Is Religion Necessary for Morality to Exist?
Many
consider knowledge between what is good and bad for all impossible without the
existence of God. This is commonly referred to as the theistic belief in which
all morality originates from God. This belief gave rise to the establishment of
Religion, effectively giving certain people the authority over others, acting
as judges over the proper procedure throughout life.
The
Divine Command theory states that all morality is decided by God. All
obligations to it are also decided by this Supreme Being in a supernatural
manner unbeknownst to mankind. For example, one of the leading philosophers for
the argument of the existence of morality being more than just a social
construct is Immanuel Kant. He argues that there is a need for a belief in a
God in order to rest in the hope that there is more in the afterlife instead of
an oblivious end after a pitiful mortal life
“Creation of Adam” by Michelangelo, found at the Sistine Chapel.
Consider
the aspect of morality; is the desire for more than just this life the sole
inspiration behind the act of morality? Is the typical man solely driven to do
what is right or wrong simply because they wish to spend an eternity in either
a Utopia or a Dystopia? Immanuel Kant himself abandoned his religion yet many
still consider him the father of the philosophy of Morality
Watch Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGPMCwrm99o
Consequentialism
is the theory that the outcome of any situation depends on the probability that
something is either good or bad. There are two theories of Consequentialism
that will be delved further into in this essay; the first of which is
Utilitarianism. The theory states that an action is only morally right if it
maximizes on the good; this is where the total amount of good for all outweighs
the total amount of bad for all. For instance, in the year 2014, the Prime
Minister of Fiji (Frank Bainimarama) announced that secondary and primary
school education would be provided free of charge for all Fijian citizens.
There were those in the Opposition Party who assumed that this decision would
prove detrimental to the national budget, but in spite of these allegations,
the act was passed in favor of the good of all being greater than the bad
The
previous example being mentioned is an act of ‘Separation of Church and State’;
this is where the affairs of the Government are carried out without the
influence of a single religion to cater for the others. Also, according to the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Utilitarianism demands too much
The
second theory of Consequentialism is the Harm Principle. The theory states that
an individual is free to make any moral decision they please; as long as it
does not harm anyone else in the process. To paint this picture, a study was
conducted by Douglas Diekema to try and evaluate the amount of say a minor had
in their medical treatment when opposed by their parents who wanted otherwise.
A minor could refuse to accept medicine and consider this act moral because it
harms no one else, the state would even enforce this decision by law. However,
these distress the parents who oppose the state for the benefit of their own
children
A
relativist would argue that there is no absolute truth and that truth is a
matter of perspective. This stance carries its own set of fallacies yet it is
still bears the potential for morality. In this case, the deciding factor lies
within the realm of personal opinion and not religion. Nonetheless, this
principle is lacking in terms of what the majority readily accepts as harmful.
What one person considers abusive, another may consider miniscule. The lack of
a universal definition of what is considered harmful prevents this theory from
becoming absolute
Watch Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hACdhD_kes8
Governance
is the system by which an organization operates and whose people are held
accountable. There are two approaches to Governance that will be discussed
further in this essay; the first of which is Self-Governance. This is where an
individual operates independent of external forces. Unfortunately, this theory
cannot be fully exercised if the autonomy of the people is challenged
Religion
is not necessary for one to make a moral decision. In the territory of Guam,
there are people who are protesting against the injustice of being an
unincorporated state. They are fighting for either the status of an independent
state or a recognized state of the US, instead of being stuck somewhere in the
middle. The protests are held and organized by non-religious organizations
Watch Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5NHYkTO3tU
The
second approach to Governance is Family Governance. This approach is where a
closely related group of people make a collective decision for the benefit of
the family’s vision
An
atheist could argue that some people, who claim to make a moral judgment due to
religion, only do so because they witness those whom they care about do the
same in similar situations. If so, then the judgment cannot truly be moral if
not personal. To illustrate, if a child were forced to attend a church service
by his parents from an early age, is he truly regarded as a church going
person? It is possible that the child simply desired to escape corporal
punishment from his conserved parents. Then is he responsible for every
decision that he makes or is he just parroting those around him? Hence, the
authenticity of a moral judgment is rendered questionable if it is being
governed by others.
Unfortunately,
because religion is the single greatest defender of the Divine Command Theory,
many assume that morality originated from it and is intrinsically linked to it.
Perhaps, awareness on the fact that morality has been practiced in many cases
without the use of established religion could help aid an individual in
understanding why it is not necessary for morality. Personally, I would not
negate the fact that religion plays a vital role in helping one understand
morality deeper than if they tried to without it.
Comments
Post a Comment