In religion and ethics, so much debate emerges since different people have different views and concepts in expressing morality. However, religion has existed for quite a long time as a belief system. It has formed the code of conduct. Also, it is a directory sanctioning believers’ functioning in a cultured manner or in a non-primitive way. Therefore, religion plays a vital role in thinking patterns and creating collective community identities and self-identities that influence individual and group behaviors by modeling their cultural norms and attitudes (Benboutrif, 2019). Simply, it helps determine right from wrong. Religion does this through positive and negative reinforcement by instilling the concept of fearing God in scripture. For instance, certain ideologies such as salvation and hell-heaven in Christianity, reincarnation, and karma in Hinduism and other ideas in different religions form the basis of acting right in life.
Sacred texts help believers to relate deeply to the truth as presented in the scripture to improve humanity. These texts form the basis of religion, infusing law, spirituality, providing a moral framework, and fostering communal identity (Benboutrif, 2019). For instance, sacred books can have some connotations such as “thou shalt not kill,” which articulate to people how to behave through moralizing ethics hence providing good moral advice. The natural law postulates that human beings have fundamental values that direct their reasoning and behavior. It upholds that ethical rules are innate in people and not formed by court judges or by society (Benboutrif, 2019). Natural law maintains that morality is universal, being at the will of reason and not at God’s will. Plato’s Euthyphro problem dwells on viewing morality in relation to theism (Politis, 2021). Socrates brought a dilemma when he asked Euthyphro if the gods love a good deed because it is good or if the good deed is good because the gods love it.
The Euthyphro problem challenges the moral absolutist stance of divine command theory, which maintains that ethical accounts like “charity is good” derive their validity from God’s attributes. It means “charity is good” only if it pleases God. Nonetheless, some religionists such as Alston and Adams navigate the Euthyphro dilemma by stating that even though God’s commandments make right deeds right (Politis, 2021). God is morally faultless and cannot issue immoral or unjust commandments.
Human Nature
Human nature’s concept indicates the essential dispositions and behaviors, which include acting, ways of thinking, and feelings, possessed naturally by human beings. It simply is the essence of being human. Egoism and social contract theories present human nature as being self-interested and rational beings. Hobbes postulates that humans are naturally self-centered but rational. They will choose to submit to a Sovereign authority to co-exist in civil society, looking after their interests. He continues to provide a hypothetical state of nature, where men are self-interested by nature, less or more equal to each other and having inadequate resources. In a government-free world with limited resources, people will tend to revert to being evil and selfish to protect their selfish interests presenting the condition of the state of nature, which is unbearably brutal. According to Hobbes, the solution is to use their rationality to recognize the laws of nature to escape the state of nature and create a civil society.
Consequences
According to utilitarianism, what determines a right or wrong is the general utility of the action’s consequences. An action is right or wrong depending on the outcomes (Sierra Vélez 2020). However, the Kantian theory postulates that morality is the supreme principle determining whether an action is right or wrong and incorporates rationality and freedom. I tend to side with Kant because he emphasizes consistency, impartiality, and rationality, and he promotes respect for our manner of living. If he views no violation against moral absolutes, he prevents ambiguities, personal biases, and self-serving interests in undertaking our duties. In the United States, people are interested in their rights, and Kantian theory lets people realize where such rights exist. Duties indicate rights, and rights suggest authentic expectations.
On the other hand, Mill’s theory proposes a negative responsibility. According to Mill, you are morally responsible for things you do to maximize happiness, which may bring about reprehensible acts (Sierra Vélez 2020). For instance, suppose I am the personal doctor to a mean teacher whom his students and relatives do not like, and I happen to come across some patients looking for organs, and the teacher is perfectly healthy and is the right match, would I kill the teacher (if no one would know about it) to donate his organ? I would create happiness for the patients and their families, and the students of the mean teacher. Hence, Utilitarian theory suggests that I kill the teacher. This shows the downside of Mill’s theory as seeking to fulfill other’s happiness.
References
Benboutrif, D. (2019). Religion and development relationship through philosophical perspectives of Kant, Hegel and Weber; A critical review. Социология, (6).
Politis, V. (2021). Plato’s Essentialism: Reinterpreting the Theory of Forms.
Sierra Vélez, L. (2020). The dignity of persons: Kantian ethics and utilitarianism (Doctoral dissertation, University of St Andrews).
