Philosophy Rational for Morality

Question: Discuss about the Philosophy Rational for Morality. Answer: Introduction: It is an age-old controversy, whether the god is the base of the moral values of the human being, or the morality or ethics are completely irrelevant to the existence of god. As mentioned by Sliti (2014) the set of the moral values like respect, benevolence, kindness and many others encourages a question of selflessness and sacrifice. It intern instigate the question, why the people will sacrifice their own advantages for others. What the rationality or justification is there behind the foundation of morality? Here, the idea of God comes into existence. As mentioned by Copan (2013) religion says morality is supported or commanded by the god. For being treated by the god with good fortune, people need to be moral in their physical life. Thus, religion provides the ground for morality. However, this arbitrary attitude, self- interested approach the fake motivation and complete dependence on God as the base of morality makes the believe strong that God is not necessary for exercising th e moral values. The following essay will discuss the supporting as well as the opposing arguments related to this topic, and depending on the supporting and opposing ideas, the essay will shape the conclusion of the author regarding this topic. Religion as basis of morality: the supporting arguments: Religion has been identified as the strong basis and rational for morality by a large number of people, since a long time. According to the Divine command theory, what is moral is moral, as the god commands it. On the other hand, as argued by Paul Copan, God has been made out of the gods image; hence, they need to conform to the gods sense of morality (Copan 2013). As described by him, The description of actions as right or wrong are therefore relevant to God; a person's sense of what is right or wrong corresponds to God's (Copan 2013). This, theory can be integrated to the natural law theory of Thomas Aquines (Gonzlez 2016). This theory has also supported the theological view of morality. According to him, God as a creator has set out a series of moral principles (Gonzlez 2016). A number of arguments can be identified in support of this idea. According to many philosophers, the religious ground of morality collects a huge support and conformity, as it uses the fear as a motivator. Acting for being happy is the natural instinct for human being. However, the moral values often shapes the human behavior in such a way that people needs to put their self-interest aside and act against their instinct. It posed the question on the justification, rationality and authority of the moral guidelines. Religion answers all these questions on morality. As mentioned by Wainwright (2013) the fear of god and his curse often compels people to act in a moral way. Hence, the question on the existence of God may devastate the idea of morality among many people, which will surely be harmful for the human race. As opined by Stark and Bainbridge (2013) religious belief provides an explanation to the problem of ethical motivation through the fear of God. Here, the theory of Friedrich Nietzsche is needed to be discussed. He has argued that the idea of gods existence has been fatally challenged by the scientific revolutions (Di Stefano 2016). However, the non- existence of god has provided a metaphysical voidance to the people. Moreover, now with this non- existence of God the moral ideas can also be dissolved, as they are the mere commends of the god (Fritzsche 2013). Hence, to find the meaning of life and providing a strong justification for the moral behavioral approach to the people, it is needed to have a religious support. Thus, the supports have suggested that religion provides a justification and rationality to the exercise of morality and provides a strong motivation of fear for basis of its celebration. Without the tool of the religious fear, the people will not found any justification for ignoring their own good and opt for the way paved towards achieving the greater good. Religion as basis of morality: the opposing arguments: However, all these agues for the valid base of religion for morality have have been opposed by various theories and philosophizes. These ideas mention, Religion is completely irrelevant for morality. Neither the authority of moral values nor the motivation to act morally has anything to do with the existence of God. A number of philosophers have argued against the religious base of morality. As argued by the semantic view, being commanded by the god and the idea of obligatory are not identical. As mentioned by Wainwright (2013) the religious view of morality is making the moral guidelines and option for the people, which itself can be devastating for the structure of the humanistic society. Moreover, as argued by Wainwright (2013) while morality is being justified as the command of God, it seems to deny the atheists and agnostics moral knowledge. With believe in the non-existence of god, the moral obligations will not be there for the human race (Richardson 2016). Moreover, as criticized by Stark and Bainbridge (2013) religious fear is a bad motivator for the leading a moral life. As argued by Richardson (2016) religion grossly distorts morality as it is encouraging the manifestation of some guidelines without any selective judgment from the peoples end. Hence, they have suggested that the motivation of faith for morality needs to be rejected. With the belief of Nihilism or Ethical Nihilism, this motivator will not be able to support the moral guidelines and its maintenance in the human interactions. With the view of morality does not subsist as something intrinsic to objective reality; therefore no act is essentially preferable to any other, the religious motivation cannot be utilized (MacAskill 2013). Here, the person needs to accept the moral guidelines without any expectation of any further justification. On the other hand, the cultural relativists argue that the moral idea of religion differs from culture to culture. As mentioned by Eagleton (2013) Christians eat pork whereas the Muslims count it as immoral. Hence, it is not possible for religions to give morality a universal face. Thus, it can be said that the basics of morality do not have anything to do with religions. On the other hand, the Secular Humanism talks about the non- existence of God (Stark and Bainbridge 2013). Secular humanism supports morality, as it is necessary for operating a humanitarian life. They believe that the non- existence of god do not have any implication on the morality. It is the responsibility of the mature and civilized human race to accept the ethical guidelines for the idea of greater good. As mentioned by Felderhof (2012) in this 21st century, it is primitive to support the moral guidelines with the fear of religion. Here, the idea of Nietzsche can be brought again. According to Nielsen, the essence of the utterance if God is dead nothing matters is the idea of a man without compassion for the human race (Felderhof 2012). Hence, he argued that in no matter what the ultimate reality is, morality and ethical guidelines are important for leading a caring, compassionate and humane society. In addition to this, the philosophy was also been supported by the Existentialist ethics. As discussed by Golomb (2012) life has no ultimate meaning. Hence, as suggested by Camus, it is the duty of the human being to lead their lives with their own responsibility (Farneth 2013). The non- existence of God do not mean the voidance of this earthly lives. It is the responsibility of an individual to put sense and justification to the existence of his own soul. No external force is needed to guide them to find meaning for their own lives. According to Camus, people should divot themselves to the ethical basis of life with the awareness that no rational justification will be ultimately achieved. Conclusion: Hence, from the above discussion, it can be noted that religion has provided a strong support to the ethical and moral guidelines for the life. The religious fear and the self- centered approach can be identified as a great motivator or justification for moral behavior, but for the ancient societies. In the period of the advent of the scriptures, the public were not civilized enough for living an organized life. Hence, the motivation of religious fear was a commendable tool to make them behave within the moral guidelines. However, in todays world, people are educated enough to make judgments and decisions. Hence, I personally believe that religion is completely irrelevant for morality and celebrating moral guidelines. As mentioned by the Secular Humanism, I believe that moral values do not need any support from the religious commands. In the modern world, the moral guidelines can thrive as the requirement for living a humanitarian and happy life. Moreover, the idea generated and supp orted by Albert Camus, people should commit to the ethical guidelines or the moral behaviors with the awareness that no rational justification can be acquired. For being the civilians of a civilized world, people must exercise the moral guidelines without any expectations. References: Copan, P., 2013. Ethics needs God. Debating Christian Theism. Di Stefano, V., 2016. Nietzsche's Death of God and Italian Philosophy. Eagleton, T., 2013. The idea of culture. John Wiley Sons. Farneth, M., 2013. James Baldwin, Simone de Beauvoir, and the New Vocabulary of Existentialist Ethics. Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 96(2), pp.170-188. Felderhof, M., 2012. Secular humanism. Debates in religious education, pp.146-156. Fritzsche, P., 2013. Nietzsche and the Death of God: Selected Writings. Waveland Press. Golomb, J., 2012. In search of authenticity: Existentialism from Kierkegaard to Camus. Routledge. Gonzlez, A.M., 2016. Contemporary perspectives on natural law: natural law as a limiting concept. Routledge. MacAskill, W., 2013. The infectiousness of nihilism. Ethics, 123(3), pp.508-520. Richardson, J.T., 2016. Religion, Morality, and Law. Sliti, A., 2014. Islamic Ethics: Divine Command Theory in Arabo-Islamic Thought. Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations, 25(1), pp.132-134. Stark, R. and Bainbridge, W.S., 2013. Religion, deviance, and social control. Routledge. Wainwright, W.J., 2013. Religion and morality. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..