Moral Transcendentalism

I think Moral Relativism is given a bad rap in this piece. I believe that the essence of moral relativism is not that every culture has their own respectable definition of morality, it is that no single morality is utterly accurate and a society or individual just sees a reflection of ethics based on their culture or personality. Based on this perspective the argument that moral relativism entails that I tolerate the Nazis or cultures with female circumcision is not valid. Instead the relative nature of ethics allows me to apply my own knowledge and experience to the situation and find ways in which my personal life and culture shed light on the harms of other practices. In this process of understanding and rebuking other cultures I should also be critical of my own culture and find ways in which their practices reflect my own experience e.g. the Nazis should make me feel more compelled to help the Palestinians and the circumcision of women should make me think about our own cultures forced sterilization, forced abortion, lack of birth-control and apologists/deniers of patriarchal enforcing violence. This second self-critical part of this take on moral relativism opposes the attack saying that moral relativism leads to a tolerance of unjust norms. Moral relativism should encourage individuals to question their own and cultural beliefs as they are set by and relative to largely unpredictable, un-analyzed and very coerced variables.

"Ethics and Religion"

 In "Ethics and Religion; Ethical Relativism” the author objects to the widely held belief that morality depends on religion and notes that such a belief “often proves to be a major obstacle to benefitting fully from serious ethical reflection.”  I take it that the gist of his argument is: we should NOT not value the study of ethics on the grounds that religion can already tell us what is good, because religion (in this particular example, the kind of religion that claims “it is good because God says it is”) provides us with an entirely arbitrary moral code which is “problematic” and “disconcerting.”

            In the following paragraphs I will attempt to discredit the aforementioned argument in various ways. First, I will point out how the belief that things are good because God wills them may not necessarily leave the believer with an entirely arbitrary or disconcerting sense of morality. And second, even if such a belief were to result in an arbitrary, disconcerting, or challenging (for reasons the author provides which I will touch on) moral code, this does not discredit the truth of the moral code.

            The author provides an example, stating that God’s ability to will what is good suggests he could change his mind every other day on whether murder is evil which would disconcertingly make good and evil arbitrary. The author fails to acknowledge that those who believe things are good because God wills them, typically also believe in an omniscient and benevolent God. To such a religious person, it is implausible to suggest that an all knowing God would “change his mind” because that suggests he could at one point have been wrong. Deeply embedded in many monotheistic religions is the idea that God has a complete and thorough understanding of all that occurs and therefore whatever he wills would not feel arbitrary or random at all. Furthermore, the image of a God who arbitrarily wills things to be right or wrong seems incongruent with a God who is all loving and considerate of his people. And even if it were congruent, the arbitrariness would not be disconcerting for someone who believes in God’s benevolence.

            Later, the author argues against “making morality depend on religion” because of logistical problems such as the existence of conflicting religions, the inability to decipher which one to believe, etcetera. Although I agree that relying on religion for morality is problematic in that it places a large and potentially impossible burden on people to figure out which religion, if any, is correct, I do not think this actually discredits any of the religions. It may be true that it is simply too hard to use religion as a means to figuring out what is good for an array of reasons- there are conflicting views, some religions rely on faith, some people are put off by religious institutions. However, I think it is interesting to point out that these problems merely make the use of, say Christianity, inconvenient, inaccessible, non-universal, but are not evidence for how Christian morality is actually untrue. This point does not disprove the authors overall claim that religion should not replace the study of ethics when trying to answer how to live our lives, but I still think he would do well in pointing it out in order to not appear as if he is attempting to disprove the possibility of a true morality that results from religion. 

Morality from God?

I want to further flesh out the notion that morality finds value or meaning in the existence of God. More specifically, that something is good or bad because God deems it so. If God determines what is morally right and wrong, it does not necessarily follow that what is right and wrong will or even can change. In other words, that morality will necessarily possess an arbitrary nature (one subject to change). If God deems what is right and wrong, morality firstly becomes something dependent on the nature of who God is and what his (or her, but I will stick to a male pronoun in this essay) role in the universe is. If God is someone who is subject to change his mind about the matters of ethics and morality, then ethics and morality will change with it. However, if God is not one to change his mind about such matters, then they will not change either. Consider my enjoyment of a nice sunset. I can easily imagine myself suddenly finding sunsets unpleasant and thus deeming them unenjoyable. Even though I can imagine such a situation, it does not follow that it will therefore change. Just because one could imagine God changing his mind about something, doesn’t mean that he will change his mind about it.

                But surely morality cannot be reduced to an unchangeable opinion of God. Even if he would never change his mind about such a matter, doesn’t morality feel like it is rooted in something much more concrete than what someone deems so? This brings me (very briefly) to my next point; the medium in which we detect morality. The rightness or wrongness of something cannot be sensed in the normal way through our five senses. Morality does not reside in some corner of my room, smelled as some odor, or grasped physically by my hands. It cannot be scientifically measured in any way. Rather, morality is something that resides in the consciousness of the mind, being experienced and emotionally felt.  The only medium morality is detected through is from the perspective of the human mind. If God created what is considered right and wrong and also created human beings (including the mind), could he not have created us with a certain knack or feeling of what he made right and wrong? If he did, then the very systems we use to detect morality itself would have been created by God. Thus, anything he made our minds morally responsive to (such that killing infants is wrong) would be entirely up to his decision because he decides how we respond to it.

Blog 2 _Ethics and Religion; Ethical Relativism

Ethics and Religion; Ethical Relativism

The major objection that I have with this piece of literature pertains to the cultural and moral relativism arguments. The author’s arguments against cultural and moral relativism are unsound because they contain obvious fallacies of false analogy. The author argues that moral standards are not relative despite the presence of cultural diversity because all cultures share the same most “basic moral principles” [15]. The author equates culture diversity to the different varieties of athleticism to illustrate that although diversity in sports and culture exist, they all share basic commonalities.  He says, “Beneath the diversity of rules governing different sports, there is a set of common underlying principles that are so basic to these activities that they are rarely made explicit …. Players on opposing teams are not allowed to hire assassins to dispatch members of opposing teams…pitchers and quarterbacks are not allowed to place explosive devices in their respective projectiles [14]. When I learned how to play sports as a child, I was not told that secret agent/007 conduct was prohibited. These absurd examples are not fundamental principles to any of these sports. I do think that the author could have successfully used the sports analogy if he stated legitimate principles that are common in all sports such as good sportsmanship, for example.  Another false analogy fallacy in this reading involves the historical disagreement of whether the sun orbits the earth or vice-versa.  He says that peoples opposing beliefs at the time were independent of the scientific truth. I don’t think this is an accurate comparison because earth’s orbit was scientifically verified whereas some moral principles will always be up for debate and subject to opinion. (I.e. they cannot be scientifically validated)

"Ethics and Religion"

In "Ethics and Religion; Ethical Relativism" I believe that the author fails to address as to where the “common underlying basis for all these different specific codes” come from (14). When arguing against moral relativism he questions, “Does the presence of a diversity of moral codes entail that there are no moral principles in in common across culture?” (13). The author would agree with me that basic ethical principles exist. I believe that in order for any ethical commonality to exist that must mean that we all started with some basic morals. Just because there are differences all around us in the way people morally behave does not mean that there was not a foundational beginning. Religion attempts to show that there have always been basic principles. Even if you follow through with Abrahamic religions, the central messages are all the same. This means that not all moral truths are embodied under religion. All religions are the similar in the sense that they express some common values. Religion should be accompanied with by intellect and natural insights we have about good vs evil. In that sense we as humans must think about our day to day lives and like the author said “identify the strengths and weaknesses of each” ethical issues (18). Within religions you have to ask yourself if what you are doing is morally correct because I think that religions do not provide a full spectrum of morals and ethics but do give us some moral principles. 

"Ethics and Religion" Response

It is very difficult for me to disagree with the stance the author of this piece takes. I am largely in favor of education and experience as a means to understanding ethical situations.  Binding ethics to law or a particular religion is not to examine one’s own feelings. The author notes that adopting an ethnocentric view of morality is dangerous.  Morality is definitely more complicated than abiding by a set of rules.  I agree with the author’s argument that laws are “necessary…but they not sufficient.” People can be moral without laws and people can be moral without religion.  Though both can work towards establishing a better understanding of how morality is considered by others, blindly trusting any system can be dangerous for many reasons. 

I would like to focus on the example made about clitorectomy to further support a point I believe is implied in this author’s piece, and make one of my own.  Though the piece says nothing directly about education, I believe it is an important point, especially when it comes to cultural relativism.  This was an important example to bring up because it highlights this tension when culture tests the definition of morality.  Clitorectomy is a topic for which it is difficult to make a determination about what is morally sound.  It allows one to ask whether women would whole heartedly agree to the practice if they were to be fully educated about other the lack of this practice in other cultures.  When people are denied education and experience, they are not able to experience their own opinions of morality.  I do not believe the piece argues in favor of this point in its entirety, but the piece definitely points to the importance of education and experience as important in establishing one’s own moral code.  I am arguing that this education could have an influence on people’s opinions of the moral codes they have been taught.  To clarify, I am not disagreeing with the idea that cultures may establish moral codes, traditions, and practices that are moral.  I am saying that by being educated about different cultures, people may, or may not choose to reject ways of looking at ethics through an education. 

Since this former point begs the question, I hope that this story serves as an example that demonstrates the complexity of women’s education, and women speaking out against government: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/international/middleeast/09FPRO.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22RI%3A16%22%7D.  This woman arrived from Somalia, and was able to educate herself about the way people were treated in which Muslim women were treated in the Netherlands.  Because she had experienced and educated herself, she took an unpopular stance, and was treated quite poorly because of it.  This example relates to the former one because without the context, it would have been more difficult to see the treatment she fought against.  I am not saying that the former example is in any way synonymous with this one, but instead shows the importance education played in allowing this woman to make informed reactions against the government.

I understand and agree that there are many ways to interpret values and determine courses of action based on morals in place.  I agree that though there are many ways in which morality is subjective, especially because we discover morals through experience.  I wish that the author spent more time on universal morality, because I found that both compelling and confusing.  It seems that the author believes that morality is not completely objective and not completely objective either, but somehow a combination of the two.

Blog 2

In part one of Metaethical Issue, the author “(acquaints the reader) with some of the most influential ethical perspectives from Western and Eastern philosophical and religious traditions” (6). At first glance I was skeptical of much of the author’s arguments, especially on the topic of cultural relativism and moral relativism, seeing that I at first believed in such things. After keeping an open mind and exploring his thoughts I now see the clarity and rationality in his position. However I completely disagree with latter half of the argument that the author provides against moral relativism. The author argues that for moral relativism to exist people cannot criticize other cultures in the world. In turn, people cannot criticize their own culture (16). The article objects this logical and portrays it as almost absurd by referring to Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi’s acts of successfully of reforming their societal morality by first criticizing it.

I agree that for moral relativism to work all societies must be tolerant and accepting of one another’s beliefs and morals. However, when it comes to one’s own culture I believe that each individual has the capacity to object to their societal morality while keeping moral relativism relevant. I believe in the phrase “don’t judge a book by its cover.” Therefore if one does not submerge themselves within the culture and traditions of a society, then they should not be able to pass judgment on their morals. On the other hand, if a person grew up in a community and truly understands the societal morality of that community they have every right to criticize it if the deem necessary. I believe that each person bears individual morality that is shaped by their experiences in their society and what they personally view as right and wrong. One’s individual morality may negate the moral norm at the time, yet still differ from culture to culture supporting moral relativism.

Life's Actual Purpose

The article discusses how it is difficult to guarantee that you can live a positive life even with laws, religion and morality. I agree with the author, that even religion, despite it's closeness to God, is highly debatable. Like the author says, because of the large number of different religions, all of which have their unique practices, it is difficult to gauge which religion to follow, if there is even a right one to follow. However, there is significant amount of similarities between all religions.

In my opinion, I think laws and religions should be nothing but guides to life, and we should have the freedom to pick and choose what is taught from these sets of guides based on what we identify most with. After all, the idea of a "positive" life is subjective. Because our place of birth and circumstances always start arbitrarily, it is too difficult to find a single universal guide to life. Situations will vary too much; so much that no two people can ever make too many of the same decisions, just because no two people are exactly the same, and be in the same situation at the same time. Having said that, if there is one universal rule to follow, is that we have to be able to logically explain (through ethics and such) for our actions, and ensure that it does not disrupt another person's life choices (this is assuming that we do not have to involve other people). In the event that another person's choices have to be compromised because of our choices and it is near impossible to agree on something, one or both party's positive life will have to be compromised somehow. I believe that this is because not everyone can win, and these compromises are essential for improving ourselves. It tests our beliefs, and teaches us new things. Saying you want live a completely positive life, is like saying you want a perfect life - it becomes utterly meaningless.

With the example of choosing guitar lessons over treating your mother and helping the poor, both laws and different religions will teach you different things. I feel like it could be morally wrong to deprive yourself of something you worked hard for (because it implies that your life and happiness is not as important, because you aren't really living for yourself anymore. And if such is true, why bother live life?), just as much as letting as it is morally wrong to not help someone else who is in need.

This subjectivity of a "positive" life is also supported when the author mentions good will not really being good will because it happens mostly because of the hope that you will have peace even in the afterlife (for those who believe in it). I agree with the author, that good will might not even truly exist, because it is just reflection God, and even then, because scriptures and other holy material have gone through so many generations that it is difficult to know what was the original in the first place. If good will is something you learn through religion, are people who have never had the opportunity to practice any religion automatically bad, and destined to go to hell?

Moral Relativism

The author talks of the potential dangers seen in hard moral relativism where certain cultures have decided that actions that may seem horrendous are necessary social norms. This could be from genital mutilation to slavery to genocide and as long as a majority seems to support it, under a moral relativist's perspective, we would be unable to correct such moral beliefs as that would be considered wrong. Normally we would feel that such beliefs would be rooted out deleted but our moral judgement is often clouded in many ways that we would not believe. For example, when discontent or fear is involved this can quickly devolve into hate or terror, leading to people making irrational decisions as in the case of the mass murder of the Tutsi's and moderate Hutu's by extremist Hutu's in the Rwandan genocide. Another powerful tool in clouding judgement is tradition, the idea that this is the way it has been since time immemorial. In The Lottery, a short story by Shirley Jackson, a small town follows an age old practice of choosing one person at random and stoning him or her to death, and no one questions these practices simply because this is the way things have been.

On a lighter note, some cultural practices are followed because they have garnered a majority rule and are thus seen as desirable. Take for example the current trend in female image and what is considered attractive.Upon cursory glance it may seem that such cultural trends have nothing at all to do with morality, but with examination we can deduce several things. The female body is portrayed as a sex symbol, and has ingrained in the minds of young boys and girls the idea that this is what the ideal woman is like. From a young age this will then shape their lives through a lifetime of struggle with superficial qualities from starving themselves to altering their appearance forever via surgery simply because they are dissatisfied with how they look. And one must ask, is this it right of us to indoctrinize our youth in such a way?

Helping those close to us

Overall, I found the reading to be very interesting. I thought the author raised a lot of good questions and did his best to provide good responses to possible arguments against his cases. There was one piece of reasoning he used at the beginning of the writing during the hypothetical case that I found especially interesting that he did not develop on. In the hypothetical case that opens the chapter, you, as the character, wonder about "the luck of the draw" and how you just happen to be the child of these people so why should you care about them more? You could have been anyone's child. So what actual responsibility do you have to them, these people who you just happen to call your parents? The author calls it "an accident by nature"(Page 3). I wanted to make an attempt to weaken this argument. While I can concede that it is by chance that we are put with our family, I must say that this random bond binds us to our parents and other family members. It was a random bond but we are stuck with it and we do owe our parent something if they sacrifice a lot for us to raise us. We grow up with these people and form a bond with them that makes us feel a lot closer to them and we feel we do owe them something. You have a lot more of a bond and connection with these people than those who live halfway across the world or country that we are expected to help. I do not believe that we should not help these other people, but I think, when it comes to important matters we should help those with a closer bond as well. The severity of suffering is important, but I feel we must help those who are close to us first.

Objectivity, Morality, and Religion

            It seems clear to me and to the author that when people talk about morality, they do so as if it is objective.  To show this, the author brings up several examples of cultural practices which the reader will almost certainly feel the need to criticize in order to then point out that it would be impossible to criticize the practices without believing in some standard that applies to people outside of culture.  But the author simply stops there, which to me does not show that morality is objective, but simply that we feel as if it is.

            I feel as though if I were to continue asking “why?” to a person who believed he had the objectively correct stance on a moral issue, there will always eventually be a point at which the person would reply, “Because that’s what I feel is right!”  It may be that I simply have not thought about certain issues or am not well-read enough, but many debates at their roots appear to me to be based on mere differences in opinion or how one feels about a moral dilemma.  (For example, some debates have at their root the clash between utilitarianism and deontology.  I personally don’t really see how one way of approaching morality can be said to be objectively better than the other.)

            Now such small differences may not be an issue for the author because he seems to be open to the possibility that there do not have to be objective truths that exist “outside of humanity” and that morality may simply be a tool that is useful for humans just to promote human welfare.  However, to me and, I think to many others, that sense of “objective” morality is not quite satisfying.  When I disagree with someone’s belief about a moral issue, I don’t do so simply because I think society would work better if people subscribed to my belief.  I do so because certain actions that seem wrong or right to me appear to be so not only on a human level, but also on a metaphysical one.

            This is why I feel that the author brushes away the potential role of religion in morality too easily.  Although I am not very religious, religion and the moral truths that God could reveal appear to me the only grounds on which I could claim that there exist absolute, objective moral truths.  Of course, just because I want a religion to be “true” so that I can have this objective moral foundation does not make it true or not true.  But the idea that an infallible, all-knowing being could impart moral truths and a moral framework for humans to live a good life remains an appealing one to me.  Principles such as the duty to show love to all, including your enemies, hold an objective moral goodness and truth to me; but what kind of a moral framework besides religion could “objectively” show that a person has a moral duty to show love to everyone?

ethic and religion

In Ethinc and Religion, the author argues “that ethics, in general, is concerned with elucidating the principles for living well, that is, for living a good life” (6). He gives chess as an example to show how people who took time to learn and think are more likely to succeed.

I disagree that learning about ethics will always lead to a good life. First of all, chess and life is very different. In chess, the players want to win the game and that results in success. What is success in human life differs from person to person. It is not only a matter of winning or losing; it is a lot more complicated. Therefore, the equation the author makes for chess (study = success) does not apply to human life.

The author may argue that since human life is complicated, human beings should study ethics. He mentions that ethics is “the attempt to determine in some reasonable manner how one should answer the basic questions posed above, and thereby to develop an approach to difficult situations” (5). However, ethics is related to moral values, and learning about what action one should make based on morality can make a person feel guilty about their lifestyle. At the same time, changing their lifestyle may not be what they would think equates to living a good life. The man who learned about the starving children in Africa is now living with a sense of guilt. Before he encountered the starving children’s poster, he believed he could lead a good life simply by taking guitar lessons. Once he sees the poster, he is faced with the ethical decision of whether to send money and whether that would make a difference. He would probably still have a sense of guilt since he would live a much better life than those children even after sending the money. Therefore, as harsh as it might sound, for people who are living a good life (meaning not starving to death), the only way to continue that good life may be not learn about other suffering people, which is unavoidable when learning ethics.

Ethics, Religion, Morality

In "Metaethical Issues", the author speaks about religion and how it often plays a major role in the shaping of one's morals (8). I definitely agree with the author in the sense that religion shapes what one views as right or wrong, however, it is often difficult to accept every religion as morally sound when there are vast varieties of religions that exist today. Although moral relativism exists, as the author states, and it's goal is to "promote tolerance" (13), it seems this idea is impossible in our present society. In the United States, for example, our society is generally good at tolerating and trying to better understand other cultures, religions, etc. which would seem to be the moral relativists dream come true. However, we must focus more on the level of tolerance present due to the fact that the U.S. does in fact have military forces in other countries because the country felt that other cultures were "unethical" or "immoral".

The author does describe that each culture varies and that "these different moral perspectives frequently clash" (12), however, the author also states that "apparently we must respect and accept whatever values a given society embraces" (16). Is this to say then, that as humans we should accept the values that ISIS has just because they are a culture different from what we consider the norm? In my eyes, there are certain ethical standards that majority of cultures, religions, societies, etc. embrace that should be universal, such as the fact that it is morally wrong to kill a person. In instances where a moral code seems to have been broken, such as the U.S.'s perspective on ISIS, we should not respect and accept the values of the given society because what is happening is unethical. The slaughtering of innocent people to please a higher power (God) is, in majority of cases, looked down upon and seen as unethical, and by not stepping in to make the "evil" stop, we would be just as unethical as the killers, simply because we are allowing innocent people to die without fighting back.

Arguing that laws don't help you live a positive life

I agree on almost everything the article talks about, but the one thing I don’t agree about is when it talks about law and how it is not sufficient to living a good life. The article states examples like: traffic laws forbidding driving over speed limit, driving the wrong way on a street, and concerning people as well to forbid assaulting, robbing, raping, and how all of these laws do not provide a “positive” guidance for living a good human life. I absolutely disagree with this statement. First and foremost, laws forbid a lot of morally wrong things such as rape and murder, and if we take those laws away then people will be not get punished for the morally wrong things they do. Would that be living a “positive” life if people are getting raped and not justice is being served? I don’t equate living a life of fear that I may be murdered any second, living a positive life. I think laws are essential in living a positive life because it is forbidding you to do these obscene acts of cruelty. If they were not present, then we will live a life of turmoil.

Later in the article, it gives an example how one person, who has never broken the law or did anything morally wrong, lives a miserable life. Again, I don’t believe that laws and living a good life is similar in that way. Laws were made about, not to restrain people from doing what they want and making them live a miserable life, but to prevent them from doing morally wrong acts upon people. Living a positive/good life should not be dependent upon you following laws; it should be dependent upon your own doing. One should not be living a miserable life because he could not kill his boss that day because his boss made him do certain errands that day at work. It was that person’s fault for living a miserable life because life is what you make it, and if you want to life a miserable life, then that’s going to be the outcome. But it should not depend on following or not following laws. The article states, “laws are necessary for lives to be good, but they are not sufficient.” (9) I agree with the first part of that statement because its keeping people from doing wrong things to the world, which would make it unfit to live on, but, again, I disagree with the second part of the statement. I think laws are sufficient because if they were not present, then horrible things would happen. Granit, some people don’t pertain to the laws that much anyway, but for the most part it keeps them restrained from doing things that would wreck havoc. So laws are essential to living a good life because they keep you focused on helping you live your life. They help you, but they don’t determine how you are going to live your life, that is going to be your choice.

Religion and Morality

The author of “Metaethical Issues” falsely criticizes the connection between religion and morality. He starts off my explaining why law and morality do not coincide-which I agree with. Our government was created to keep order in our country. However, society does not look upon the government as a “high-power ruler”. Therefore, I agree with the author’s point that of questioning whether law is just or not (7). In order to guarantee that the country is just, laws must be created and destroyed as humanity progresses. However, religion is not synonymous with his argument about law. The author uses similar arguments when questioning whether a higher-power is just or not. However, there are so many different types of religions around the world and they are all viewed differently. However, a common theme upon religion is its followers believe their God is a just and all-knowing power.

 The author argues “is something good because God says it is or does God recognize what is good and communicates that to us (9)”. I believe he argues this by possibly being someone who is not that religious. People, whom do consider themselves religious, view God as being good, just and truthful and being the supreme power of morality. I believe the author’s points are quite bias and do not grasp the full understanding of how religion can sculpt people’s lives. Overall, I agree that morality should be questioned under proper circumstances such as the law. Morality is one’s individual values and thoughts. It is true that one should always decide on what these values should be and question them, but I do not think it is wrong if one decides to look to a higher power for the truth of morality. 

Arguing Ethics Orgins

          While I agree to the arguments for religion, relativism, and law, I believe that there is another fundamental origin in which morality could stem from that he did not discuss in this passage. I think that ethical reflection is comes from ones experiences. This is because experiences include every moment of our lives and every experience is made up of good and bad moments. So if ethics, as the passage of Metaethical Issues states, “is the formal study of what makes life good…", then we must use these good and bad experiences in our lives to determine the best way to make our lives good and avoid what makes them bad. I take the chess analogy into consideration. It is said in the passage that the person who is more likely to excel at chess would not be the one who is randomly moving their piece, but the one who studies the rule of the game carefully. If learning information means to studying, practice, or be taught and each of these actions are experiences then could it be argued that the one who experiences studying the rules of chess well or more would be more likely to excel. Not excelling because he studied but excelling because he experienced that type of studying which is a different experience than the one who is experiencing randomly placing pieces. Relating it back to morality, I think that the two situations are analogous in that one’s experiences (studying) influence your ethical reflection (chess movement). An example would be watching you friend steal from a store. You are faced with the decisions of whether to tell on her and betray your loyalty to your friend or keep it a secret and honor that loyalty. You then think back to when you were a sales clerk and your store was robbed and as a result you lost your job because the company went under. This experience would cause you to feel a higher moral responsibility to the sales clerks than to your friend because you want to keep them from suffering a similar fate as you. This experience while it is not independent of other factors it does influence your ethical reflection and can guide how you make your decisions.  One could argue that like law, and religion, there are experiences that might not cover every situation. To that I would argue that lack of experience is just as potent as an experience itself. For instance, while I may not have an experience to reflect on regarding work as a sales clerk, the fact that I cannot empathize with the clerks might encourage me to think that keeping my friend’s secret would be okay.  In the end, I think that ethical reflection comes from ones experience.  

Ethics and Religion; Ethical Relativism

In “Ethics and Religion; Ethical Relativism” the author talks about how you can’t base morality just off of religion.  “There are many different religions, each with its own revealed set of moral precepts” (10).  Every religion has different beliefs on what is right and what is wrong.  “Orthodox Jews and Muslims consider eating pork to be a great sin, whereas Christians do not even consider it a moral issue.  Christians typically do not consider killing nonhuman animals for food to be morally problematic, whereas for a Jain to kill any living thing is a serious act of moral degeneracy” (10).  The beliefs of all these different religions throughout the world cause people to believe different things are morally right as well as which are morally wrong.  Christians used to think it was acceptable to kill those who didn’t believe in their Christ, which cause many Jewish deaths.  While other religions are completely opposed to war and would never do that.  Morality cannot solely be based off of religion because they all have different moral beliefs. 

Different cultures, just like religion, cause people to have different morals as well.  Within different societies people are treated differently and have to undergo different tasks to be accepted into their community.  These might seem morally wrong to some.  There is a tribe in the Amazon that makes boys stick their hands this thing with a whole bunch of bullet ants, which sting him over and over again and it feels like he is on fire because the pain is so bad, in order to prove he is a man.  If he cries though he has to do it again until he finally does it without a tear.  We would find this to be extremely immoral and wrong but this tribe thinks it is a right and passage to manhood.  Morals cannot be based off of any one category because everyone has different ideas on what they are.      

Morality and Religion

I am on the fence here about these two in question. I want to say they do not depend on one another, but then when I think more and more about how heavily morality and religion intertwine with each other, it's sort of hard to make an argument. We talked in class about a fallacy example where if someone claims if you do not follow the word of God, you live a life without morals and cannot live a good life. This is where I start to question if morality actually does not depend on religion. But, when I think about it, as someone who used to be religious and is not as religious anymore, I still go by the morals set by Christianity... but not as devote as others may be. Does that mean I am immoral seeing that I am almost as far from a believer in religion as one could be? Of course not. I have incredibly strict views on some moral subjects thanks to religion, however I am just not a follower of the religion I was raised up in. A quote that got me thinking that came from The Brothers Karamazov  is "If God did not exist, everything would be permissible" (8) which relates to our discussion of fallacies, but in this sense it does not necessarily blame those who don't follow God as the example of an argument from consequences fallacy would. This got me thinking how would a child from an atheist family act? Surely if the parents were like me, who started in religion and eventually left, they'd have a background of basic morals to fall back on and teach their child thus indirectly teaching the child morals of a religion. However, thinking at it a bit deeper, is any family truly atheist? If religion was created at a fixture in time, then yes a family could be truly atheist due to a decision made by a very early ancestor, but we are not certain of this nor do we know if a family is and always has been 100% atheist now and in the past. So, I'd have to imagine that all of us have received our morals from religious beliefs due to the difficulty of conjuring a scenario of the such. If you grew up atheist, you'd possibly receive morals from Christianity directly from your parents, but you yourself are not a follower of Christianity. So thanks to religion, you have morals even though you are not apart of a religion. The more I think about it, the harder it is for me to make a good argument against "morality depends on religion" (8) because of such absurd looking scenarios. It could be because of how I was taught religion that makes me think there is no way something like I aforementioned about religion being created at a fixed point in time being true because that's not how we think about religion. We think that it has always been there and always will be, so to think it could've been created at a certain time in history is absurd, which would make me think a truly atheist blood line would exist is absurd. So I'd have to agree in saying that religion is the basis of morals. Whether you learn about morals directly from the religion, or indirectly, you are learning morals thanks to religion. One could argue this by proving such a scenario that I mentioned exists, and if it does then one would be able to interview that purely atheist family and see what they think about morals. It is however a struggle to do so because we are not certain if religion is in fact from a fixated point in time (but as an atheist I'd say otherwise, but I cannot prove it).

Linking Religion and Morality

The author of "Metaethical Issues" argues that morality transcends religion for a number of reasons. I want to address his very first argument, which I will seek to show is a weak one, and his very last one, which I consider his strongest argument. On page 8, the author breaks down the linking of religion to morality by raising the Platonic objection of, "...Is an action right and good because God says it is, or does God say an action is right and good because it is right and good." I want to show that the first clause of that sentence, which is the first statement the author seeks to disprove, is stronger than the author shows. I also want to offer a few potential counters to his final argument, which I believe is a very tempting one.

The author uses a reductio ad absurdum to prove that it cannot be that morality springs from what God says is good. He/she argues that this leads to the absurd consequence that God could say murder is good on Mondays and Wednesdays, but definitely bad every other day of the week. I believe this is a weak assertion and displays a lack of consideration for what God is/could be. The assumption built into his argument is that God is more like a person in the sense that he/she/it can pick and choose arbitrarily, instead of perhaps existing by an entirely different set of rules. Perhaps the way God "chooses" what is moral and immoral is not really what we consider a "choice" at all. I will attempt to argue for this from the perspective of a pantheist (a la Hegel) and state that everything is God and that our reality is really just God coming to know itself more and more. Perhaps morality, as given to us by God (everything around us/reality), exists in the same way; God's morality is coming to know itself more and more over time. In this way, God does not "pick" what is moral and immoral, but rather learns over time and goes through stages. This is less arbitrary and allows for moral progression while seeming less like "the man upstairs" is cherry picking when things are good and bad. A less radical way of asserting my argument might simply be to say that in God's realm of existence, what is moral and immoral is not a choice; his supposed omnipotence is limited in some ways. One of the ways it is limited is that morality is simply how he created it to be and he no longer has the power to change it.

The author would have a strong point in countering me by question how it is God is relaying these moral truths to us mortal humans. Perhaps it's less of what he tells us and more about letting us discover the moral truths ourselves, but as God is not a tangible and definable presence for us it is hard for me to argue on his/her/its side without begging the question somehow.

Briefly, I would like to mention that the author's final argument that morality and religion cannot be linked because then atheists, agnostics, and other people without religious faith in God(s) would no reason to act morally. I think this is where the pantheist-style argument I previously brought might be worth considering as a counter argument. If God is everything around us (reality), then surely one might not necessarily have to believe that our reality is really God for us to accept that morality is good. Another way of saying this is that even if I don't believe the existence of God, I could still believe in the existence of morality (that he created). A final counterargument that might be posed is that when we enter into society, that somehow changes the moral laws that God set up for us in the "state of Nature." I think this argument would require a great deal more explanation in order to work, but it may be a possibility.

Moral relativism and absolute tolerance

The authors of the piece don't seem too keen on the idea of moral relativism. They only attack this claim in one form: cultural morals vary and occasionally oppose one another, therefore all morality is subjective. It is a very particular formulation of the argument that they pick apart, and while I wouldn't quite characterize the argument they examine as a strawman, they fail to address the fundamental claim that there are no objective morals.

The authors address a number of sub-arguments posited by a theoretical "skeptic" all having in common that they derive from the existence of a diversity of perspectives the conclusion that all these perspectives are equally valid. The authors oppose this view with a number of arguments; the first of which states that just because there are a diversity of moral codes, that does not exclude the possibility of universal principles that appear in most or all of these codes. I don't really have a problem with this argument, but it only advances the possibility of morally objective principles, not their certainty. The existence of shared values does not serve to weaken the position of moral relativism. It is compatible with either view.

They go on to make several arguments about how this particular permutation of the argument for moral relativism is flawed. I agree with pretty much all these arguments. I guess what I'm really objecting to here is the posturing of these arguments against a very specific argument for ethical relativism. At one point, the authors make the argument that under moral relativism, people acting according to the moral codes of their cultures are immune to criticism. Which is nonsense. The claim that the only appropriate response under moral relativism to the practice of clitorectomy is tolerance is particularly infuriating. The belief in a lack of objective truths does not mean a lack of subjective ones. I feel moral outrage at the thought of such senseless suffering. I imagine quite a lot of people do. Does the fact that the majority of people recognize something as wrong make it objectively wrong? I would say not. But there is certainly room for a good deal of criticism. The conflation of moral relativism with a sort of reckless, "anything goes" brand of tolerance and then attacking that brand of tolerance does not disprove moral relativism, nor does it further the existence of objective moral truths.

The authors attack a very specific formulation of moral relativism and then declare moral relativism itself a failure in the closing paragraphs of the section. I feel that many of their arguments are valid, but they are aimed at a specific formulation of moral relativism based on cultural relativism, and do not sufficiently attack moral relativism to deem it a failure.

In “Ethics and Religion; Moral Relativism” he argues that one cannot equate morality and religion.  One of his reasons was because there are many different religions and it is unknown which religion to follow.  I felt that was a very good argument and that it should have been made in regards to laws.  He argued that simply following laws cannot be all that is considered in morality.  He fails to bring up that different countries and even different states have different laws.  How would a person know which state's or country's laws to follow?  It is unrealistic to assume that morality would change based on where a person is living so some country's or state's laws could be wrong while there is one state or country who's laws are correct.  It would be near impossible for people to know which one and they could risk breaking a law in their own country or state so that they could follow the "moral law" in another country or state.

One could argue that the United Nations would have laws which should be considered moral above all else.  The United Nations creates laws for the entire world instead of just one country so the laws should be obeyed more universally. He could have made his argument stronger if he discussed laws that the United Nations has that either aren't moral or laws that they don't have which could ensure morality.  He could bring up that the laws made by the United Nations are generally written by people in a bias way.  The United States has not been charged when war crimes when it arguably should have because the United States has more power in the United Nations.  I believe that if he had brought up these points he would have made that argument a lot stronger.


  

Culture and Religion

              Reading “Ethics and Religion, Moral Relativism,” the author does something very peculiar. He says that even though every culture is different, there is still an “underlying basis for all these specific codes” (14). He provides an analogy with sports and cultures; he says that like sports they can all be diverse but still have the same values and goals. With a closer analysis of cultures you can easily identify things that they have the same basic belief but just go about it in different ways. I completely agree with the author’s point here, but this argument makes me question why this same inference can’t be applied within religion and morality.

                The author, previously, gives many reasons why morality doesn't depend on religion. I found a flaw in one of his arguments claiming that every religion is so unique and different so each religion has their own set of moral precepts (10). This is quite hypocritical of the author because he then states that cultures have a common morality principle. Religion and culture are interconnected; religion gives codes of conduct to a culture. With that being said, I think the point he makes toward different cultures could be said with religion as well. For instance, Muslims have to cover themselves for their religion and Catholics do not. Even though they are not performing the same actions, the same underlying principle is apparent. In both religions, you are not allowed to have sexual intercourse before marriage; Muslims covering up is just a strong and modest behavior to avoid this sin.

                Overall, one can see that the sport analogy that the author used for comparing culture could be also used for comparing religion. Furthermore, various cultures and religions might have different practices but there are definite basic moral principles present that they all have in common.