Morality : Oppressed By Religion Or Born From It?

“As soon as a religion comes to dominate it has as its opponents all those who would have been its first disciples.” Nietzsche was one of the first modern philosophers to rebel against rationalism and when World War I came about, the revolution against religion truly became a legitimate statement. Friedrich Nietzsche strongly believed that many of those that practiced religion were led to the acceptance of slave morality. Religion had always played a fundamental role in society as it sets strict boundaries and standards of what is morally correct and incorrect. However, Nietzsche claims that, “Human nature is always driven by “ ‘the will to power’ ”, but religion will tell one otherwise, saying that one should forbid their bad desires. In Nietzsche’s

Nietzsche writes a scathing critique of religious morality when he writes, “This workshop where ideals are manufactured－ it seems to me to stink of so many lies” (136). The workshop of lies is reference to organized religions that the interpret the biblical morals and feed them to the congregation. It is not the average religious believer that interprets and decides what morality is. It is the heads of each church, the religious experts that deliberate and decide what morality their denomination will believe. And thus this restricts the control one has over their own morality, but also the freedom one has over their actions.

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

Nietzsche was a revolutionary author and philosopher who has had a tremendous impact on German culture up through the twentieth century and even today. Nietzsche's views were very unlike the popular and conventional beliefs and practices of his time and nearly all of his published works were, and still are, rather controversial, especially in On the Genealogy of Morals. His philosophies are more than just controversial and unconventional viewpoints, however; they are absolutely extreme and dangerous if taken out of context or misinterpreted. After Nietzsche's death it took very little for his sister to make some slight alterations to his works to go along with Nazi ideology.

Throughout his writings, Nietzsche aims to inform his readers that we as humans can only reach our potential by following our passions and ignoring the flawed ideals of the church. Under the doctrine of the church’s morality, innate passions of its followers must be abolished in order to become proper Christians. By destroying the inner passions of its followers, the church is doing a great disfavor by using morality to rule out nature from their lives.

In Twilight of the Idols Nietzsche emphasizes that the Christian Church is a false idol. He dares to say, “..God to be an enemy of life..” and, “Life ends where the ‘kingdom of God’ begins..” because he believes that Christian morality is against life itself (Idols, 23). The reason for this is because Nietzsche believes that, “to have to fight against the instincts- this is the formula for decadence: so long as the life is ascendant, happiness equals instinct” which simply means that if one goes against instincts, or an intuitive way of carrying ones life, then as a consequence it will lead to the degeneration of society and intellect while if life is on the rise, happiness must be equivalent to following ones’ instinct (Idols, 15). Because of his belief it is understood that Nietzsche wants one to embrace their instincts. Nietzsche states that a life in which

The question of what may result from the fostering of critical, individual thought may have never even risen let alone remain unanswered if not for the consideration of some of the world’s greatest minds. Rigorously questioning the objectivity and truth of values whilst preserving a focus on the impacts of religion and morality on contemporary culture, Friedrich Nietzsche was, and remains to be, one of the most notably influential figures within the domain of 19th century philosophy. Upon viewing a number of citizens who were adopting a pessimistic and distrustful standpoint against the societal values of the time, Nietzsche came to the belief that the system of morals which had been lived by were no longer resonating with the maturing populace and that God was effectively useless; it is for this reason that Nietzsche announces the “Death of God”. Though a particular brand of nihilist may have viewed this passing as a detriment to the social cohesion of the populace due to an absence of any universal, absolute values - once attributed to God - Nietzsche proposed that this was not necessarily the case. Instead,

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.

They both see the values of society as being a result of and necessary for civilization, rather than natural phenomena. Both theorists see guilt as stemming from a restriction of humanity’s natural urges, Nietzsche believing that it was a tool used by the priests to control the masses. Freud on the other hand thought it developed from a repression of humanity’s aggression towards one another. Equally, Freud and Nietzsche show a similar disdain for religion, the former seeing it as a delusional, infantile way to limit the pain and suffering that existence brings with it and the latter, due to what he sees as the transvaluation of values that the Judeo-Christian religions have brought about and the perceived cultural inaction that stems from this. As well as this, Nietzsche disliked the apparent inherited debt that comes with Christianity and the obligated guilt from Christ’s

Nietzsche is widely known as a critic of religion. In fact, he talks in depth about morality in regards to religion in his essays about the genealogy of morals. But the problem is not within religion itself or within morals. The problem is involved in the combination of the two to create society’s understanding of morality through a very religious lens. In fact, Nietzsche has criticism for almost any set of morals constructed by a group of individuals and meant to be applied to society as a whole. True morality, according to Nietzsche, requires a separation from these group dynamic views of morality- or at least a sincere look into where they originated and why they persist- and a movement towards a more introverted, and intrinsically personalized understanding of what morals mean in spite of the fact that “the normative force to which every member of society is exposed, in the form of obligations, codes of behavior, and other moral rules and guidelines, is disproportionally high” (Korfmacher 6).

It’s the twenty first century. Scientists have found evidence of water on Mars, they have successfully cloned human embryos, and everyday, they are getting closer to finding a cure for cancer. Still, in a world of groundbreaking facts and evidences, where the newest discovery leaves older ones out of commission, we fool ourselves into blindly putting faith on a series of chronicles conceived during the primitive age. Religion probably started out as a result of mankind trying to explain the physical world, but then became a tool to control and oppress, a reason for bloodshed and hate. While religion may have been of great help in

To be moral simply means to do what is right; however, doing what is right is easier said than done. Perhaps if one was a child, one would, to the best of their abilities, follow what his parents demand of him, this would constitute them as doing what is right. Now let us say that the child is an orphan, or does not believe what his parents say is right, should following them still be considered moral, or is it even up to him to decide? Perhaps the child has evolved past parenting all together and therefore needs no more guidance. Defining what is considered moral has now become much more complex. Sam Harris presents the same basic argument of morality in his book Letter to a Christian Nation, by applying it not to a child and his parents,

Throughout history, religion has proved to be the main source of social stability in different communities and cultural groups. Everything that is part of a societal system, including law, is influenced by religious beliefs and practices of that society. This being said, most religions are based on the theory that there is a single more powerful entity, that has control over aspects of which humans do not. For the longest time in history, sociologists have argued that peer group, political movements, schools and most importantly, the family to be agents of socialization. Because of this reason, they have ignored the role played by religion in the perpetuation of cultural as well as social

Some people believe our life is based off of morals, a belief of right/justification or wrong/ unjust. Living this way perceives their ways of the world by doing what they feel is good or bad or what is lead by their conscience regardless of religion. Others believe in religion, a feeling or act of faith, from God or “gods” ( Merriam-Webster). These acts motivated by faith and God/ “gods” provide a comprehension between choices, a choice given to all for all based off of a religious belief. In analyzing this presentation, it will show what the writer of this topic is trying to point out to the intended audience or its purpose, while conveying to the readers what morality and religion is.

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)