Debate On Morality With And Without God

Ethics can be defined as ‘Human moral conduct according to principles of what is good or right to do’. In Christianity there are certain ethical teachings, mainly The Ten Commandments, Beatitudes, and Jesus’ commandments of love. The Ten Commandments are derived from the Old Testament which defines what people must do in order to serve God faithfully and gives direction on how to live a life according to the covenant and in essence to be a good Christian person. In the New Testament the Beatitudes and Jesus’ commandments of love are found. With love being the main concept of these teachings, they and the Ten Commandments can be seen as alike as they

In examining the relationship between religion and morality, there are many equally important topics that should be considered. One topic, nonetheless, that I think is essential in beginning to discuss the philosophy of morality in the context of religion is that which is concerned with whether religion has a significant role in the definition of morality. Religion does have a significant role in the defining and understanding of morality, and this is important for ethics. The aim of this paper is not to argue whether it is possible for one to be moral without being religious, for this I assume is more or less evidently possible, but rather whether a general concept of religion and God is needed in the proper interpretation of morality. I will refer to Plato’s Euthyphro and its focus on piety and the dilemma it generates, in guiding this discussion.

Today’s world is all about decisions. Should we get that new television? What about that new iPhone? Maybe the new Apple Watch? Notice how none of those questions had to deal with anything transcendent or in relation to God. Rather these questions focused on the material items that are available practically at the snap of one’s fingers. There is a lack of religious authority in cultural and social organizations in the modern society that we live in. Charles Taylor, in A Secular Age, focuses on showing that God is still present in our secular society, even when it seems as if He is removed. Taylor gives three separate understandings of secularization: separation between state and church with the movement of corporate practices without God, more

These individuals are known to be experts of morality. The chapter proposes two reasons as to why these individuals are called upon so frequently. One, for those who believe and have some sort of religious back round, and second, for those who believe in what is called a “scientific view” of the world. This chapter presents the idea that there is some popular belief that religion and morality go hand in hand and that in order to understand morality, you must understand religion. It is explained that when we view morality from a religious perspective, we give meaning to morality in a way that a “good man” made this world that we currently live in and that we are his children. While the book proposes the question that people who believe in God, or a higher power, base their values on what those religions state is right or wrong, whereas for an atheist the question still remains; how do these individuals weigh their moral compass and place their values?

The belief that morality requires God remains a widely held moral maxim. In particular, it serves as the basic assumption of the Christian fundamentalist's social theory. Fundamentalists claim that all of society's troubles - everything from AIDS to out-of-wedlock pregnancies - are the result of a breakdown in morality and that this breakdown is due to a decline in the belief of God. This paper will look at different examples of how a god could be a bad thing and show that humans can create rules and morals all on their own. It will also touch upon the fact that doing good for the wrong reasons can also be a bad thing for the person.

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

As aforementioned, God is the foundation of values in Christian theism, but for naturalists, values are created by human beings. The problem is, without any transcendent standard of good or bad, how does one derive what “ought” to be from what “is”? Naturalists believe that all people have a sense of moral values acquired by intuition and authority or picked up from their environment. For them, good action is the action that promotes harmony and survival within the community. This is the view held by postmodernists as well, where society determines what social good ought to be. Ethics thus becomes autonomous and situational rejecting the need for any theological sanction.

Christian initially accepts this suggestion, for he is told by Mr. Worldly-Wiseman that Legality is a man who is known for his good works (Bunyan, 19). Christian them embarks on the trip to the Village of Morality, but in transit he encounters a hill that proved an insurmountable obstacle, along with the reappearance of Evangelist who shames him for trusting in the earthly qualities of morality and legality (Bunyan, 20-22). Therein we see confirmation of the notion that justification is by faith alone. For Christian, via the instruction and teachings of Evangelist, discards the knowledge and virtues of the concepts of morality and legality as nothing more than a fruitless diversion in comparison to seeking the Celestial City (Bunyan, 22).

Throughout the history of the world, people have been concerned with what it is to live a moral life. Many answers have been put forth for this question, but the best by far is found in the Christian Bible. This is because the Bible is a revelation from the Creator. While people can grope in the dark to find answers to moral questions by looking at natural law, they are always frustrated because the real nature of the world we live in is fallen and corrupt. We have an adversary who tries to deceive us and minds that are easily deceived. Even at our most rational, we make mistakes in logical inference, and need to be corrected. In this paper, we will look at biblical ethics in terms of meta-ethics, deontology, virtue theory, and

All systems of thought and each worldview have a notion of God. Secular humanism is defined as a belief system where humanity is the sovereign of all beings, and where reality and information rests in science and reason. The secular humanistic worldview started as a substitute among religions. Humanism is not a religious belief system in itself, while secular means “not religious.” A religion is any system of belief that informs an individual’s worldview. The secular humanistic worldview has a distinctive belief on many disciplines such as theology, ethics, and evolution among others. Thus, the thesis of this paper is; the secular humanism worldview is religious, as secular humanists uphold beliefs and values that hold them with dedication. The purpose of this research paper is to discuss whether the secular humanistic worldview is indeed religious and how it has influenced the American Culture. Secular humanism is nontheistic and religious because it directs itself towards beliefs and practices that are in active opposition to customary theism. According to the Humanistic Manifestos I and II, secular humanism is a religious and philosophical moral point of view (House 381).

Genesis 1:31 says, “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed it was very good.” Since God said that what he has made is good, humans were created with a sense of goodness. In Genesis 2:16-17 it states, “And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’” According to this verse Adam knew that that there were consequences to eating the fruit of the forbidden tree, which indicates his sense of morality, and shows that humans, being descendants of Adam know the difference between good and bad. Therefore, humans having morals shows that they are made in the image of

Morality only exists if we believe in God; therefore if God doesn’t exist there is no morality. There have been so many evil acts committed in the name of God that it is difficult to maintain that a belief in God equates to morality. There are situations that happen every day where decisions are made based off of human rights that contradict the word of God. Morality comes from within, it is an understanding of right versus wrong and the ability to choose what is right. Knowing all this a belief in God is not a requirement for a person to be moral. (Mosser, 2011)

Religion in the world has always been considered a rather important aspect of society. Although this is true, there are still people that question the existence of God. A survey done among 1000 people showed that 65 percent of Americans believe that religion is losing its influence on American life (Sheler, 8). Even so, Belief in a God is necessary for a moral society because since the beginning of history man has always made up some sort of role model to explain events and situations that seem inexplicable, God gives people a sense of comfort and hope to know they aren’t alone, and when a society believes in a God, there is a religion behind it that gives ethics and values that they must

Any beneficial conversations about morality that occur between those who practice religion and those who do not, or those with different religions, must incorporate a common set of ethical concepts and a shared procedure for resolving issues and making judgments, all of which ethics provides. It is also understood that in these conversations moral positions on the issues

Voluntarists and non-voluntarists have had intense debate on the issue of religion and morality. The underlying central argument of the debate is whether the morality requires a religious foundation or not. While the voluntarists claim that morality does require a religious foundation, non-voluntarists assert that it doesn’t. David Brink and George Mavrodes argues with this theme of voluntarist and non-voluntarist. My essay will largely focus on the strengths and weakness of both voluntarists and non-voluntarists associating with Mavrodes and Brink’s idea on this issue.