Morality in the Modern World The Relationship between Religion and Moral Values

Area 1: The Relationship between Religion and Moral Values The Euthyphro Dilemma Religious Morality Area 2: Guiding Principles for Morality Utilitarian Ethics Kantian Ethics

The Euthyphro Dilemma p1 Made famous by Plato Socrates asked Euthyphro whether the gods command what is right because it is right, or, if it is right only because the gods command it? Is something right because it is commanded by some god/higher authority, or simply because it’s right in itself no matter what god or higher authority thinks about it?

Some religious people might say never Morality and Killing p3 Is killing ever right? Some religious people might say never Other religious people would say it depends on the situation Secularists may also say it is never right As secularists don’t believe in an afterlife, they could argue that they see life as precious more than religious people Peter Singer

Divine Command Theory p5 God commands to do good If God commands killing, it is for a good reason God’s command comes through various methods If a religious person was told to do something they thought was morally suspicious they would put more than one feature of their faith together to double-check. They do not usually follow ‘blind faith’

Religious Morality p7 Some believe that there can be no morality without religion Some sources of morality for religious people: Understanding & explanations of sacred writings Direct guidance from God through signs, visions etc. Traditions within branch of religion

Problems with the Interpretation of Sacred Writings p7-8 Views vary between branches of the same religion Some people believe sacred texts are literally God’s direct word while others think they are merely a guide Some see the Bible as a ‘whole package’ while others ‘cherry pick’ Some people believe the Bible was written for the societies at the time and isn’t relevant today Some of today’s issues wouldn’t have been thought of today and vice-versa

How might a religious person make a moral decision through interpreting the sacred scriptures of their faith? p8 Faith: sacred writings, prayer, reflection and study Tradition: teachings from their key figures and denomination Reason: take into account different understandings However Religions have many different groups/beliefs/understandings There are different versions of the Bible There are different philosophies in Hinduism

Viewpoints based on a secular approach p9 Secularists argue there is morality without religion They have no ‘sacred texts’ but do have ‘writings’ e.g. UN Declaration of Human Rights or writings of key secular thinkers such as Peter singer Faith: secular thinking is evidence based not faith based Tradition: they do have views to draw on but not ones with the same ‘authority’ as religious traditions Reason: this is the principal way of making moral decisions, weighing up the pros & cons of evidence through reasoned analysis

Secular and religious morality may be similar in practice, but they be coming at moral decisions in different ways.

Utilitarian Ethics The philosophy of utilitarianism: “… it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong“ Two famous Utilitarian Philosophers Jeremy Bentham (1748 -1832) is regarded as the founder of modern utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873) Bentham treats all forms of happiness as equal, whereas Mill argues that intellectual and moral pleasures (higher pleasures) are superior to more physical forms of pleasure (lower pleasures).

Peter Singer  (born 1946) is a supporter of Preference Utilitarianism. He believes the views of beings capable of holding preferences (e.g. adult humans) are more important than that of many animals and young children, as they cannot hold preferences to the same extent.

The Guiding Principles for Morality p11 Utilitarian Ethics is based on the consequences. Problems: Consequences are hard to predict The consequence you want might not be the same as everyone else. The consequences are not in our control but the reason we choose to act is. Principle of Utility (or The Greatest Happiness Principle): Our moral choices should be based on getting the greatest good (or pleasure or happiness) for the greatest number of people.

Utilitarianism: Act, Rule and Preference p11 Act Utilitarianism (pg 11-13) The probable consequences of your actions decide whether your actions were right or wrong. Rule Utilitarianism (pg 15) Strong Rule Utilitarianism: a rule that is made for the greatest good of the greatest number (like not stealing) and should never be broken. Weak Rule Utilitarianism: rules which are for the greatest good of the greatest number can be broken in certain situations (running a red light in an emergency) Preference Utilitarianism (pg 17) Rules are applies based on what gives the greatest good for the greatest number of people but only the people involved in the situation.

Problems with Utilitarianism p19 Who decides what good, happiness or pleasure is? It is never possible to fully predict consequences. What is good in the short term might not be in the long term. Is it fair to ignore the good of the minority? Is a society that doesn’t care for minorities a good one – there is a chance we all could be in the minority one day. Video: Michael Sandel on Bentham

Kantian Ethics p21-23 Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) was a German philosopher Kant believed intentions were more important than consequences. We should do what we think is right by pure practical reason. He believed that by coming up with a categorical imperative, we could come up with a rule for everyone. Imperative – something you must do Categorical – applicable in all situations He called this a universal maxim. I.e. every moral decision has to be universally applicable or universalisable.

Kant did believe that some situations where the rule governed by the categorical imperative wouldn’t work, then the exception to the rule could become a categorical imperative in itself. (E.g. lying to the gunman as to the whereabouts of your friend) p21-23 Kant also said it was important to always treat people as ends rather than means when making a moral decision; respect for persons should always be considered. p23 He believed 3 ideas were linked to moral decision making: God: no matter the consequences, if you had the right intention, God would approve. Immortality: good moral choices might not be immediately apparent but will bear fruit in the afterlife. Freedom: people should always have the freedom to choose

Problems with Kantian Ethics p25 Pure reason is difficult as not everyone agrees on the right thing to do. We often do not have time to use logic & reason to make a decision – many moral decisions are ‘spur of the moment’ ones. The idea of duty varies between people When making decisions that affect more than one person it is perhaps impossible to treat at least one as a means to an end.