Reasons for and against the view that morality is independent of religion.
Extracts from this document...
Reasons for and against the view that morality is independent of religion Cupitt's starting point for ethics today begins with what he considers to be the cultural condition of our time and that is the rejection of the old 'realist' notion of God. * With the advent of non-realism notions of absolute truths have been rejected to be replaced by a solely human understanding of the world and God. * In terms of ethics this means there is no longer any God giving us a moral code and as such no moral absolutes independent of human experience. * Morality is now decided by humans with the context of different human communities. Cupitt argues that the traditional Christian view of God is repressive. Such a God has set out 'in the heavens' what is considered to be right and wrong behaviour in the world. For Cupitt, an objective God implies submission (or lack of freedom). Cupitt believes society has now embraced non-realism as such he believes it is no longer bound to follow realist forms of religious belief and ethics. ...read more.
Socrates asked. "Do gods love holiness and morality because they are holy, or is morality holy because the gods love it?" Put simply: if an existing god says something is good because he sees that something objectively is good, then the goodness of that thing is intrinsic in that thing; the good is independent of the god. In other words, if the god recognises that murder is wrong, then the wrongful act of killing is wrong even if the god doesn't see that. Morality or immorality in any action is not dependent on the god; god's will is determined by what he sees, not the other way round. God no more invented morality than Newton invented gravity. Imagine you're God. Make a world where circles have corners and two and two make five. If there are laws of physics that put finite conditions on God, then maybe there are moral restraints and restrictions on his alleged omnipotence and supposedly infinite power. Christian moralists can't accept this. It says that there are things that God simply cannot do. ...read more.
Philosophers call this natural process the "Social Contract". Selfish immorality is taking without giving back to the contract. Morality in society depends on equality in the contract - democratic public access. This can be achieved only through human rights education and legal procedural reform. We mustn't judge human action from pulpits or confessionals but through the courtroom, public votes and a non-secret media society. The best moralists are human rights activists. Many people do not yet get involved in social interaction and having a very poor part of the social contract. Many are blinkered by religions into thinking that their misery is a punishment from a god who will give everyone his final judgement after the last trump. Such believers forget to judge for themselves; they have no sense of government by the people for the people; they are governed by blind dogma. Their sense of morality is what someone else tells them to do. But morality isn't not killing, it's knowing why you shouldn't kill, and that requires real personal wisdom. Top of the school education syllabus agenda shouldn't be RE but social interaction skills. Morality can survive: for that to happen, we as humanists and humanitarians need to relearn how to negotiate the social contract. ...read more.
This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Philosophy and Theology section.
Found what you're looking for?
- Start learning 29% faster today
- 150,000+ documents available
- Just £6.99 a month
- Join over 1.2 million students every month
- Accelerate your learning by 29%
- Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month