. According to Christianity, man was created by God in His likeness, in order to fulfill the purpose that He intended for mankind. Christianity developed this fundamental idea into the conception of natural law in order that humanity can see how it should conduct its affairs through working out what its purpose is. The Pope’s disapproval of homosexuality is an illustration of the working of this theory. This approach to morality is controversial since it may be perceived as a poor imitation of morals (Street, 2010).
A different rationalization of the purported relationship between morality and God is the notion that humanity has an obligation to comply with God’s commands, since He is the omnipotent maker, to whom humanity owes its existence. The divine command hypothesis bears an apparent semblance to the natural law approach, but it entails a focus on the commands of God. The most universal opposition to such an approach is that, this approach makes morality appear rather arbitrary. This is insofar as the commands of God would be at best conditionally related to the needs of humanity. Obviously, such a perception is what lies inspires the allegations of numerous persons who allege that atheists cannot y any means be moral. The assumption is that if an individual does not believe that they will be chastised for transgressions, then, there are no grounds to obey morality’s dictates. In this case, then atheists would not have any motive not to steal when they would not suffer any sanction for stealing, whereas the theists would at all times fear the sanctions of an Omni-present God. This entire line of thought is founded on an overly thin understanding of the grounds an individual might have for conducting themselves morally. It supposes that these grounds would require being prudential. This is grounded on the belief that conducting oneself morally is in an individual’s self-interest (Alston, 2006).
Nevertheless people occasionally act morally when they figure out that this would not be in their best interests. Morality is not entirely about self-interest, but also entails sacrificing a person’s self-interest for the sake of the greater good of other persons. Several thinkers have posited that the very reality of a sense of conscience is substantiation for God. Strictly speaking the independence of religion and morality is reasonably compatible with the God existence. It becomes a mater of concern when persons allege that the existence of conscience rationally presupposes a deity to whom humanity owes responsibility. If this is permissible, then God might appear as the sole candidate. Some philosophers such as Newman supported this school of thought, inquiring why individuals would feel culpable if they do not believe they were being monitored (Pruss, 2009).
In particular, the allegation that if humanity developed through evolution, it would not have had a conscience is untrue. It is erroneous to presume that a conscience is an absolute curse from the perspective of evolution. It is also extremely probable that a matured conscience, in its entire characteristics, is not a precise adaptation, but a consequence of humanity’s advantageous cognitive capabilities. What of the allegation that a conscience would make no sense except there is a deity for humanity to be answerable to? There would be two ways to resolve it, whereby firstly to grant for the benefit of the argument that humanity’s sense of conscience assumes that it is answerable to somebody. Secondly is to point out that, there lacks any sound reason to grant that humanity’s sense of conscience presupposes that humanity is accountable to somebody. Once this view is rejected, moral obligations would be based in individual self-interest, or comparable to legal responsibilities (Craig & Sinnott, 2004).
ConclusionMany people in the contemporary world believe that God is unnecessary, and an overbearing task master. They allege that they do not require God to live morally upright, and they have the ability to set their individual rules for living. This means that the contemporary world is obsessed with individual values, whereby what individuals do depends on their individual values. The very conception of basing morality upon individual values means that humanity has bought into the conception of a structure of relativistic ethics. Individual values have substituted the significance of virtue as the pedestal for ethical thought. The world today continues to build an ethical structure based on enlightenment and tolerance with the exception of God. Humanity has tried many approaches to teach this godless variety of morality. However, this paper has demonstrated that there is something erroneous with delinking morality from religion. Morality is better served through religious foundation, rather than an explicitly neutral, atheistic/materialist foundation. It is fitting to mention that morality cannot subscribe to natural law in the sense that the adherence to the natural laws of nature may designate the moral path and what would be regarded as an infringement of the natural law.
ReferencesAlston, W. (2006). What Euthyphro Must Have Said. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Craig, W., & Sinnott, A. (2004). God? A Discussion between an Atheist and a Christian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pruss, A. (2009). An Additional Step in Divine Authority Dialectics. Philosophy and Faith 26 (4) 26-32.
Street, S. (2010). A Darwinian Impasse for Realist Theories on Moral Value. Journal of Philosophical Studies, 127(8) 66-75.
Wainwright, W. J. (2005). Religion & Morality. London: Ashgate.
Morality And Kant
Morality And Kant
“All rational knowledge is either material, and concerns some object, or formal, and is occupied only with the form of understanding and reason itself and with the universal rules of thinking, without regard to distinctions among objects”(page 3). Kant uses these thoughts throughout all of his writings; all of his comments, thoughts, and views relate back to this principle. Kant expresses his views on morality, duty, good will, and moral duty through out the “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals.” I agree with many of Kant’s views of these principles, but at the same time disagree with the extremes he takes in trying to persuade the reader.
The first “proposition of morality” is that you have to have done something to achieve moral worth. On page 14, Kant says that action done out of “vanity or selfishness” is not true moral worth. Kant uses the example of a sorrowful man. Although this man is sorrowful, he still helped others around him. While helping others, he could not accept sympathy from them because he was so preoccupied with his own sorrows. He doesn’t receive anything in return for his help; now, since he is not receiving anything for his help, he has done this act with “genuine moral worth.” He is helping others without even being aware of the effect he is having on them. On page 16 it states, “An action done from duty does not have its moral worth in the purpose which is to be achieved through it but in the maxim whereby it is determined.” This quote is Kant’s second proposition of morality. Kant’s second proposition is a lot like the first. I think what Kant is trying to say that when someone does something, not to benefit him or herself, it is done for “duty.” When I read this I thought of politicians. When a politician is campaigning he promises “lower taxes” and “better health benefits.” Although he may actually try to achieve these things, he is using the hope of the voters to get where he wants to be. This example is against what Kant believed.
The third proposition of Kant states, “duty is the necessity to do an action from respect to law.” The third, I believe, is achieved through the first two propositions. When someone does their “duty” to a country or a city, it is because they respect the laws that were made there. When I hear the word, “duty” I think of being in the army, especially during a draft. When someone gets drafted it is their duty to serve their country. Although some do cross country borders to get away from it, those who respect their country and its laws will serve with pride. Kant believes and knows that doing your “duty” won’t always make you happy; according to him, happiness is a false guide for duty. Kant believes that you should do your duty in life. Kant’s ethical views do not deal with moderation, wisdom, or being happy, but instead it deals with what your duty is, what you are bound to do. Kant’s thought on morality is doing “the duty” even if you do not want to do it. It is about realizing what you need to do and doing it. Kant realizes that doing your duty isn’t always going to be something you enjoy; but that it is not hard to determine whether you are acting selfishly or out of duty.
Kant’s three “propositions to morality” are very well thought out and well developed. I believe that the ideas that Kant has expressed are thoughts that all of us think on a daily basis; we just have a selfish mentality that we all must overcome.
Kant’s three propositions display how he feels about morality and “good-will.” Kant believes in the “moral law.” The moral law is that we act in such a way the maxum of your action can be universal law. A maxum is a rule or standard. Kant knows that his views on ethics and morality can be controversial. Kant states that you have to know what “moral” is before you can become moral. On page 24, Kant uses the example of friendship. He states, “pure sincerity of friendship can be demanded of every man, and this demand is not in the least diminished if a sincere friend has never existed, because this duty, as duty in general, prior to all experience lies in the idea of reason which determines the will on a prior grounds.” I believe Kant is saying that you cannot expect someone to act a certain way when they have never had an example of how they are supposed to work. To Kant, virtue is voluntary in such it comes from good will. Your “good will” is key in doing anything; it!
is the ability to choose what you want to do.
Kant disagrees with the idea of lying. He sees the views that people take on lying, but do not agree with them. Kant realizes that people lie to get out of bad situations, but once you lie, what do you do next? Kant believes that once you drift away from the “principle of duty” that it is bad, and you are being untrue to the rules that you know. Kant says that if one person lies, then that breaks communication between that person and the person they are having a conversation with. Kant believes that when lying you are breaking “moral law.” And you should not use a lie to get yourself out a difficult situation, when most likely you put yourself in that situation to begin with.
Kant has many thoughts about moral duty. He believes that there are four categories that Kant gives moral duty. The first category of moral duty is committing suicide. Kant states on page 38, “for love of myself, I make it my principle to shorten my life when by a longer duration it threatens more evil than satisfaction.” I interpret this as it is better to end your life before you cause any harm to yourself or someone else.
And if you end your own life it may hinder you from completing your duty to your community or to the world. Kant believes that committing suicide is a selfish act, and I agree. The choice of committing suicide not only takes your own life, but it affects your family, friends, and peers. It causes your loved ones to feel pain and they lose the opportunity to spend more time with you. The second of Kant’s thoughts is that it is wrong to borrow money when you know you cannot repay it. This is also a selfish act, especially when you promise the person that you will repay them. “Now this is the principle of self-love or of his own benefit,” states Kant (page 39). If the man were to promise the money would be returned and does not do so, then the trust of the other man towards the borrower will decrease, as his respect will also. Kant’s third category is the cultivation of talents. While reading, I interpreted the passage on pages 39 and 40 to mean that if a person does not use the talents given to them, then they are being selfish. They should be using their talents to improve the community around them. Kant believes that talents are like a piece of metal. If you don’t use your talents, you will loose them; as in metal, if you don’t take care of it and nurture it, the metal will rust and will be useless. Kant’s final thought on moral duty comes from an old prophecy of: help those who are in need. “What concern of it is mine?” states Kant on page 40. Kant knows that everyone has struggles and hardships of his or her own, but some are stronger than others and more blessed, so those who are better off should help those under them. Again, this thought could be a selfish one. Kant knows that people are concerned for themselves and their family and that is all. So, it is a good person who helps others, and that is the person who sticks out and has an impact on the people and community around him or her.
Kant’s ideas and thoughts about morality are much like we are taught in The Bible: “Love your neighbor and even your enemy.” His principles are not uncommon for us today. Although we know how we should act towards others, we do not always do so. Many of Kant’s thoughts were confusing, but I do understood where he was coming from on his main points of morality. While reading Kant, I realized that many of the views I agree with and others I do not. Kant’s four points of moral duty shows his acceptance of many Christian beliefs. The main one being, “put others before yourself.” Also known as the Golden Rule, “Treat others as you want to be treated.” All four points of Kant’s moral duty basically reduce back to this thought. For example, wouldn’t you be upset if a loved one of yours committed suicide? You would be dealing with a lot of pain that you weren’t prepared to deal with. Also, you wouldn’t want to have someone borrow money from you, when they knew that they couldn’t repay it. And using your talents for the good of the community can affect everyone. If you don’t use your talent then someone else won’t use theirs, and the entire community will suffer. And referring to the fourth thought of Kant, if you were in need for necessities that could save your life, wouldn’t you want someone that was able to help you out do it? Of course, everyone needs to help everyone else as much as they can.
Kant knows that his views are controversial, but he tries to show that he can see both points of view. He may feel one way about a certain situation, such as his thoughts on lying, but expresses both sides of the story. I believe that Kant knows exactly what is going on in the world around him and things have not changed much today. I think we should all try to live up to some of Kant’s propositions, I believe it would better our own communities and world.
Bibliography:
Mr. Stones Investment Portfolio
Mr. Stone’s Investment Portfolio
Name
Institution
Mr. Stone’s Investment Portfolio
Having increased his income by $ 1 million Mr. Stones requires a detailed investment portfolio to ensure his new fortune does not depreciate but rather appreciate. According to his wishes and expectations, Mr. Stones is not too knowledgeable when it comes to the investment sector, but even so he still wishes to increase his fortune by 10% before the end of the financial year. To easily achieve this goal the first move is making an investment portfolio which ensures that the finances are not only well utilized but also directed to ventures that will eventually yield the highest income as well as those that do not expose him to too high risk levels. The investment portfolio will assist him in answering questions revolving around good investment strategies, level of risk tolerance and relationship between his investment goals and his age matters.
Mr. Stone’s portfolio will target his entire income of $ 1 million that he received from his inheritance. Since he is in his early 40’s he can only manage to take investment decisions that are fairly quick to mature such as cash and bonds. 25 percent of his income will go to this quick investments which means that $1million divide by 25% which equals to $25,000 will go to attainment of the monetary goal. Secondly, even though Mr. Stones may prefer quick return investment he may as well set aside some of his income to cater for international and small capitalization funds. This means that he requires investing in stock to better achieve his set goals of increasing his income by 10 percent. Though stocks may have higher risk levels their returns may be higher than what he is likely to achieve from bond and cash investment. However, he requires understanding return per share, divides likely to be given and beta of the selected stocks before he can decide to investment in any stock.
Further, I decided to invest in a wide variety of companies specifically nineteen companies from different industries to be sure that market challenges in a particular industry does not interfere with my investment goals too much. During selection of these companies, I choose those that have show sufficient growth potential using their composite beta. The main reason of doing so, is to capture any market unexpected boom which in most cases bring about huge returns even though the risk certainty level is higher.
In conclusion, the total investment was $1,000,000. The stocks selected were from companies that have recorded high average growth over the past five years. The stocks beta was 1.02 and provided a return on investment of 2,879,973 meaning that Mr. Stones investment goals of attaining 10% income increase will be meant even though there were a few stocks that recorded a downturn of -10%.