Morality of Sexuality

Morality of Sexuality Essay: Morality of Sexuality
Language: English
Author: Paul Mason
Pages: 9
Rating: 4 stars

Download Links:

In our society there are many hate crimes and senseless murders against targeted citizens. In a story from CNN, a twenty year old, African American man was brutally beat by four aggressors, while walking into a convenience store. When he came out he was jumped unexpectedly by men outside the store. While assaulting the man they yelled “no faggots in Jack City”. Jack City is nickname for a suburban area in Atlanta, Georgia where the assailants lived. Humiliation played a big part in this incident because while Brandon White was being assaulted, non-violent participants where videotaping the whole incident (Basu, Moni, Police Arrest…). Mr. White sustained tremendous trauma but most of all mental humiliation, and discrimination. White is an openly gay man that was beat because of his sexual orientation. So what makes homosexuality morally and biblically wrong? I believe that being a homosexual is as moral as being a heterosexual. Through the progression of this paper I want to analyze both sides of this argument, iterate crucial points in the argument, and come to a logical consensus to why being a homosexual is moral and biblically tolerable.
To begin studies from the Williams institute say “the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community occupies about 9 million people in the united states population” (Gates), that’s roughly the population size of New Jersey. The LGBT community stands for pride, diversity, individuality, and sexuality. The community is notorious for their big debates about civil rights, and same-sex marriage. The LGBT community are in present day numerous court cases dealing with human rights and same sex marriage. There has also been numerous media stories of people that have come out to the public about b…

In our society there are many hate crimes and senseless murders against targeted citizens. In a story from CNN, a twenty year old, African American man was brutally beat by four aggressors, while walking into a convenience store. When he came out he was jumped unexpectedly by men outside the store. While assaulting the man they yelled “no faggots in Jack City”. Jack City is nickname for a suburban area in Atlanta, Georgia where the assailants lived. Humiliation played a big part in this incident because while Brandon White was being assaulted, non-violent participants where videotaping the whole incident (Basu, Moni, Police Arrest…). Mr. White sustained tremendous trauma but most of all mental humiliation, and discrimination. White is an openly gay man that was beat because of his sexual orientation. So what makes homosexuality morally and biblically wrong? I believe that being a homosexual is as moral as being a heterosexual. Through the progression of this paper I want to analyze both sides of this argument, iterate crucial points in the argument, and come to a logical consensus to why being a homosexual is moral and biblically tolerable.
To begin studies from the Williams institute say “the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community occupies about 9 million people in the united states population” (Gates), that’s roughly the population size of New Jersey. The LGBT community stands for pride, diversity, individuality, and sexuality. The community is notorious for their big debates about civil rights, and same-sex marriage. The LGBT community are in present day numerous court cases dealing with human rights and same sex marriage. There has also been numerous media stories of people that have come out to the public about b…

Morality and Society

Morality and Society Essay: Morality and Society
Language: English
Author: Susan Demaree
Pages: 13
Rating: 3 stars

Download Links:

“Man is a moral being, only because he lives in society. Let all social life disappear and morality will disappear with it” – Emile Durkheim
The statement that has been put forward by Emile Durkheim is valid in many ways, and I do believe it is agreeable. A person’s character or the guidelines that lead him through life are impacted by society. Not only are we put on a certain path by society, but we are set out to achieve the perception of what is truly right. Also ‘right’ can be objectified in many ways, yet that which separates moral from immoral is society itself. Without it we will never know how to deal with life’s encounters. At a very young age we decide to follow a set of rules that have been put forward by the people around us, whether it is our parents, teachers or even a complete stranger. If we are to co-exist with each and every other person that we come across we will have to maintain our morals. Some may say that without society that our life might not be so different, as we become who we want to be besides the fact that we are not surrounded by anyone to guide us. As humans, we require a specific form of conduct or at least that is what is expected of us. We crave towards social acceptance. The minute we do something in disregard to what we are meant to do, we will surely be labelled as an outcast. Society keeps us from being isolated also it builds up our character. It may not always be right, but whether we like it or not society does make us or break us.
Several social changes have impacted our society as well, some of the more elaborate changes that have taken place include media, religion, education, social relationships, parenting styles and economic instability. Social relationships and parental styles have…

“Man is a moral being, only because he lives in society. Let all social life disappear and morality will disappear with it” – Emile Durkheim
The statement that has been put forward by Emile Durkheim is valid in many ways, and I do believe it is agreeable. A person’s character or the guidelines that lead him through life are impacted by society. Not only are we put on a certain path by society, but we are set out to achieve the perception of what is truly right. Also ‘right’ can be objectified in many ways, yet that which separates moral from immoral is society itself. Without it we will never know how to deal with life’s encounters. At a very young age we decide to follow a set of rules that have been put forward by the people around us, whether it is our parents, teachers or even a complete stranger. If we are to co-exist with each and every other person that we come across we will have to maintain our morals. Some may say that without society that our life might not be so different, as we become who we want to be besides the fact that we are not surrounded by anyone to guide us. As humans, we require a specific form of conduct or at least that is what is expected of us. We crave towards social acceptance. The minute we do something in disregard to what we are meant to do, we will surely be labelled as an outcast. Society keeps us from being isolated also it builds up our character. It may not always be right, but whether we like it or not society does make us or break us.
Several social changes have impacted our society as well, some of the more elaborate changes that have taken place include media, religion, education, social relationships, parenting styles and economic instability. Social relationships and parental styles have…

can rationality and morality coincide

can rationality and morality coincide Essay: can rationality and morality coincide
Language: English
Author: Paul Saez
Pages: 8
Rating: 4 stars

Download Links:

To begin, one can define rationality as a quality of being agreeable to reason. It is when a person does the correct or valid reason in his or her head. It is the correct thing that one honestly considers to be the right thing. On the other hand, morality can be defined as the quality to act properly, it is the way a person conducts or behaves. Morality is about the rightness or the wrongness of something. A good example for morality is that the way a person treats another which can be like if a person needs respect from another, he or she has to show respect to others.
One can say that the demand of rationality is to help one evaluates his or her actions which will be centered on good causes and evidence. The demand for morality is when a person behaves or acts in a certain way to others for that person to receive the same treatment from others. As a fact, one can say that most of the laws are basically originated from morality.
There exist moral requirements and also rational requirements. But the thing is that it would be hard for one to understand that there is nothing similar between the requirements of moral and rational that could make one calls them both requirements. It is more likely for one to assume that morality and rationality are on the contrary two examples of one obligation relation. By that, one can say that it does not mean that moral and rational requirements are supposed to have the same characteristics. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226097498_The_Difference_Between_Moral_and_Rational_Oughts_An_Expressivist_Account
According to Marx and Nietzsche, “If we take morality seriously, we are no longer free to act as we please. Rather we have to think about what we ought to do, and not just what we …

To begin, one can define rationality as a quality of being agreeable to reason. It is when a person does the correct or valid reason in his or her head. It is the correct thing that one honestly considers to be the right thing. On the other hand, morality can be defined as the quality to act properly, it is the way a person conducts or behaves. Morality is about the rightness or the wrongness of something. A good example for morality is that the way a person treats another which can be like if a person needs respect from another, he or she has to show respect to others.
One can say that the demand of rationality is to help one evaluates his or her actions which will be centered on good causes and evidence. The demand for morality is when a person behaves or acts in a certain way to others for that person to receive the same treatment from others. As a fact, one can say that most of the laws are basically originated from morality.
There exist moral requirements and also rational requirements. But the thing is that it would be hard for one to understand that there is nothing similar between the requirements of moral and rational that could make one calls them both requirements. It is more likely for one to assume that morality and rationality are on the contrary two examples of one obligation relation. By that, one can say that it does not mean that moral and rational requirements are supposed to have the same characteristics. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226097498_The_Difference_Between_Moral_and_Rational_Oughts_An_Expressivist_Account
According to Marx and Nietzsche, “If we take morality seriously, we are no longer free to act as we please. Rather we have to think about what we ought to do, and not just what we …

Morality of Giving

Morality of Giving Essay: Morality of Giving
Language: English
Author: Susan Demaree
Pages: 5
Rating: 3 stars

Download Links:

How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift” (399). He says that one’s obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one’s neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer’s claim is so different than people’s typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.
Singer’s argument appears to be mainly an appeal to logos, in his argument he reasons why he thinks it is morally required of people to give for famine relief and other needs. However, his argument relies heavily on pathos as well. The main thrust of his argument is this “If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child dro…

How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift” (399). He says that one’s obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one’s neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer’s claim is so different than people’s typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.
Singer’s argument appears to be mainly an appeal to logos, in his argument he reasons why he thinks it is morally required of people to give for famine relief and other needs. However, his argument relies heavily on pathos as well. The main thrust of his argument is this “If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child dro…

What is Morality?

What is Morality? Essay: What is Morality?
Language: English
Author: Chelsea Hudkins
Pages: 13
Rating: 5 stars

Download Links:

One of the most persistently asked and perpetually unanswered questions in psychology is the question of morality. What is it, how does it develop, and where does it come from? A basic definition of morality is “beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior” (Merriam-Webster). Based on the definition, the question then becomes even more complicated, How do people decide what is right and what is wrong? Research has examined this from many different angles, and two distinct schools of thought have emerged. One centers on the Lockian idea of children as blank slates who must be taught the difference between right and wrong and what it means to be moral, while the other espouses a more Chomskian perspective of a preset system of basic rules and guidelines that needs only to be activated. So what does this mean for humans and humanity? Are we born tabula rasa or are we born with an innate sense of good and evil? For those researching this topic, the question then becomes how to most effectively theorize, experiment and interpret human morality.
Reciprocity and empathy
Children as Blank Slates: Locke, Piaget and Kohlberg
For philosopher John Locke, humans could only be defined through their sense of self, and this sense of self was not automatic, but rather gradual. He believed that humans were, at birth, tabula rasa and it was the accumulation of sense perception and experience that allowed human beings to develop their sense of what it mean to be human and learn to function in a social system. He also argued that the way in which people clustered their experiences became the foundation for the rest of their lives and it was a key part of parenting and education to ensure that the foundations were sound (Copelston,…

One of the most persistently asked and perpetually unanswered questions in psychology is the question of morality. What is it, how does it develop, and where does it come from? A basic definition of morality is “beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior” (Merriam-Webster). Based on the definition, the question then becomes even more complicated, How do people decide what is right and what is wrong? Research has examined this from many different angles, and two distinct schools of thought have emerged. One centers on the Lockian idea of children as blank slates who must be taught the difference between right and wrong and what it means to be moral, while the other espouses a more Chomskian perspective of a preset system of basic rules and guidelines that needs only to be activated. So what does this mean for humans and humanity? Are we born tabula rasa or are we born with an innate sense of good and evil? For those researching this topic, the question then becomes how to most effectively theorize, experiment and interpret human morality.
Reciprocity and empathy
Children as Blank Slates: Locke, Piaget and Kohlberg
For philosopher John Locke, humans could only be defined through their sense of self, and this sense of self was not automatic, but rather gradual. He believed that humans were, at birth, tabula rasa and it was the accumulation of sense perception and experience that allowed human beings to develop their sense of what it mean to be human and learn to function in a social system. He also argued that the way in which people clustered their experiences became the foundation for the rest of their lives and it was a key part of parenting and education to ensure that the foundations were sound (Copelston,…

In Defence of Amoralism

In Defence of Amoralism Essay: In Defence of Amoralism
Language: English
Author: Anthony Cowden
Pages: 8
Rating: 3 stars

Download Links:

The problem of moral motivation is one that, as Scanlon correctly identifies, every competent moral theory must recognise. While chapter 4 of Scanlon’s What We Owe to Each Other, `Wrongness and Reasons’, is praiseworthy in its extended and subtle inspection of why we should be provided with a satisfactory reason for being morally good, there are elements of this piece that I find difficult to swallow, regardless of the tenacity with which I ruminate, in particular, Scanlon unsatisfactorily addresses the problem of the amoralist in his framework. I feel this is due to an incorrect charaterisation of those `left cold’ by morality, and, as a result, Scanlon’s conclusions concerning amoralist position are incorrect as a result. This essay hopes to provide a more phenomenologically accurate description of the psychology and sociological footprint of the amoralist.

While it would be customary to begin an essay such as this with an account of what I interpret the term `morality’ to mean, permit me to start with an account of a few archetypical conceptions of the amoralist that either float around or are derived from the literature, for it is my hope that, pending an appeal to my position, my formulation of morality will appear far less the creation of a fevered imagination and, moreover, something that could be entertained as tenable.

At first glance it seems to be the case that there are two possible kinds of amoral character: what I will call the Amoral Sceptic and the Amoral Extremist. The Sceptic accepts that there is such a thing as morality and that it may well constitute a set of obligations for other agents, but believes that morality does not provide a good enough (if any) reason to perform their own `obligations’. This i…

The problem of moral motivation is one that, as Scanlon correctly identifies, every competent moral theory must recognise. While chapter 4 of Scanlon’s What We Owe to Each Other, `Wrongness and Reasons’, is praiseworthy in its extended and subtle inspection of why we should be provided with a satisfactory reason for being morally good, there are elements of this piece that I find difficult to swallow, regardless of the tenacity with which I ruminate, in particular, Scanlon unsatisfactorily addresses the problem of the amoralist in his framework. I feel this is due to an incorrect charaterisation of those `left cold’ by morality, and, as a result, Scanlon’s conclusions concerning amoralist position are incorrect as a result. This essay hopes to provide a more phenomenologically accurate description of the psychology and sociological footprint of the amoralist.

While it would be customary to begin an essay such as this with an account of what I interpret the term `morality’ to mean, permit me to start with an account of a few archetypical conceptions of the amoralist that either float around or are derived from the literature, for it is my hope that, pending an appeal to my position, my formulation of morality will appear far less the creation of a fevered imagination and, moreover, something that could be entertained as tenable.

At first glance it seems to be the case that there are two possible kinds of amoral character: what I will call the Amoral Sceptic and the Amoral Extremist. The Sceptic accepts that there is such a thing as morality and that it may well constitute a set of obligations for other agents, but believes that morality does not provide a good enough (if any) reason to perform their own `obligations’. This i…

Ross’s Discussion of Moral Epistemology in What Makes Right Acts Right?,

Ross's Discussion of Moral Epistemology in What Makes Right Acts Right?, Essay: Ross’s Discussion of Moral Epistemology in What Makes Right Acts Right?,
Language: English
Author: Chelsea Hudkins
Pages: 6
Rating: 4 stars

Download Links:

In Ross’s discussion of moral epistemology in What Makes Right Acts
Right?, he makes a number of claims for moral objectivity and a set of
prima facie duties. In Ross’s view, these prima facie duties
should govern how we behave in every sort of moral situation. Much of
Ross’s argument depends on this duties being innate and objective. This
paper will criticize Ross’s claims, specifically on the grounds of the
existence and objectivity of these prima facie duties. I intend
to show that Ross’s comparisons about prima facie duties and
mathematical axioms are baseless and false.

In order to criticize Ross’s claims, we must first discuss exactly what
he says in What Makes Right Acts Right?. Ross claims that there
are some of self-evident, objective moral truths which should govern
the way we make decisions. These truths, or duties, should be considered
and applied in any situation that involves a moral decision. In a moral
dilemma, these duties must be analyzed and compared in order to find the
most applicable one. This correct duty is the one that must be
carried out in order to do good, or right. It is important
to note that in every moral dilemma, Ross says there is a correct
answer, even if we are unable to attain it.

Now, the crux of Ross’s argument rests on his ideas regarding prima
facie duties. Ross states that these duties are “part of the fundamental
nature of the universe” as mathematical axioms are. I intend to show
that these mathematical axioms are just as arbitrarily defined as Ross’s
prima facie duties. As an example, let us consider the Triangle
Sum Law (the sum of the interior angles of a triangle must sum to 180
degrees). Now, this is a fundamental axiom of geometry, but it is neither

In Ross’s discussion of moral epistemology in What Makes Right Acts
Right?, he makes a number of claims for moral objectivity and a set of
prima facie duties. In Ross’s view, these prima facie duties
should govern how we behave in every sort of moral situation. Much of
Ross’s argument depends on this duties being innate and objective. This
paper will criticize Ross’s claims, specifically on the grounds of the
existence and objectivity of these prima facie duties. I intend
to show that Ross’s comparisons about prima facie duties and
mathematical axioms are baseless and false.

In order to criticize Ross’s claims, we must first discuss exactly what
he says in What Makes Right Acts Right?. Ross claims that there
are some of self-evident, objective moral truths which should govern
the way we make decisions. These truths, or duties, should be considered
and applied in any situation that involves a moral decision. In a moral
dilemma, these duties must be analyzed and compared in order to find the
most applicable one. This correct duty is the one that must be
carried out in order to do good, or right. It is important
to note that in every moral dilemma, Ross says there is a correct
answer, even if we are unable to attain it.

Now, the crux of Ross’s argument rests on his ideas regarding prima
facie duties. Ross states that these duties are “part of the fundamental
nature of the universe” as mathematical axioms are. I intend to show
that these mathematical axioms are just as arbitrarily defined as Ross’s
prima facie duties. As an example, let us consider the Triangle
Sum Law (the sum of the interior angles of a triangle must sum to 180
degrees). Now, this is a fundamental axiom of geometry, but it is neither

The Origin of Morality

The Origin of Morality Essay: The Origin of Morality
Language: English
Author: Paul Mason
Pages: 16
Rating: 5 stars

Download Links:

Judgments of the heart between good and evil, right and wrong that is moralities purest form. Morality is a misleading mistress because, whatever is decided as moral and immoral can be just as easily justified as the opposite in a new era. Many with a rationalist view will describe morality as a virtue which allows for laws and justice to take place. An immoral action is an action taken through the perpetrator believing they will receive no punishment. A question is then presented why are there such distinct classifications of morality and immorality? Glaucon wants to prove that men are only moral so that justice will be had for them if something immoral or unjust is done unto them. He also wants establish that the origin of morality is not found in man themselves but in the fact they do not want immoral or unjust crimes committed against them. He tries to provide adequate instances, but the most preferred method for choosing any action moral or immoral is by using different instances in history with the same information. As well, Glaucon also wants to prove that an immoral life is better than a moral. He provides few examples to support his theories toward Socrates during their battle of wits. While I understand his theories I choose to disagree because there are underlining circumstances that show why a man may choose to be immoral. And in many instances those choices are not selected by preference but by necessity. I agree with Glaucon to the extent that wealth and power tend to lead individuals to immoral actions, but I disagree that this observation applies to all individuals if they were to face the same obstacles. Morality is based upon will and desire. In Plato’s recount of the argument I receive the implication that each…

Judgments of the heart between good and evil, right and wrong that is moralities purest form. Morality is a misleading mistress because, whatever is decided as moral and immoral can be just as easily justified as the opposite in a new era. Many with a rationalist view will describe morality as a virtue which allows for laws and justice to take place. An immoral action is an action taken through the perpetrator believing they will receive no punishment. A question is then presented why are there such distinct classifications of morality and immorality? Glaucon wants to prove that men are only moral so that justice will be had for them if something immoral or unjust is done unto them. He also wants establish that the origin of morality is not found in man themselves but in the fact they do not want immoral or unjust crimes committed against them. He tries to provide adequate instances, but the most preferred method for choosing any action moral or immoral is by using different instances in history with the same information. As well, Glaucon also wants to prove that an immoral life is better than a moral. He provides few examples to support his theories toward Socrates during their battle of wits. While I understand his theories I choose to disagree because there are underlining circumstances that show why a man may choose to be immoral. And in many instances those choices are not selected by preference but by necessity. I agree with Glaucon to the extent that wealth and power tend to lead individuals to immoral actions, but I disagree that this observation applies to all individuals if they were to face the same obstacles. Morality is based upon will and desire. In Plato’s recount of the argument I receive the implication that each…

Is Religion Necessary for Morality to Exist?

Is Religion Necessary for Morality to Exist? Essay: Is Religion Necessary for Morality to Exist?
Language: English
Author: Susan Demaree
Pages: 7
Rating: 3 stars

Download Links:

Religion and morality cannot be separated. Nietzsche questions if morality is even necessary. Is gravity necessary? Yes, it is the force that keeps the world from falling apart more than it already does. Murdoch asks if religion is necessary for morality to exist, which is answered by a second question, “Can a society build a stable structure of morality apart from that which it intrinsically is?” Finally, she goes on to discuss what morality would look like outside of religion. The objective structure for morality is God, as such, one cannot truly have morality, or virtue, outside of God. Every person is born with a sense of morality, and yet, this is not outside of God, because He put it there. Man can attempt to use this innate sense of morality to create his own system of morality based on each person’s own ideas of right and wrong, but it will ultimately fail, because morality must be based on an objective law.
According to Nietzsche, morality is against human nature. He says, “Destroying the passions and cravings, merely as a preventative measure against their stupidity and the unpleasant consequences of this stupidity – today this itself strikes us as merely another acute form of stupidity. We no longer admire dentists who “pluck out” teeth so that they will not hurt anymore” (Nietzsche 347). This is because it causes excruciating pain to remove something that is very much a part of us. However, if the tooth is rotten at its root, it becomes necessary to extract it, in order that it not cause more harm. Likewise, if fleshly lusts are sinful, in other words, dishonoring to God or others, they must be dealt with. The most effective way to to overcome something, is to completely remove it so that it can no long…

Religion and morality cannot be separated. Nietzsche questions if morality is even necessary. Is gravity necessary? Yes, it is the force that keeps the world from falling apart more than it already does. Murdoch asks if religion is necessary for morality to exist, which is answered by a second question, “Can a society build a stable structure of morality apart from that which it intrinsically is?” Finally, she goes on to discuss what morality would look like outside of religion. The objective structure for morality is God, as such, one cannot truly have morality, or virtue, outside of God. Every person is born with a sense of morality, and yet, this is not outside of God, because He put it there. Man can attempt to use this innate sense of morality to create his own system of morality based on each person’s own ideas of right and wrong, but it will ultimately fail, because morality must be based on an objective law.
According to Nietzsche, morality is against human nature. He says, “Destroying the passions and cravings, merely as a preventative measure against their stupidity and the unpleasant consequences of this stupidity – today this itself strikes us as merely another acute form of stupidity. We no longer admire dentists who “pluck out” teeth so that they will not hurt anymore” (Nietzsche 347). This is because it causes excruciating pain to remove something that is very much a part of us. However, if the tooth is rotten at its root, it becomes necessary to extract it, in order that it not cause more harm. Likewise, if fleshly lusts are sinful, in other words, dishonoring to God or others, they must be dealt with. The most effective way to to overcome something, is to completely remove it so that it can no long…

Secular Morality and Religious Morality Inadvertently Influenced One Another

Secular Morality and Religious Morality Inadvertently Influenced One Another Essay: Secular Morality and Religious Morality Inadvertently Influenced One Another
Language: English
Author: Paul Mason
Pages: 9
Rating: 4 stars

Download Links:

Even in matters of outwardly secular morality, religion plays such a hegemonic role that, in many instances, secular morality is inadvertently influenced by religious morality. It could even be said that religious morality is greatly influenced by secular morals and not the other way around. While it would be difficult to assess the genealogy of morality it would be safe to say that morality has a very strong connection with religious morality. Moreover, to evade the almost omnipresent influence of religious morality would be nearly impossible, this allows for the almost constant melding of the two making them almost indistinguishable. While certainly not all morality is based on religion, it has become such a force that morality can scarcely be discussed without religion in mind. So, in what aspect does religious morality and secular morality intersect to create this dimension?

It is said that “[e]very society needs the stability provided by a sense of sacred order” (Fasching and Dechant 16). This has been the prevailing thought since the dawn of man. The role of religion in shaping morality cannot be ignored because it has formed the ideas of right and wrong since man first created a mythology of creation, ever since it has been argued that morality could not even exist without religion to act as a basis. While this could be disputed it illustrates the point that religion and morality are almost inseparable even when discussing “secular morality”. “Secular morality” can very well be greatly influenced by “religious morality”, hence, creating a dimension that is inherently both at the same time. It is difficult to distinguish where the line between the two begins and ends because religion, in a large number of cu…

Even in matters of outwardly secular morality, religion plays such a hegemonic role that, in many instances, secular morality is inadvertently influenced by religious morality. It could even be said that religious morality is greatly influenced by secular morals and not the other way around. While it would be difficult to assess the genealogy of morality it would be safe to say that morality has a very strong connection with religious morality. Moreover, to evade the almost omnipresent influence of religious morality would be nearly impossible, this allows for the almost constant melding of the two making them almost indistinguishable. While certainly not all morality is based on religion, it has become such a force that morality can scarcely be discussed without religion in mind. So, in what aspect does religious morality and secular morality intersect to create this dimension?

It is said that “[e]very society needs the stability provided by a sense of sacred order” (Fasching and Dechant 16). This has been the prevailing thought since the dawn of man. The role of religion in shaping morality cannot be ignored because it has formed the ideas of right and wrong since man first created a mythology of creation, ever since it has been argued that morality could not even exist without religion to act as a basis. While this could be disputed it illustrates the point that religion and morality are almost inseparable even when discussing “secular morality”. “Secular morality” can very well be greatly influenced by “religious morality”, hence, creating a dimension that is inherently both at the same time. It is difficult to distinguish where the line between the two begins and ends because religion, in a large number of cu…