The divine command theory remains one of the most common theories used to explain the link between ethics, morality and religion. Divine command theory remains a highly controversial issue and has been criticised by a number of philosophers namely Kai Nielsen, Plato, Socrates and J.L Mackie as well as receiving support from philosophers such as Philip Quinn and Thomas Aquinas (Wierenga, 2009). The arguments for and against this theory has practical and theoretical significance, both philosophers of religion and moral philosophers have interest in exploring the role of religion in moral thought. (Wierenga, 2009) The divine command theory associates moral goodness to what God commands or Gods will (Berg, 1993). In its purest form it postulates
The second is to study religion and religious experiences from more subjective point of view. An historical survey would witness to both of these approaches. Alston attempts the possibility of a rational and objective justification of religious beliefs against the background of growing trends of materialism and superiority of scientific methodology. The central thesis of the book Perceiving God is expressed in the introduction where he writes, The central thesis of this book is that experiential awareness of God, or as I shall be saying, the perception of God, makes an important contribution to the grounds of religious belief. More specifically, a person can become justified in holding certain kinds of beliefs about God by virtue of perceiving God as being or doing so-and-so.
As a result, Plato is kenned for his fixate on virtue ethics, an approach to ethics that places highlight on one's moral character. This is where the divine command theory comes in. It is the view of morality in which what is right is what God commands, and what is wrong is what God forbids. This view is one that ties together morality in and religion in a way that is very comfortable for most people, because it provides a solution to pesky arguments like moral relativism and the objectivity of ethics. Looking at the Euthyphro argument, this theory comes up in order to answer the question of ethics being whether something is wrong because God forbids it or whether God prohibits it because it is already wrong.
How one perceives things is different, how one deals with the situation is different because of our different ethics. “In law, a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics, he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so... Act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world.”As somebody who believes in god and with Kant’s ideas, I agree with this quote because Kantian ethics are usually spoken of in terms of duty and doing the right thing, Kant himself thought that what was good was an essential part of ethics. Immanuel Kant is considered the central figure of modern philosophy. He was greatly influenced by Aristotle, David Hume, and Plato.
Critics of Religion Midterm 2. Although Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas and work have long been associated with atheism and even the antisemitism that would eventually lead to the Holocaust, I think a slightly more fitting description of his point of view in The Genealogy of Morals might be “anticlerical”. While I believe there are good arguments that can be made for both atheism and anticlericalism, Nietzsche seems to focus most of his energy on critiquing religious clergy such as priests as well as organized religion and its impact on morality, rather than critiquing belief in God. The first essay includes an etymology of the words “good” and “bad” and how they underwent a transvaluation at some point due to religious clergy, which ultimately lead to a morality system that he argues is not natural or innate within us. The second essay deals with guilt and
Here moral relativism and moral absolutism are brought in. Moral relativism rejects moral absolutism and argues that moral values are human inventions. From moral relativism there is individual relativism which holds that “individuals create their own moral standards” and cultural relativism which holds that “morality is grounded in the approval of society and not the preferences of individual people”.7 Normative ethics revolves around arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct of individuals. In essence, it is the search for an ideal test of behaviour that is considered ‘proper’. This involves some amount of religious views, e.g.
Rudolph Otto prioritizes the non-rational as offering a truer understanding of religion because he claims the core of all religious life revolves around experiences and feeling, not simply rational thought. Overall, the rational is but an attempt to define the undefinable. To understand Otto’s rejection of the rational, the rational must be understood. “Rational,” in The Idea of the Holy, refers to the conceptualization of religion and the divine itself. Otto’s basic definition of the rational stems from the establishment and application of concepts evidenced in “they can be grasped by the intellect; they can be analyzed by thought; they even admit of definition.
When faced with an ethical dilemma, many people, look to their faith in God for guidance. It is quite understandable that the defined moral characteristics that religion provides helps individuals see through the uncertainty of life. The great philosopher, Baruch Spinoza, was a fervent believer of the almighty, and even argued that God predestined everything that happens to you. However, he encouraged his readers to not blindly worship the text. Instead, he advocated for the use of philosophical thinking to decipher God’s meaning.
Morality has been identified with adherence to godliness and divine, immorality with sin, and the moral law with the command of God so that the moral life is seen as a direct and personal relationship with the ultimate one. It is taught that to act immorally is to disobey God. Whether it is a Shiite Muslim fighting a holy war in the name of Allah, a Hindu killing an innocent animal as a sacrifice to bring rain, or the Christian giving to charity in the name of Christ, religion has changed the idea of morality as indiscriminate from religion. There have been exceptions: Confucianism in China is essentially a secular system, there are nontheist versions of Buddhism, and the philosophers of Greece contemplated morality independent of religion. But throughout most of our history, most people have identified morality with religion, with the commands of God.
I would start from the origin of the religion providing details about its rituals and ideals. The next part focuses how religion constructs the identity over time, and the threats perceived by the followers. My main focus is the huge correlation between the protection of religious values and identity and how the followers of one religion overlap the two. It becomes difficult to know whether they are protecting their religion or the identity which is constructed due to religious values. A large number of social scientists have provided various theories in relation identity and its formation.