Ethical egoism, like any egoism, refers to self-interest and the desire to achieve a goal with a level of disregard in terms of specific moral norms or other factors. However, ethical egoism, in particular, which is a normative notion, suggests that one’s actions can be morally explained in case the result is beneficial for the person executing them. On the other hand, descriptive egoism, which can be psychological and rational while also illustrating an aim toward self-interest, has other explanations. Psychological egoism is the belief that individuals think primarily about their own well-being, which is why they act accordingly (Shaver, 2019). On the other hand, rational egoism portrays the notion that an action is always rational if it is intended for one’s particular self-interest. However, the criticism of the theory refers to Kant and utilitarianism as other moral theories that always include the interests of other people as major factors.
The theories of relativism and objectivism explain morality from two perspectives. On the one hand, moral relativism suggests that everything is relative and depends on circumstances (Gowans, 2021). On the other hand, objectivism illustrates the necessity for a set of moral rules that are to be followed.
Individuals may be attracted to relativism since it leaves room for subjectivity and moral creativity. However, the attraction of objectivism is supported by its strict and comprehensive rules. Critics may say that relativism is too broad and may encourage people to act based on their possibly deformed norms instead of the societal ones. Moreover, objectivism can be criticized as a theory that implies that the same moral guidelines work for every person.
The dialogue between Socrates and Gorgias covered ethics, on which the two had opposing views. Gorgias, a sophist, put a value on succeeding as a primary driving factor. Socrates, however, believed that knowledge is more critical and egoism is a private interest that ought to be secondary (Griswold, 2020). This is also the difference between philosophy and sophistry, one being ethical and the other one being less restricted by moral rules. Thus, Gorgia’s approach is dangerous due to the lack of moral guidelines that become useless in a paradigm when self-interest is the vital goal.
References
Gowans, C. (2021). Moral relativism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.
Griswold, C. L. (2020). Plato on rhetoric and poetry. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.
Shaver, R. (2019). Egoism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.
The term moral triggers different reactions amongst people and societies since everyone tends to hold onto a different perspective on the subject matter. Some of the concerns have been to underscore some of the underlying moral concepts, the relations among moral judgments and assumptions across cultures and their source(s). Morality can be understood as the human attempt to appreciate what is wrong and right about our thoughts and actions and further what is generally acceptable or refutable of an individual (Dahl & Killen, 2018). To a greater extent, human actions are never of free will but are determined by a number of factors. This makes morality a conglomerate noun that not only depends on religious belief but is influenced by other factors running as technology, culture, environment, family, nature, and education, among many others.
In analyzing the morality of human actions, the determinants can be categorized into complex enterprise as it is directly affected by a number of conditions, either within or without. In judging the good or evil side of any human action, three elements must be put into consideration from which every deed derives its morality and ethical justification. Such parameters include the action’s objective, the circumstances engulfing the action, and the intentions of the performer.
The moral objective of a human act connotes the effect to which an action intends to produce. Notably, the objective primarily focuses on the result alone without taking into account the intention or circumstances surrounding the action (Dahl & Killen, 2018). It is usually regarded as the direct cause for the moral judgment of an action. From the viewpoint of the objective factor, an action is usually classified as morally good, bad, or indefinite. For instance, when one sets fire to a bush near a human settlement, the primary objective of the action is to help keep the surroundings clean and safe, but the end result might be environmentally unfriendly (Dahl & Killen, 2018). The scientific view of setting fire on the bush would consider the action morally bad as it works against the sustainability of Mother Nature. Burning the bush would increase the chances of soil erosion and flooding in an area. As the soil layers are directly exposed to raindrops and lack the usual ground cover that helps keep the soil particles together. Such actions are morally unacceptable and determined by the environment rather than the religious factor. It fails to comprise the future life and, in turn, works against the assumption that morality depends on religious beliefs.
The moral value of human action is also affected by circumstances as one factor. Here, the circumstance is attributed to the spatial relations in which something is situated outside of another but in close proximity (Zhang & Zhang, 2018). This insinuates the relation between human activities and circumstances, as human actions do not just exist as deeds performed in line with some end. They are connoted by details which can influence how the different actions are vied by people. Circumstance holds on to it the ability to make an action good or better, for instance, giving financial assistance to someone declared bankrupt by the bank.
Also, it can make an act good that is otherwise unresponsive. Case in point, keeping company lonely people to make them feel loved and cared for rather than rejected. Contrarily, circumstances are also able to make an action seem worse in its objective form. For example, a humanitarian assistant robbing victims of relief items in the case of a fire outbreak or a public servant using the public funds for his own gain rather than a public good. Similarly, all human actions are guided by distinct contexts in terms of time and place, thus factoring in the nature and environmental factors that determine human action’s morality.
The third element involved in the justification of the complex nature of human actions is the End or Intention of the Agent performing the act. According to Zhang & Zhang (2018), the intention or end of the human action is the purpose that triggers one to perform such action. Thus, hold to it that intention controls human action no matter how petty it might seem to a second party observing one’s behavior. It is to the effect that the perpetrator subjectively wills in his actions; however, it can happen that the agent’s intentions coincide with the specific objective of the human act. For instance, one is acting human to someone in need of blood donation in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).
However, there are instances when a person convicted of a bigger crime opts to take their lives for fear of mental suffering while serving long prison terms. Human action would only seem good only when the perpetrator means good by doing something that seems acceptable by everyone or a big population of the society (Zhang & Zhang, 2018). The perpetrator’s intention can also affect the good of human action just as the circumstance does. A viable intention would make an action more proficient in the nature of its object. For instance, giving a scholarship to a student from a low-income family would mean fighting out poverty in the future date. In the same line, the intention would worsen the object’s evil act, for example, when the government reprimands the opposition leader who serves as a government watchdog in a democratic country.
Contrary, the equivalent hypothesis holds that religion greatly motivates moral concern. Morality is believed to pertain to the behavior of human affairs and their relation with one another, whereas religion largely involves the relationship between humans and exceeding reality. Religion and morality are nearly inseparable; according to Skitka et al. (2018), the equivalent hypothesis equates morality to a golden threat to humanitarian assistance inspired by loving care believed to be motivated by religion. Notably, religion does shape people’s values, and values, in turn, boost people’s sense of meaning and purpose and indelibly structure people’s formulation of morality (Skitka et al., 2018). Different religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Judaism, also hold to it that faith and morality are inseparably related to one another (Skitka et al., 2018). The majority of religious believers hold to it that morality is inseparable from the belief in God, and lack of religious beliefs is directly associated with immorality to the extent that atheists are more likely to subscribe to the belief of the religious ones that religious non-believers are less moral.
Thus, morality is generally understood as an attempt to distinguish between wrong and right about human actions and thoughts. This goes far beyond the religious context to include other determinant factors such as family, technology, environment, and nature at large affect people’s perception of moral behaviors. In perceiving a situation, time and place need to be put into consideration. Therefore, the variation in culture and beliefs amongst people around the globe.
Reference
Afsar, B., Al‐Ghazali, B., &Umrani, W. (2020). Retracted: Corporate social responsibility, work meaningfulness, and employee engagement: The joint moderating effects of incremental moral belief and moral identity centrality. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(3), 1264-1278.
Dahl, A., & Killen, M. (2018). Moral reasoning: Theory and research in developmental science. In The Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience (Vol. 4, pp. 323-353). Wiley New York.
Skitka, L. J., Hanson, B. E., Washburn, A. N., & Mueller, A. B. (2018). Moral and religious convictions: Are they the same or different things? PloS one, 13(6), e0199311.
Zhang, K., & Zhang, L. (2018). Extracting hierarchical spatial and temporal features for human action recognition. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 77(13), 16053-16068.
In essence, guilt belongs to each person’s inner morality category. As a rule, it is always an emotional phenomenon. Guilt is a profound experience of inconsistency with a generally recognized morality that one feels before others. Since this concept belongs to the internal categories of morality, one always experiences it individually, without regard to the opinions of others. However, even though guilt is exceptionally personalized, publicity has the right to evaluate the choices of others. People often condemn each other for actions that contradict their beliefs without considering the reasons for such behavior. The motive for certain decisions consistently has a reason that can be weighty. However, even if the global situation is unfair, blame must be assessed in each case of personal interaction.
Communication with parents, peers, and the subculture in which a person is formed affects personality formation. The transition from individual to personality entails significant changes in traits, which tend to be directed toward greater maturity and stability. Under certain circumstances, however, even initially, innocent people can be involved in terrible things. When it comes to unethical behavior, well-mannered people are not inclined to go to extremes, but sometimes mind games can play tricks on even the most upright and positive characters. For example, bullying a person at school undoubtedly impacts character building. A person who has experienced injustice for a long time has a greater desire to assert oneself and prove ones worth. However, there is a high chance that a person who has experienced injustice will begin to copy the behavior of the abusers and take revenge or self-assert themselves at the expense of others. The root of this is global injustice because no one deserves to be wronged. Nevertheless, doing wrong in return cannot be considered justified.
Thus, the category of guilt must be evaluated case by case, and injustice is not a reason for the lack of local guilt. Each obedience can refer to right or wrong, rational or irrational, and can be evaluated in terms of guilt. Each interaction is remarkable, and one cannot generalize behavior and evaluate it solely in terms of general injustice. In doing an act, a person makes a choice, and everyone should be able to consider that choice and condemn or justify the person.
A major goal of the human civilization is to get to a point where no individual suffers from the lack of basic necessities. However, this ideal is yet to be met and millions of people continue to suffer and die from lack of access to basic needs. Efforts by governments and policy makers to come up with effective solutions to the problem have not yet led to a permanent solution.
The article “Famine, affluence, and Morality” by author Peter Singer attempts to provide a solution that can alleviate and even eliminate suffering. Singer proposes that people from wealthier countries can end the suffering of those in need of basic needs by giving away a large part of their wealth to the suffering.
The author argues that citizens of developed nations have a moral obligation to use their wealth to assist those suffering from want of basic necessities. This paper sets out to Singer’s conclusions that people from wealthier countries have a moral obligation to do something about the suffering of others in the world. It argues that while Singer’s argument for the suffering and death from lack of basic necessities is bad, his conclusion that it is the duty of the wealthy to do something to alleviate the suffering if not justifiable.
Peter Singer’s Argument
The main aim of Singer’s argument is to demonstrate that people in developed nations such as Australia, Britain, and the US have a moral obligation to assist those who are suffering from a lack of basic needs due to natural or artificial calamities. He begins by highlighting the deaths of thousands of people in East Bengal in 1971 from starvation and lack of shelter and medical care.
He asserts that their deaths and suffering is avoidable as the richer nations have the capacity to give enough assistance to dramatically reduce the sufferings of the Bengali. However, Singer notes that the decisions and actions needed to prevent the suffering have not been made as few people have responded by providing aid.
A major argument by Singer is that it is our moral obligation to prevent a bad thing from happening if it is in our power to do this without great sacrifice on our part. He elaborates that there has been inaction at the individual level and the government level. Individuals have failed to give large sums of money to relief funds or pressure their governments to provide more aid.
Singer notes that the governments have the capability to provide more aid than they are currently offering. He observes that while the British government has given 14,750,000 to aid the Bengali refugees, it has contributed 275,000,000 to the Anglo-French Concorde project.
Another argument made by Singer is that the physical distance between the wealthy nations and the people in need is inconsequential when deciding to offer aid. He asserts that the principle of preventing the bad and promoting the good does not consider distance. Our familiarity with the person benefiting from our action is also inconsequential. As individuals who ascribe to the notion that equality is an important attribute in society, we should not ignore the needs of those who are not geographically close to us.
Singer also tackles the issue of whether an individual should feel obliged to help when millions others are in a position to offer assistance. He observes that in many cases, individuals refuse to act since there are millions of other people in a position to help. He declares that even in such a case, the individual is obliged to act since numbers do not lessen the moral obligation.
Singer declares that by following the principle that “if it is in your power to prevent something very bad from happening we out morally to do it”, then the distinction between duty and charity would be offset. He notes that currently there is a strong distinction between duty and charity. Being charitable is a commendable attribute but it is not an obligation. For this reason, individuals who do not engage in acts of charity are not condemned by society. The society would experience profound changes if people lived by the principles proposed.
Discussion of Why Singer is Correct
The argument that suffering and dying from lack of basic necessities is bad since every human can agree that these conditions are undesirable. Anyone who has experienced even a low level of hunger, cold, or sickness can agree with the proposition that these conditions are undesirable.
Taking action to mitigate or eliminate this suffering is a great good. The utilitarian theory supports an action that results in the reduction of pain and increase in happiness for people. Onora concedes that the ethical action is the one that leads to the maximization of happiness and alleviating suffering brings about this outcome. The proposition that helping those in need is the moral thing to do is therefore supported by the utilitarian ethical theory.
Singer’s assertion that helping the needy will not cost the wealthy nations significantly has some solid underpinnings. We live in a world rife with economic inequalities. The developed nations have strong economies and their citizens enjoy higher incomes and better standards of living. Individuals in developed nations are able to have discretionary income that is up to one-third of their net income. This excess money is mostly spent on purchasing luxury goods and leisure.
Therefore, the argument that the wealthy are capable of assisting the suffering without having to sacrifice anything of comparable moral importance is true considering the wealth disparities between the developed nations and the developing nations. Singer emphasizes that it would take comparatively little effort on the part of the individual from the developed nation to alleviate the suffering experienced by people in poor nations due to a lack of basic needs.
On the issue of who deserves the assistance of the wealth countries, Singer declares that proximity should not be a consideration. This argument that individuals should not avoid helping others since they are far away is in line with international ideals. People in the modern world ascribe to the notion that everyone is equal and as such we should be sympathetic to the needs of everyone.
The needs of the suffering in Bengal should be given the same consideration by a person in London as those of the poor in his neighborhood. Onora declares that as humans, we have obligations that include helping or being beneficent to others. This beneficence to others is not limited to our compatriots but it should be applied to the entire human community. Singer’s proposition that distance should be irrelevant when choosing to provide aid to the poor is therefore sound.
Objection to Singer’s Argument
While Singer’s argument makes a strong case for charity, some of its premises and its conclusion that we give away all our excess money can be opposed. The argument that we have a moral obligation to assist the suffering though our excess funds is objectionable. This proposition by singer does not consider the rights that people have over their possessions.
Arthur asserts that the argument made by Singer that we should always prevent harm to others if this does not necessitate the sacrifice of something of comparable moral importance fails to consider that individuals have a moral right over their possessions. For example, while everyone could be of help to others by giving away a part of our bodies, being forced to undertake such action would be considered immoral. Each person is entitled to keep his possessions and this takes precedence over the duty to help.
The declaration by Singer that people have a duty to give away their excess money to charity is not in line with utilitarianism. This ethical theory states that the ethical action “maximizes the happiness for the largest number of people.” According to Singer, people are duty bound to give to the suffering.
Singer challenges the traditional notion of charitable giving by declaring that giving should be a moral duty as opposed to a personal choice. Singer declares that it is wrong not to give to charity and the failure to give is tantamount to killing the individuals who might have benefited from our aid. By making charity an obligation, the joy that an individual traditionally derives from making charitable contributions will be removed.
While Singer’s argument that we ought to help are valid, they refuse to consider the inherent rights of the individual to choose if or not to give. Singer’s arguments presume that the suffering people have rights that need to be satisfied by the wealthy nations. This argument is wrong since without a contract or promise made between the two parties, the suffering people are owed no rights by the wealthy.
Refusing to help the suffering would not be morally wrong since it does not violate the rights of the suffering since, to begin with, they did not have the rights. Arthur declares that the decision to help a stranger in need as in the Bengal situation is not the result of the right that the suffering have. The decision to assist the poor is the personal choice of the individual with resources. If he chooses not to help, he cannot be accused of immoral conduct.
The moral code of entitlement is also used to argue against Singer’s premises and conclusions. People work hard to obtain physical possessions and they therefore deserve the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Arthur declares that failure to reward those who work hard would be morally wrong since it is unfair. Singer calls for reducing suffering to those in need up to the point where providing aid to the poor might have a negative effect on us.
This proposal overlooks the fact that an individual is entitled to enjoying his earnings. Singer’s arguments essentially make it immoral for anyone to have luxury commodities such as stylish clothes and sophisticated music systems when there are people starving somewhere in the world. This assertion that individuals should not use their surplus earning to enjoy themselves as long as the world has a suffering person who could be assisted by this surplus is unfair and shows no regard for justice.
Finally, Singer’s argument that proximity is irrelevant is not well founded. Humans have divided themselves into different subunits based on geography, language, religion, and other considerations. Arguably the most important division is that of nationality. The nation-state requires certain resources from its members and in return it provides numerous benefits including security.
Miller declares that by acknowledging a national identity, a person is accepting that he/she owes some special obligations to his fellow countrymen that he does not owe to the rest of the world. Individuals sharing a nationhood have a special relationship with each other and their well-being might be connected.
When faced with the decision of which group of suffering people to assist, an individual is most likely to give priority to those nearest to him. In addition to this, proximity is relevant since it contributes to the efficiency with which aid is delivered. Miller contends that the duty to relieve the needy can be achieved most efficiently if everyone committed to helping the needy in his/her immediate environment.
Conclusion
Human suffering is an undesirable condition that should be eliminated through all possible means. This paper set out to critique Peter Singe’s argument that the wealthy are morally obliged to assist the suffering as articulated in the article “Famine, affluence, and Morality”. It began by explaining Singer’s argument, which essentially states that individuals from wealthy nations have a moral obligation to use their surplus funds to help the suffering.
The paper highlighted the strengths in the argument made by Singer. His premise that alleviating suffering is the moral thing to do is supported by utilitarianism. Singer is also right in observing that the rich can afford to help the suffering without having to make huge sacrifices. However, Singer’s arguments can be opposed since they do not consider the moral right an individual has over his/her possessions.
In addition to this, the premise that a person should not enjoy his excess money is unfair since the individual is entitled to enjoy the rewards of his labor. While it can be agreed by all people that human suffering is undesirable and efforts should be made to eliminate it, the suggestions made by Singer are not the answer. Solutions that consider the rights and entitlement of the benefactor would be more appropriate and moral.
Bibliography
Arthur, J, ‘World Hunger and moral obligation : The case against Singer’, in SM Cahn (ed.), Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology, Oxford University Press, Cambridge, 2009, pp. 845-852.
Kekes, J, ‘On the Supposed Obligation to Relieve Famine’, Philosophy, vol. 5, no.4, 2002, pp.503-517.
Miller, D, The Ethics of Nationality, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995, pp. 49-80.
Nagel, T, ‘Poverty and Food: Why Charity is Not Enough’, in T Pogge & K Horton (eds.), Global ethics: seminal essays, Paragon House, St. Paul, Minnesota, 2008, pp. 49-59.
Onora, O, ‘Rights, obligations and world hunger’, in T Pogge & K Horton (eds.), Global ethics: seminal essays, Paragon House, St. Paul, Minnesota, 2008, pp. 139-155.
Singer, P, ‘Famine, affluence, and Morality’, in T Pogge & K Horton (eds.), Global ethics: seminal essays, Paragon House, St. Paul, Minnesota, 2008, pp. 1-14
Whether religion provides a moral basis is both topical and old. Socrates inquired whether divine beings adore goodness since it is great, or whether honesty is great since the gods love it. Although there is no deficiency of spirited questioning, logical examinations of religion and morality have delivered mixed outcomes. The interpretive challenges are aggravated by loose originations of both religion and morality. This paper seeks to clarify the confusion concerning religion and morality.
The Concept of Religion and Morality
Most people share Laura Schlessinger’s conviction that morality is inconceivable without confidence in God, and in most countries, this mentality is undeniably pervasive (Baumard & Boyer, 2013). In a progression of convincing examinations, some researchers have exhibited a verifiable relationship of nonbelievers with immorality. Although these affiliations are more grounded in individuals who believe in the Supreme Being, freethinkers instinctively see acts, for example, manslaughter and incest as progressively illustrative of cynics than of different religious, ethnic, or social gatherings. Atheists unequivocally repudiate this association, with some recommending that freethinkers are the ethical spine of the society, taking their obligations seriously because they do not confide in God to help humanity from its imprudence (Baumard & Boyer, 2013).
As history can be composed at any amplification, religion, and morality can be investigated at any level of classification. At the limits, one can treat religion and morality as individual elements and try to portray their relationship, or one can contemplate the impact of a specific philosophical precept (destiny) on some profoundly moral result (tithing). The test is to embrace a pragmatic and hypothetically measure of analysis.
Analysts in Neuropsychiatry see mental disorders as unexpected groupings of manifestations and contend that the unit of examination should be the manifestation (hallucinations) as opposed to the disease (Baumard & Boyer, 2013). In like manner, analyzing the relationship may require categorizing these ideas into essential units. Although morality and religion contain autonomous instruments that are associated with stories, teachings, and other appropriated systems of thoughts, each outcome has particular psychological procedures and capacities (Baumard & Boyer, 2013).
As the heavenly bodies of the crystal gazers, these gatherings of psychological and social characteristics and propensities might be fake, unforeseen, and self-assertive, rather than grounded in any stable fundamental uniformity (Kelemen, Rottman, & Seston, 2013). One remarkable element of Saroglou’s model of religious measurements is that it classifies morality as a critical component of religion. This provision suggests that any investigation into the impacts of religion on morality might be a futile task.
Descriptive Ethnocentrism
One impediment to the analysis of religion and morality is the propensity of analysts to use their social perspective in describing a moral concern. Whatever the ethical assessment, a multifaceted investigation between religion and morality must expand the moral sphere beyond the beliefs of people in Western, developed, opulent, and law-based social orders (Friese & Wänke, 2014). Religion and morality are discretionary and do not suggest flexible common structures, endeavors to connect them. Thus, moral conduct is not a behavior we advocate; it is the desired conduct on ethical standards.
Religion and Morality
An extensive clarification in developmental terms of any causal connections between the fractionated parts of religion and morality would consider four kinds of inquiries, known as Tinbergen’s Four Whys:
A causal why concerning the psychological systems that deliver a specific connection between religion and morality.
A formative why concerning the procedures by which the relationship develops in the evolution of individuals.
A utilitarian why relating to the versatile value of the relationship with others.
A functional why concerning the theory of association and its appearance through structures.
Fractionating Morality
Moral scholars suggest that societal norms are composed of the human instinct, emerging from the ordinary activity of developed subjective components. Ethical establishments are imagined as obliging, rather than deciding, the kinds of good frameworks that people build (Friese & Wänke, 2014). One of the real commitments of the ethical paradigms has been to feature the social and political inconsistency in the outflow of these foundations.
A few societies build their ethical standards and organizations on a relatively little subset of these foundations. For instance, while the ethical request of most conventional social orders is expansive, the moral paradigm is contrived on “individualizing” establishments, concentrating on protecting people from hurt and abuse (Friese & Wänke, 2014). Different examinations have discovered that political nonconformists value the individualizing standards of consideration and fairness more than traditionalists do, though traditionalists value the official rules of faithfulness and holiness more than liberals (Friese & Wänke, 2014)
Fractionating Religion
As it is conceivable to categorize morality into layers of hypothetical components, religion can be fractionated into segments with solid subjective underpinnings. Works of literature in the ‘intellectual study of religion’ have not revealed the comprehensiveness of specific religious interpretations, for example, different ideas of ancestors, gods, or penances, favors, and ritual experiences. Religious analysts suggest the assortment of socially circulated beliefs that have been marked religion are formed and guarded by a finite and dissimilar set of advanced psychological inclinations called religious establishment.
The Religion and Morality Relationship
The difficulties in understanding why religion changes as social orders become complex identify with evolving structures and capacity of custom. With upward social convulsion, religious traditions have become routinized, principle and account have become standardized, convictions have been universalistic, religion has been classified, organizations more professionalized, and religious writings have been systematized (Laurin & Plaks, 2014).
Many studies use parochial originations of religion and morality but do not categorize these classifications into hypothetically components, or disregard to evaluate the unpredictable interchange between intuition and culture. The propensity to embrace purified social conduct has hampered endeavors to analyze speculations of the uncommon social predominance of admonishing god ideas (Laurin & Plaks, 2014). By implication, people accept practices that enable religious gatherings to endure and expand.
Conclusion
The connection between religion and morality is a profound and emotive theme. The declarations of experts give a false representation of the confounding hypothetical and methodological unpredictability of the issue. In the academic circle, evolution is often blocked by a progression of applied constraints and lacunae. Thus, social representations, ideas, beliefs, antiquities, and practices both endorsed and prohibited are activated, molded, and obliged by an assortment of primary subjective frameworks.
There is no connection between religion and morality. By implication, religion does not provide a moral basis for individuals. Religion and morality are discretionary and do not suggest flexible common structures, endeavors to connect them. Religion and morality, which are considered solid substances, are bound to be superficial or circular. Consequently, a few parts of religion may advance a few perspectives of morality, similarly as others smother or impede the equivalent, or unique, perspectives.
References
Baumard, N., & Boyer, P. (2013). Explaining moral religions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 272-280. Web.
Friese, M., & Wänke, M. (2014). Personal prayer buffers self-control depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 56-59. Web.
Kelemen, D., Rottman, J., & Seston, R. (2013). Professional physical scientists display tenacious teleological tendencies: Purpose-based reasoning as a cognitive default. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 1074-1083. Web.
Laurin, K., & Plaks, E. (2014). Religion and punishment: Opposing influences of orthopraxy and orthodoxy on reactions to unintentional acts. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 5, 835–843. Web.
While discussing the question concerning the interdependence between religion and morality, some basic points on the issue must be considered. First of all, it is necessary to point out that religion and morality cannot be regarded as synonyms and therefore, should be analyzed separately.
One is to keep in mind that morality does not depend upon religion; so, for this reason, one can conclude that rightness and wrongness are not based on religious studies. People choose their own way to act, and their decision does not depend upon the God’s will.
Religion and its relation to public morality
Keeping in mind a wide range of religious movements, one can probably notice that the viewpoints on religion are rather ambiguous.
For instance, some representatives of a new atheism are of the opinion that religion poisons everything. In our days, people’s faith can be regarded not only as a basis for human morality, but also as a great evil.
Thus, let’s remember “the evils perpetrated by the Spanish Inquisition and the Catholic leadership’s scandalous protection of clerical child abusers” (Gaillardetz, 2008). The case seems to prove the assumption that the modern religion is toxic to human society.
On the other hand, nobody will deny the fact that religion may shape people’s attitude to public morality. Taking into account certain religious commandments, one can notice many ties between correct moral behavior and a wide range of religious principles.
In other words, it is religiosity, which seems to be based on certain moral approaches, but not vice versa.
Religious principles vs. moral approaches
Still, the issue of human morality must not be regarded within religious perspectives, because it exists independently of religion. Morality is related to certain codes of conduct, which are set by societies.
Furthermore, it is necessary to understand that different societies accept the term in their own way; it depends upon a person’s mentality what moral principles can be followed or neglected.
There is a variety of moral approaches, and some of them take the priority over others. That is to say people have a right to choose how to live, behave, etc. and their freedom of choice does not depend upon the God’s will.
There is a strong need to differentiate between morality, religion, etiquette and law. Making distinctions between the issues can give people an opportunity to interpret morality in a proper way.
Generally, it should be noted that in most cases people consider religion as a basis for morality, because some of the rules of conduct required or prohibited by faith coincide with the codes of conduct established by societies.
On the other hand, “religions may prohibit or require more than is prohibited or required by guides to behavior that are explicitly labeled as moral guides, and may allow some behavior that is prohibited by morality” (Gert, 2011).
Conclusion
As far as morality can be regarded as rather contradictory phenomenon, one can probably agree with Darwin’s opinion that an objective standard of morality is absent (“Answering the New Atheism,” 2008).
For this reason, it becomes evident that there is no sense to discuss human morality within religious perspectives. The only appropriate way to combine the issues is to consider religion and religious morality.
In other words, one can state that while religion may sometimes be the cause of evil, without religion there is no basis for religious morality.
References
Answering the New Atheism. (2008). Stay catholic. Web.
The issue of morality has been a subject of debate in teaching field. Christian scholars are more concerned about achievement of students in terms of moral grounds and not about academics only. It has been argued that a teacher can not teach morality in schools unless he teaches morally. The moral values of teachers have been a big concern of many scholars.
There are much discussion regarding the moral values in the context of teaching and their implications in the achievement of the student. The moral features of learning or teaching situations are also considered important parameters in measuring the performance of the students and the success of teaching and learning.
The big question has been whether the teachers’ moral values should be communicated to the students that that particular teacher is teaching. This term paper critically evaluates Gabriel Moran’s ideas in ‘Teaching morally, teaching Morality’. And the implications it has in religious education.
Moran’s view o n Teaching morally and teaching morality
Moral education in schools is taken as the channel of transmitting moral values from one generation to another. There are moral education programs curricula in schools that are meant to communicate moral values to the students in the name of making them morally upright persons.
There are other cases whereby these moral programs are criticized and are denied chances in education centers on the allegations tat morality is not a communal thing but a personal preference. Others believe that morality is a matter of religious conviction and a subject of culture that should take personal initiative to acquire.
This view of morality has greatly affected the integration of moral matters in education. The teachers, the state and the entire society are the main player in the act of including morality education in schools but have been blocked from doing so by the people’s view of morality as a personal preference, a religious matter or the cultural commitment.
The two concepts teaching morally and teaching morality differs from each other in some respects. To teach morally entails teaching in a manner that is acceptable and considered good or right on moral grounds. This calls for the teachers to act morally or in the right manner in the course of teaching. The teacher has to be good or righteous and should conduct himself in the right manner. Teaching morality on the other hand entails transmitting good and acceptable values to anther.
Gabriel Moran (1997, 201) argues that if teaching is what the teacher struggle to do in class, then the issues of morality have no connection with education. According to him, the real meaning of education should consist of moral teaching and educators should be morally upright. When education does not emphasize the issue of moral teaching in schools, then it either loses its meaning or totally disconnects from morality.
According to Moran (1997, p. 205), morality should be a quality of teaching but not an object of teaching. In other words, quality teaching should include morality or moral teaching. Taking morality as an object of teaching results in to educators teaching what they do not even practice.
They teach morality but they d not model it to their students. This means that the students might never develop the moral values that are taught in class because their teachers do not practice them. They also learn morality as an object but not as a quality they should acquire. It should be emphasized that teachers should act morally while teaching morality.
Moran (1997, 211) feels that, professional people are not actually the better people but they just have what they claim about their profession or the value of their work which may be morally right but done on wrong moral grounds. The professional that are used in teaching morality in schools may not be the right people in teaching morality because they may not teach it morally. They have what they profess about their work but they o not practice it.
This will mean that they are teaching morality as an object but not as a quality in education. Therefore unless morality is taught morally with teachers as 6he role models, the products of education will be morally corrupt but with a moral profession.
If teachers were to practice what they teach, then they will produce morally upright students. If teaching is transmitting values to the students, then morality as a virtue should be transmitted from the teachers to the students. The sense in this case is that the teacher cannot transmit what they do not have.
The school environment and all its constituents is a good teacher of morality. The arrangement of school, the interaction of people within and its physical space can act as the agent of morality that students can learn from. According to Moran (1997), “the school in its total environment of physical space, temporal arrangements, and human interaction is a main teacher of morality” (P, 210). In other words, if the school is set up morally, the moral values will be adopted by the students.
The physical space and the arrangement of the school should be mad of what is capable of inculcating moral values to the students. The kind of human interaction within the school is also capable of transmitting moral values to the students so long as it is done on moral grounds. The interaction of the students and the teachers can be a source of moral values better than when morality is taught as just an object in class.
The purpose of classroom instruction should be well defined and moral education should be pointed out clearly (Moran, 1997, 296). If the whole purpose of classroom instruction is not to instill moral values to the students, then all the other teaching s will have no oral ground and may not be of benefit to the students.
The question of morality is the greatest test for the success of the class room instruction. According to Moran, the aim of classroom instruction should be to inculcate good morals to the students. The school as an agent off morality should reach student how to live and the best and acceptable way to live. In so doing, the school will teach morality to the students because morality is taught in the act of telling someone how to live in the right way (Moran, 1997, 206)
The religious bodies do well in teaching morality than the school set up. According to Moran (1997, 198), religious bodies have diversified way of teaching morality and can be more effective ion teaching morality than the schools themselves. They use stories, example and rituals that are more practical than the theoretical format that is used in class.
The stories and the examples given are related to the real life situation and give the students a concise understanding of the moral values that they should have. More emphasis should be placed on the morals taught by the religious bodies because they are effective is shaping the individuals behavior on moral grounds.
He stated that, “the major religions are very practical and thoroughly realistic about morality” (Moran, 1997, 200). Religions could therefore be more reliable in teaching morality than what the schools can give out. Religions teach morality by giving examples about life in a morally upright community or a virtuous community which can serve better in showing the students how to live a better life.
Te term “morality” is actually not adequate to describe the academic aspect of teaching morality especially in the 20th century where morality has not been given the due emphasis.
Teaching morality carries more weight than the meaning of the word morality. It involves all the stakeholders in a school and especially the teachers to shift from just being the carriers of moral values and be doers of morality. This will make the whole school a good environment for teaching morality and produce morally upright students who will be doers of morality.
According to Moran (1997, 214), schools teach students ethics and not morality where the ethics only entails teaching the students to be conversant with the language of morality.
However, this may only enable them understand morality but may never make them good people in the society. Students need to be taught how to live a consistently moral life so that morality becomes their lifestyle. Dealing with the language of morality alone may not be effective in getting students at morality or teaching them to become better people.
Morality and religion are two closely related concepts and should not be confused. Religion teaches morality and is shaped by morality therefore; it is not possible to separate them. Class room is a place of critical thinking which is carried out in appraised by the speech. However, this does not mean that the aspect of religion and morality should be left out in the class room.
In fact, they should be the basis of every conversation in class so that the school can produce better people. Moran (1997, 218) is not concerned about morality as it may be defined by the law of land and soldiering which reflects both human and nonhuman perspectives, but morality defined by human consciousness and religious values.
Implications of Gabriel Moran’s views for religious education
Moran’s view seem to be quite enriching the religious education and at the same time giving it a new paradigm. According to his arguments, religious education should be handled in a more serious manner than it is today. Religious education should be teaching about morality.
He advocates that religions have a better way of teaching morality than the any other body. He also seems to advocate that moral teaching which is mostly regarded as the core reason for the religious education should not be taught by teachers who are just professionals but the morally upright people.
Religious education should be taught in the family, school, work place and even during leisure. This means that people will be well fed with the moral values at all places. This confirms his argument that moral life should be consistently lived. Students should be engaged in moral teachings at all levels of their life. He added that family, work, school and leisure are the agents of community values that are generally accepted and should therefore be emphasized in teaching religious education.
Moran also challenges morality educators to be the role model as they teach religious education and morality. He urges them to teach morality morally. This will enable them to teach by modeling and not by language alone. Religious education is taught well by the religious groups than the schools and therefore more emphasis should be put on the religious education because they have better ways of teaching morality.
Religion and morality should therefore be integrated in the education system and morally upright educators be accorded the responsibility of teaching them. Religious education and morality are inseparable because religious education is all about morality and is shaped by morality.
The central theme of religious education therefore is morality. According to Moran (1997, 214), religious education should shift its focus from teaching ethics as it is in most schools today and focus on teaching morality. People should be taught to be moral and religious so that they become better people.
Moran’s view about teaching morality and teaching morally is a wakeup call to the religious education and morality teachers to consider practicing what they teach. In so doing, the religious and morality education will be worth teaching in school. This will also ensure that morally and religious people are produced by the schools.
Following the views of Moran, religious education can be reshaped and become a subject of paramount importance as the key transmitter of moral values to the students. It can be more instrumental in shaping the students moral behaviors than it is today. It should be emphasized with the weight placed by Moran and schools will become moral institutions.
Conclusion
Morality teaching and teaching morally should be emphasized in schools, work place and religious groups. As teacher of morality should teach morally and should be morally upright. Religious education should also be emphasized as the core agent of morality.
Reference List
Moran, G. (1997). Teaching morally, teaching morality. In showing how: the act of Teaching, (pp. 195 – 218). Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International
Marc Hauser and Peter Singer explain the importance of morality and how it is related to religion in their “Morality and religion” report. People are becoming less religious these days, but morality continues to exist. One of the massive gaps is seen between governmental policies and religion. A common example is the topic of abortions in specific parts of the world. Religion states that abortions are not legal, and the abuse of the rule should be judged accordingly to the religious law. However, these days, the preferences of women are more important. Consequently, Hauser and Singer explained that the studies of religion have returned to schools to show young children the nature of the human body. Religion explains the importance of God in human life, and there are only two good and bad ways. The authors explained an additional aspect which states that agnostics and atheists are not related to religion but can act morally. Religions are different across the world, and some elements of morality might be diverse. Biology and the structure of the human body play an important role in these differences, and the authors approve the existence of right and wrong institutions of morality. Hauser and Singer discovered that morality could be understood by psychology, and it is important to study its nature. This topic should be studied along with scientific subjects to understand local cultural differences and find the meaning of morality in different parts of the world (Marc Hauser and Peter Singer, 5).
Morality refers to values that distinguish between good and bad behavior or right and wrong. Different religious systems outline moral guidelines that their adherents should abide by to remain faithful to the group since immemorial. Morality separates spiritual entities from secularism in many cases and in many minds. From childhood, faith-based teachers endeavor to instill different moral values in young followers to align with the teachings of a specific faith. Despite the numerous differences between various religious persuasions, there is a general agreement in pieces of literature that religion depends on and develops alongside its virtues. This paper will analyze what role morality plays in different faiths.
Each system of beliefs has specific value frameworks that guide people concerning personal behavior and help them to declare between right and wrong. Thus, the sources of moral teachings for various religious systems include religious leaders, written and oral traditions, and holy books that outline and interpret acceptable living standards (Bell 2017). Their uniqueness ensures that each person can find a spiritual community that supports their ethical values.
Contemporary monotheistic persuasions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Sikhism define morality based on rules and laws outlined by their respective deities and taught by spiritual leaders therein. On the other hand, polytheistic faiths seem to reckon that a person’s circumstances and intentions play critical roles in determining whether the individual acted rightly or wrongly. Furthermore, the stages of life, kinship, and social rank categories decide good and evil in Hinduism.
One’s moral values are often defined by their faith, which makes it possible to draw a parallel between people’s actions and their culture. According to a 2019 survey, 45% of respondents from 34 countries affirmed their belief that God is vital for a man to have good values and remain moral (Gramm 2021). The growing number of nonreligious people worldwide seems to coincide with increased violence, war, robberies, rape, corruption, prostitution, and rampant divorce rates. Hence, many firmly hold that there can be no morality without religion. The most prominent basis for connecting religion and morality today includes the divine command theory and the Confucian virtue. The sacred command approach holds that an action is morally upright when God requires or commands it; hence, it “is common to many religious traditions, especially the monotheist faiths” (Kessler 2006, 209). These ethics create a lasting impact on one’s religion, creating communities that strictly uphold them and promote morality as they perceive it.
Sharia law stipulates a Muslim’s proper code of conduct in Islam. The Sharia law emanates from the deity Allah, whom Muslims regard as supreme and do not report to any other power. As a result, Allah’s superior status makes his instructions on right and wrong living solid and unanswerable. It is necessary to understand that Muslims perceive the Sharia as “the answer Islam gives to Socrates’ question about how we should live” (Kessler 2006, 207). According to the Islamic faith, Allah is subject to no one, and nothing can be wrong on his part; hence, what he declares to be a virtue is a virtue. This notion highlights the role of gods in modern society. The same principle applies to Jewish and Christian religions, where the Ten Commandments given by Yahweh on Mount Sinai remain the moral benchmarks for the adherents of these faiths (McGaughey 2020, 23). Thus, some codes shape their followers’ perceptions of liberty, well-being, relationships, and even mundane activities.
On the other hand, Confucian virtue ethics refer to both a spiritual and a moral code. This belief system and philosophy are derived from Ancient China, which continues to serve as an ethical guide to living and thriving with solid characters (Serfontein 2019, 6). Confucianism emphasizes the value of possessing a sound moral character that can influence the world around the individual via the notion of cosmic harmony. The formation of this system came “from the traditional rites and customs handed down from the past Golden Age,” signifying the long-lasting impact of religious beliefs on humanity (Kessler 2006, 215). This notion shows that spiritual aspects of religion can transform into cultural ones. Some of the moral values exceed their initial boundaries and govern nonreligious people’s experiences in the form of philosophy (Kessler 2006, 168). This idea emphasizes the importance of continuously educating people to keep them in virtuous character, as their goodness can transfer to others.
Closely linked with morality are the ideas of retribution and guilt in almost all religions. A person who went against set moral standards was guilty of disobeying the deity, and their actions called for punishment. Some people are guided by retribution, which “takes many different forms in religion, such as the law of karma and judgment day,” leading to a strict following of ethics codes (Kessler 2006, 224). Moreover, religions teach the aspect of redemption or purification for those who stray from outlined guidelines. There are ways for various systems of faith to make one’s habits right with society and deity once they deviate from the principle.
In conclusion, morality remains critical for many religions globally, as it helps communities to align their cultural values with their beliefs. Different belief systems can create unique environments where their ethical codes are actively disseminated or even enforced. This notion shows that there are many ways in which people can spread their values and shape the world to their image of perfection.
Broadly put, religion and morality are two concepts that are often viewed as intertwined with each other. Religion is often associated with piety, which may be explained to imply a case where someone has to be prosecuted for the wrongs they have done. For example, any one who is guilty of committing either murder or sacrilege ought to be prosecuted for their crime whether they are young or old. Not doing this may be regarded as irreligious (Plato 6).
In this vein, there should be a demarcation between what the person has done and aspects such as the relations or age of the individual. Their crime is what sets them apart as being irreligious and thus immoral. There is an idea whose nature determines whether someone is pious or impious.
Put in other words, religion is closely associated with the gods and what they like and irreligion is attributed to what the gods detest. In the words of Plato, “Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods and impiety is that which is not dear to them.” (Plato 8). Religion has its roots in gods who comprise of some traits such as hatred, enmities, and differences.
Religion and morality are therefore related in a way. There are personal points of difference that call for respective solutions. Differences about magnitude are resolved through measurements and so forth. However, some differences make people not only angry at each other, but may also create enmity between them. This happens when the underlying issues causing differences are based on good and evil, justice and injustice, as well as respect and discredit.
It is on this platform that people end up quarreling and differ with one another. Socrates put this in a better way in the sense that, “But what differences are there which cannot be thus decided, and which therefore make us angry and set us at enmity with one other?
I dare say the answer does not occur to you at the moment, and therefore I will suggest that these enmities arise when the matters of difference are the just and unjust, good and evil, honourable and dishonourable. Are not these the points about which men differ, and about which when we are unable satisfactorily to decide our differences, you and I and all of us quarrel when we do quarrel?” (Plato 10).
It is argued that the things that make men quarrel and differ with each other are also the same that make the gods behave in the same manner. Therefore, to some extent, there is correlation between the character and nature of gods and the morality of people.
People’s way of doing things may be because of how they are influenced by the gods. It is further argued that the gods have different opinions regarding various aspects; for example, what may be loved by some may be hated by others just as Euthyphro’s prosecution of his father may be acceptable by Zeus but be refuted by Uranus.
Therefore, just like men, gods are said to hold differences in opinion over various issues. Whereas both gods and men have an unwavering stand regarding what is just and unjust, and, punishable and unpunishable, the differences rather arise in determining who the wrong doer is, what wrong was done and when.
It is a common fact between both parties that the doer of what is unjust should be punished. Defining “piety as that which is dear to gods and impiety as that which is not dear to them” (Plato 12), is not therefore sufficient; this is because what may be appealing to gods may not necessarily appeal to others.
In the case of being holy or unholy, it should be noted that whatever is “dear to the gods is dear to them because it is loved by them, not loved by them because it is dear to them” (Plato 14). As much as there may be a similarity between religion and some moral components, the two are not completely similar. Morality may be perceived as a function of religion but morality may not be a function of religion.
Socrates, in trying to elucidate this, illustrate it using reverence and fear that: “I should not say that where there is fear, there is also reverence; for I am sure that many persons fear poverty and disease and the like evils, but I do not perceive that they reverence the objects of their fear… but where reverence is, there is fear; for he who has a feeling of reverence and shame about the commission of any action, fears and is afraid of an ill reputation” (Plato 19).
Religion may be viewed as a sense of men’s duty to the gods. It is likened to the attention granted by the ox herd to the ox, the huntsman to the dogs, and horsemanship. In the same vein, “piety or holiness may be explained to be the art of attending to gods” (Plato 20). In attending to dogs, horses, and oxen, the one offering attention normally benefits or improves the one being attended to. However, the attention accorded to the gods does not improve them in any way, in the same way it happens to other objects of attention.
It is rather a master – servant kind of attention (Plato 22). It is an act of ministration, which, like any other ministration, serves to accomplish a given purpose. In people’s administration to the gods, there are numerous and fair works that they receive from the gods in return.
Euthyphro asserts when he says, “Let me simply say that piety or holiness is learning how to please the gods in word and deed, by prayers and sacrifices; such piety is the salvation of families and states, just as the impious, which is unpleasing to the gods, in their ruin and destruction” (Plato 24).
Morality is not Shaped by Religion
On the other hand, Nietzsche does not see how religion influences morality at all; the aspects of religion that connote purity and impurity should not be fathomed in a symbolic, serious, or even broad way. They should be perceived from an ancient way that defined them from a narrow, crude, and plain manner. Purity entailed keeping off from some diets that could cause skin disorders, not sleeping with unclean women, detesting blood. The introduction of some priestly religious values has not done any good.
It has in fact resulted to differences and conflicts among people (Nietzsche, Clark and Swensen 15). From the onset, something is not good about religion and the habits that define the conduct of religious people. This has affected priests of all times. Humanity still suffers from the consequences of the priestly acts such as fasting, sexual abstinence, their callous metaphysics, and self-hypnosis.
Priests have initiated danger in almost all things resulting to conceit, lust to rule, perception, disease and vengeance, just to mention a few. It is on this dangerous basis that man became not only an interesting creature, but also evil in soul. These two aspects are the distinguishing marks between man and other creatures (Nietzsche, Clark and Swensen 16).
Religion is perceived to have impacted negatively on the morality of its adherents such as priests. It has made them to be the most powerless people, haters, and most evil enemies. “Priests are, as is well known, the most evil enemies – why is that? This is because they are the most powerless. Out of their powerlessness, their hate grows into something enormous and uncanny, into something spiritual and most dangerous. The truly great haters in the history of the world have always been priests (Nietzsche, Clark and Swensen 16)”.
Jesus, the Jewish embodied gospel of love has made Israel reached the height of its desire for political revenge. In their manifestation of revenge, the Jews nailed Jesus on the cross to use him as a bait to let the rest of the world receive him (Nietzsche, Clark and Swensen 18). The church aims at poisoning the entire body of humanity through the Jewish culture. Although this is happening gradually, it is affecting everybody’s way of behavior.
Conclusion
Plato sees action of people as controlled by gods. Piety is viewed in terms of being favoured and acceptable to gods while impiety contrasts this by being unacceptable and unpleasant. There is a correlation between the morality of people and their allegiance to the gods.
On the other hand, religion is seen by Nietzsche as an influence that has made man a very dangerous creature, made him evil, hateful and vengeant. It has not shaped the morality of humanity in any way. The Christian religion is leading in the spread of the Jewish poisonous culture of revenge and seduction to humanity.
If the actions of people are controlled by the gods who in themselves may exhibit hatred, enmity and differences, then it follows that people who manifest such traits (which are not necessarily morally correct), may still be under the influence of gods. These gods are different from the ones that influence the actions and behavior of the morally upright. If religion is the measure of someone’s attention to the gods, then someone’s degree of morality is determined by their commitment to attend to the gods.
However, we know of cases where people who are devoted to the gods are morally wanting like the cases that Nietzsche puts across. Plato asserts that the nature of the gods influence the morality of men. The implications of this are two-fold. First, these people may not be genuinely ministering to the gods as they purport and so their morals are not being positively influenced by the gods as it were.
Secondly, there could be two different types of gods: those that are of good character and nature impart good morals and those that are of weird traits and nature impart ill morals to people who attend to them. People whether knowingly or ignorantly pledge their allegiance to those gods that are of evil nature. This affects their morality negatively.
There is also another case of people, who do not consciously attend to any god but they are amoral. This may imply that either, by not attending to the gods of good character, the gods of ill character still influence them, or such men are naturally amoral. This later implication is most probable since we are living in a world where it is very easy to do what is wrong than what is right. Therefore, our morals may be primarily rooted in our nature. The influence of gods may just be a secondary one.