In this essay, I will be arguing that Zagzebski’s argument illustrates that it is rational to believe that God does exist. I will briefly explain the “Does Ethics need God?” fundamental argument about morality that is presented in Zagzebski’s argument. After the first two parts of my essay I will discuss some objections and respond them. I will argue that Zagzebski’s argument indeed proves that God exists and I will do this by outlining the main claims of this argument and by responding to objections to this argument.
According to (Evans, 2014) “The have been several arguments that have been central to the discussion of morality and the existence of God form a part of a diverse body of arguments that reason from some feature of morality
…show more content…
(Zagzebski, 1987: 295).
The first premise states that if there is no God humans need to rely on their own human intuition in regards to living a life based on moral truth, as our own selves do not possess the necessary faculties to be able to judge what is perceived as ethical. Since, there is no what of knowing what is morally correct, as there is no moral compass that one may follow then moral despair is a rational thought for the atheists. However, moral despair is not a rational thought as humans are constantly trying to live a life that pertains to some sort of moral code and that is embedded in theistic principles.
Furthermore, the second premise extends this thought and denotes that humans are constantly in pursuit of living their lives in a moral way in an attempt to be rewarded in the hereafter. In addition, there needs to be a lucid reason as to why human beings attempt to lead a moral life and there needs to be an essence of trust in a deity that would make it sufficient to partake in this attempt to lead a life that would be deemed as moral otherwise why would humans simply waste their time in this attempt initially.
An opponent might object to my response by saying that that morality is not primarily based on theistic belief but instead a moral law that has no direct correlation to religion but yet encompasses ethical principles. Zagzebski
2. It is necessary that the morality of humans be an agreed upon set of ethics.
One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this
To many individuals, morality and religion are two related but distinct ideas. To be specific, morality consists of principles set by societal norms concerning the distinction between right and wrong and good and bad behaviour among persons. Alternatively, religion involves the relationship between human beings and a transcendent reality or a superhuman controlling power, God. In many societies in the past and present, the idea of God is used to help reinforce moral codes as valuable and vital through rituals and methods of presenting the teachings of God. By many, religion is used to instil fear
The following is a response to H.J. McCloskey’s article, On Being an Atheist. This paper will argue against some of the main points that McCloskey presents, as well as showing strong evidence to refute the claims that God doesn’t exist. The following will challenge McCloskey’s cosmological and teleological arguments, and it will challenge McCloskey’s view that God cannot exist because evil is present in the world. The first argument that this paper will challenge, however, is McCloskey’s statement of theists trying to prove the case for God.
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?
In the article Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Laws, Arthur A. Leff took an agnostic approach when determining what morality should be comprised of. He suggested that humans struggle with desiring to follow a predetermined and unchallengeable set of moral rules, while at the same time wanting the autonomy to create those rules.
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
We have demonstrated that our morality does not come from a physical place, by breaking down each argument as to the basis of good and evil. Yet, Atheists will exclaim our actions are purposelessly based, in other words “people do things just because” (Henderson, 2013). This does not sound like a thorough explanation as to where morality comes into the actions of someone. There must be a standard that creates a vision for someone to want to do something. The will and desire for one to act must come from some place. In order for you to want to help or do something good for someone, do you not need a basis for what good is? Without understanding good and evil, morality cannot exist because one cannot comprehend the heart of moral law. Meaning there must be a moral law foundation of which to compare all acts and that these actions are purposeful and have an ending. Incidentally, “it is hard, if not impossible, to conceive of objective moral principles somehow floating around on their own, apart from any persons.” (Kreeft, 1994, p. 22). The weakest argument is convincing someone of something they cannot see. The moral argument alone does not cover all aspects of proving God’s
HP Owen and Cardinal Newman put forward another moral argument, morality as derived from God (via conscience and objective laws or rules). For
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
When conflicts such as moral contradictions and inconsistencies arise, conversations including ethics and moral reasoning is the only way to solve these inconsistencies. Those who are genuine devotees of a certain religion may question if their religion’s moral instructions make sense according to one another. In these distinct cases, intelligent resolution of the claims can only be sorted out by putting in place an unbiased standard that can classify the competing viewpoints. This is where ethics comes in as the neutrality in the form of critical thinking, proficient arguments, and careful analysis.
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.
While atheists do not believe in God, it does not mean that they do not serve a god and religion. Capitalism, at least in America, is everyone’s religion. It is served each and every day as millions make the pilgrimage to work, to gain the capacities to tithe into the economy by following the ever present sermon of buy, buy, buy. The sermon is far greater than any religion of God, for it is sought out daily by various means such as the television, radio, and advertisements on clothes that society themselves perpetuate. Martin Luther once stated that “one’s religion is whatever one is willing to sacrifice his children for is his religion and God”. Millions are being sacrificed by their economies today; workers are working 12 hour days for less than 2 dollars. Governments are doing all in their powers to keep unions from forming all in the name of capitalism. Therefore if Harris’ argument is that only morality can be accomplished by atheism, and there is no true form of Atheism, then there can be no true form of morality(religion of the market 67-70).
Religious texts have been one of the main sources for laws and social customs since the conception of organized religion. Each religious text provides its followers with a code of conduct they are expected to apply to themselves, their actions, and their institutions. This code of conduct applies to the individual, as well as to the government and society to within which the people exist, and ultimately defines what a "just society" is in the context of that religion. Using stories and proverbs this code of conduct, and thus "just society", is not only set, but also shown in examples. In The Bible, the essence of a "just society" is laid out within passages that serve as "the laws", including Deuteronomy, and the Psalms,
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)