Iris Murdoch-“Morality and Religion”: Notes pg. 733, para 1: Murdoch’s purpose is to question the relationship of morality to religion, and look at their differences as well as the definition of religion.
-She claims this essay is moral philosophy and feels she must clarify whether her philosophy is religious or not.
-She discusses how some believe religion really must be “breathed in” during childhood (taught to children by their parents); otherwise, adults may feel they are just faking it—but, Murdoch notes, those who are religious when younger will have a hard time giving it up as adults. pg. 733, para 2: Virtue (doing right) is the most obvious connection between morality and religion. -Seeking virtue has lost popularity, and
…show more content…
-But Murdoch admits that religious people experience a heightened consciousness, which resonates with literary critic Matthew Arnold’s claim that religion is “morality touched by emotion.” -Murdoch explains the great intensity and assuredness that religion provides: it is deep, holy, absolute, engages one’s imagination, and engages the whole person at every moment of his/her life, and every moment matters.
-Murdoch concludes that a high level of morality without religion doesn’t have any foundation.
-With religion, Christians have points of reference to give their morality foundation, like the image of Christ, and Murdoch suggests that Christians adjust their attitudes to resonate with the image of Christ in order to make their beliefs true. [So these images Christians create become for them the truth even though they’re man made.]
-Since images of Christ change over time, Christianity is a continuous adjustment to its images throughout history. [suggesting a perpetuation of a fantasy or that religion changes as historical periods change] pg. 737, para 5: Murdoch uses the example of a simple Welsh traveling pastor’s (Francis
Kilvert’s) journal entries to demonstrate how religious reverence can make someone sound comfortably dumb, naïve, simple, humble. Kilvert is so secure in his faith that he is like a child. pg. 738, para 5 (con’t): Wittgenstein (Murdoch’s teacher) described why believers like
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.
At the beginning of the semester, I wrote: “Religion is the institutional manifestation of feeling and believing in something beyond yourself” (Kelley 2016). Twelve weeks later, I consider this definition incomplete and problematic; nevertheless, it reveals how religious thinkers such as James Frazer, Emile Durkheim, William James, Mircea Eliade, Jeffrey Kripal, and Bruce Lincoln infiltrate our quotidian definitions of religion. In this paper, I hope to develop a new conception of religion, recognizing the impact of such historical thinkers on personal conclusions. In other words, I hope to show that we are
Developmental psychologists have provided evidence that children are naturally tuned to believe from figures of authority.A child’s brain is set-up to believe what is told by elders, even if what is told is nonsense. Children usually acquire the religious views of their parents.
2. Morality is not static because morals refer to personal believes of right and wrong, as well as what one ought and ought not to do. Due to morality having a more personal connotation to it, it would be require not to be static. Each person deals with their own set of challenges and challenges change and adapt over time. Since challenges and individuals change over time, one might have to think that a person’s concept of morality would have to be just as dynamic in order to still complete its function.
Comparing the two videos, the Randall Balmer interview on the daily show, and the ted talk by Kwame Anthony, both embraces the idea that religion doesn't necessarily dictate the morality of an individual's character and that people tend to be a bit apprehensive and stereotypical when it concern those without a religion. However Kwame has the belief that religion is more than an god-belief and that people can atheist yet religious. After further analyzing both of their viewpoints, it can be concluded that religion itself should not be detrimental or mandatory when it concerns one's character.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s “On the Genealogy of Morality” includes his theory on man’s development of “bad conscience.” Nietzsche believes that when transitioning from a free-roaming individual to a member of a community, man had to suppress his “will to power,” his natural “instinct of freedom”(59). The governing community threatened its members with punishment for violation of its laws, its “morality of customs,” thereby creating a uniform and predictable man (36). With fear of punishment curtailing his behavior, man was no longer allowed the freedom to indulge his every instinct. He turned his aggressive focus inward, became ashamed of his natural animal instincts, judged himself as inherently evil, and developed a bad conscience (46).
In chapter one of James Rachels’s What is Morality, he argues that at the very minimum, morality is using reason to guide one 's decisions, while keeping in mind the interests of those who will be affected by one’s choice, without giving more weight to one individual over another. He supports this thesis by describing a couple of morally ambiguous situations regarding humanity and life.
Confucius and Aristotle are some of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind. While Confucius was born in China and spearheaded a new way of perceiving morality, Aristotle was born in Macedon/Greece and also immersed his philosophical work to addressing moral thinking.Both philosophers have addressed similar subjects with major points of divergence and convergence. On virtue, these two authors have almost similar opinions. However, it is their points of convergence or agreement that have had a huge impact on the modern world’s thinking and understanding of virtue and moral behavior.
the virtues are that the good man can tell what to do in a morally
We all have some experience with religion. Whether our parents are religious, our own religious views, or others who try and convert you to a religion, we have all come in contact with a religion. But what do sociology and religion have to do with each other? The answer to this question is that religion meets sociology in the affects that it has on an individual or society (Schaefer, Richard T, 2009, pg 323).
To answer this question, we must first understand what both ethics and morality are. As ethics is defined as the philosophical study of morality, those who study religion get their moral precepts from what they believe God says should be done. This perspective is not at all unexpected, because all religions apply a perspective on morality. Morality is defined as beliefs concerning right and wrong, good and bad- beliefs that can include judgements, values, rules, principles, and theories. Morals are what help us guide our actions, define our values, and give us reason for being the person that we are.
In the book, “The Element of Moral Philosophy”, James Rachels explores the several criticisms of Utilitarianism. In this essay, I will touch on these criticisms, outlining the major implications they propose to Utilitarianism. I will also explain why many of the notions proposed against Utilitarianism are self-serving, and instead serve to improve the general good of a minority population, which contradicts the Utilitarian theory of equating moral aptitude to the general good of a majority population, and that in this respect a greater consequence is achieved. Lastly, I will demonstrate how many societal values have a Utilitarian basis, which proves that Utilitarianism can be salvaged in the face of most criticisms.
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,
Her statement is a prime example of philosophy. The content of her testimonial consisted of many supported ideas and thoughts. Yet, at the same time, the statement
During the course of this class, I have learned a lot about different religions. I still have an unprejudiced view of religion. However, I did not suspend my belief to have an understanding of religion. I have been able to learn of other religious beliefs without feeling threatened of my own. I found there are many different practices in other religions, some I agree with and some I do not agree with. I have come to except others, ways of worship without getting upset. I have become humble in my conclusion now that I have a better understanding of others beliefs. The world seems to jump to conclusions and be judgmental about other religions. Postponing ones judgement on a religion is a difficult thing to do. Being raised and taught a certain religion and set of beliefs is distilled in to one’s mind. I, on the other hand, reserved my personal judgement until I have learned more about it.