Iris Murdoch is a well-known British philosopher, who in her book Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals discusses how, as humans, we understand morals. An often debated question is whether morals can exist outside the premise of religion. In the “Morality and Religion” excerpt from her book, Murdoch gives an explanation for both sides of the argument. She views religion as being stronger than morality because generally religions have more direct views about good and evil.
I want to explore the idea of whether morals can exist without religion. I think that morals can be present in a person’s life, without them having a religious devotion. There are many people in the world, who have no religious affiliation, nor believe in a higher power. However, these people still act as moral beings and deem certain things as right and wrong. These people make these decisions based on what they feel inside of them, not on a given religious instruction. Although, it may seem as if many moral decisions are based on religion, people are capable of producing their own moral code, which is many times similar to that of a religious one. There are many moral theories that exist, that do not have any religious premise.
One thing that came to my mind while thinking of morals existing without religious influence is the separation of church and state. Our country was founded on religious values, but the law separates church and state. This separation forces other laws passed to have motivations that are not religious. The government manages to pass laws like that, so it is possible to have morals without religions, but is this separation really a separation or are the lawmakers just able to claim that their laws are not religiously motivated? I think that essentially most laws pasted in the United States have some sort ties with a religion. Most government officials are religious and it is impossible to not bring their religious morals with them. I agree with Murdoch that religious morals are stronger because they offer people an easier way to live their life, than does a person who has to pick their own morals for every situation. In addition, many people do not live their lives by strict religious morals, so they use a combination of religious and their own morals.
Murdoch presents both arguments for and against morals existing with religion. I liked one thing her piece because she left the answer up to the reader. She showed her unbiased in the situation and this let the readers form their own opinion on the issue. One thing that I did not like about her piece was that it was difficult to read, and that made the reading not enjoyable. I think that morals can exist without religion, and thousands of people live their life that way.
1 comment:
I definitely agree that a non-religious person can hold a moral system. I believe governments can make laws that, while perhaps agreeing with religious views, are not religious in nature. At the same time, I agree that religion is stronger than man-made morality, which means a person must follow the morality of any religion he subscribes to before he submits to the arbitrary morality presented by a government. What I have a problem with is the shaky ground on which non-religious moral systems are based. I think their fuel is the survival of mankind. We shouldn't murder unless we will that everyone else would also murder. This means that a murderer would also like to be murdered, which doesn't make sense, thus the person shouldn't murder. This is known as the categorical imperative in philosophy, and it's more or less the golden rule. I think non-religious morality emanates from this. I think this would work to deter us from crime, but there would be no reason for altruism. Billionaires don't donate money so that other people will donate money to them; it should be an act of kindness. I don't see how non-religious morality can mandate this; I think it comes down to people not wanting deal with guilt.
Post a Comment