Annals of Philosophy are filled with debates, arguments, and theories. One such argument would be that it is not possible to possess morality without the belief in a personal god. There are as many differing opinions on this subject as there are philosophers amongst us. I believe that believing in a god has nothing to do with moral awareness and action. I am not debating that there is a god, I am just concerned with whether or not it is possible to act morally without the belief in one. Just for clarification purposes, the term moral means “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character” (google.com). In other words, being “a person 's standards of behavior or …show more content…
This causes a myriad of problems. Consider that if He were to command rape or murder, these actions would become morally good and the right thing to do. First, Kant’s argument for this existence of god is explained as a person doing something because of a moral duty to do so. For example, a person who volunteers to feed the needy at a food bank. The volunteer has nothing to gain for themselves. They are not fulfilling a community service obligation as handed down by a judge, nor are they being forced to give of their time by a higher power who had promised rewards as kind of a quid pro quo agreement. Kant asserts that moral actions must be done for the sake of duty and not from any desire for personal reward or recognition. This ability to use sovereign reason, according to Kant, comes from an instinctive sense of duty communal to all rational individuals and develops goodwill. From a utilitarian point of view, the measure of good and evil of an action is calculated by the resulting pleasure or pain. Kant insisted that human beings should never be used as a means to an end, believing it violated the dignity of the person. There is also Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche believed that religion had been perverted by the practices of Christianity and Judaism, and subsequently blamed them for
Utilitarianism considers the pleasure and pain of every individual affected by an action. It also considers everyone to be equal and does not permit an individual to put their interests or relationships first. After this it attempts to provide an objective, quantitative method for making moral decisions. Utilitarianism is not able to assign quantitative measures to all pleasures and pains, and does not address the issue of some pleasures and pains that cannot or should not be measured-such as human life or human suffering.
Immanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential “thinkers” in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow the utilitarian view would disagree, arguing that an action which benefits the most number of people would be considered moral regardless of the intentions behind it. Kant argues that the intention behind an action matters more than the number of people benefited. This theory of morality falls hand in hand with Kant 's concept of good will, and through examples I hope to explain to readers, in a simple way, what Kant was trying to convey.
I believe that morality is just being obedient to God and his requests. The Bible teaches us to be moral because the obedience to God glorifies him who created us and obedience is accepted by God as worship (Romans 12:1). As humans and as Christians, we must strive to meet God’s standards or mortality in all that we do in our everyday lives to ensure we please him.
We can summarise Kant's argument into three different stages, firstly; morality demands us to aim for the highest good, secondly; we cannot attain this unless there is a God to assist us, and lastly; God must exist to ensure that we achieve that which we are duty bound to do. If you were to share Kant's assumptions, it would become necessary to assume that there is a God.
One of the most influential philosophers in history, Immanuel Kant, is one of the most studied philosophers due to his contradictory statements about God and morality. Immanuel Kant executes an effective and irrebuttable theory that states that the existence of God is a rational belief along with the belief system being a matter of faith, this theory refutes the three traditional arguments that attempts to disprove the existence of a higher power due to the inability to show physical proof of the Christian God. Physical proof is the basis of establishing the truth, however, Immanuel Kant changes the playing field by theorizing that the belief in religion is a rational thought and religion itself is a matter of faith. However, the argument that those who are immoral and do not reserve happiness will be punished in the afterlife to dictate whether or not choosing to live a moral life is worth the dedication.
When we are presented with a situation and we want to decide whether an act we are about to perform is right or wrong Kant would suggest to look at the maxims of the act itself and not just the amount of misery or happiness the act is most likely to produce. “We just have to check that the act we have in mind will not use anyone as mere means, and, if possible that it will treat other persons as ends in themselves” (O’Neil, 1985). Kant would want to help these men and women seek help for their drug addiction. Kant would treat
Morality is a particular system of values and principles of conduct. My interpretation of this is the distinction of right and wrong. Everyone has a personal morals, whether it’s through a group, organization, or just the way their parents brought them up. Morals help create an organized society, they are like unwritten laws. There are so many morals out there the government could not make them all laws, so although morals help govern the world they are not actual laws. Without morals the world would be nothing but chaos. Being honest, fair and just, making the world a better place, respecting others, and being open minded are just a few examples.
People are compelled to perform moral actions in order to achieve the highest good, which is focused on happiness and moral virtue, happiness being influenced by a person’s virtue. Immanuel Kant views morality as a duty, and a person striving for true morality will act with personal gain out of mind. If people believe that they live in a world absent of morals, then there is no purpose of a moral compass and moral actions would have no benefit. Therefore, the existence of a moral compass brings forth the idea that there is something greater at work, and the reality of God can be a rational
The radical Enlightenment hated everything that was religion. This was a time where scientific naturalism was being applied to every field of inquiry and everything, including religion, was under scrutiny. The philosophers during the Enlightenment each had their reasons for their hostile view of religion. The distaste for religion began when Reimarus wrote “”, which was published for the first time in 1972 and had 1400 pages of content. His book labeled the second coming of Christ a farce, he believed that the disciples stole the body of Christ and fabricated the resurrection. Reimarus accused the disciples of using the idea of Christ coming back as a way to maintain a sense of power. He went as far as
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)
Morality is defined as a recognition or belief that explains why some behaviors are bad or good. In simple words, morality refers to values relating to the distinction between wrong and right or good and bad. Few morals are easily accepted and are only questioned by some fringes of society who might disagree with such morals. These individuals on the fringes can be bad or good. The ones who reject socially accepted moral does not necessarily mean that they are good persons. Thus, one can say that each individual has morals that are different from each other (Joseph).
Morality is defined as what we do based on our human reason that is either right or wrong. Morality is concerned with what we do and how we act in our everyday life. In order to live a moral life, one must live by the virtues, respond to the call of God in our lives, and develop a character that resembles a life of virtue.
Kant said that you should never treat people as a means of some ends. People should always be treated as ends in themselves; it promotes equality among human beings.
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,
The definition of morality or what constitutes proper morals is a difficult task and may be explained differently 100 times if one were to ask 100 people. Generally speaking, being moral is conforming to the standards of good or right. This vague definition is open for many interpretations. As mentioned, morality is not recognized internationally or is scrutinized as a weakness by the realist community, at least not openly so. Morality has played a role in international affairs and war for centuries.