Skripta Politika i etika_b83fa6b0-8c41-4325-bd3a-7e37fe271583_acccd0c5-a8f9-47f9-9747-233b68f89662(1).PDF

Skripta Politika i etika 1.What Is Morality? 1.1. The Problem of Definition Morality is about understanding how we should live and why. Socrates described it as figuring out “how we ought to live.” Defining morality clearly is hard because different moral theories exist, each with unique views. T...

Skripta Politika i etika 1.What Is Morality? 1.1. The Problem of Definition Morality is about understanding how we should live and why. Socrates described it as figuring out “how we ought to live.” Defining morality clearly is hard because different moral theories exist, each with unique views. To find common ground, the chapter introduces the “minimum conception” of morality, a basic idea all moral theories should accept. 1.2. First Example: Baby Theresa The case of Baby Theresa illustrates moral dilemmas. Baby Theresa was born with anencephaly, a condition where parts of the brain are missing, and she couldn’t think or feel. Her parents wanted to donate her organs to save other children, but Florida law prohibited organ removal until after death. By the time she died, her organs were unusable. Three arguments arose: The Benefits Argument: Baby Theresa’s parents believed her organs could save other children’s lives without harming her, as she was not conscious and would soon die. Life’s value comes from the ability to think, feel, and build relationships, all of which she lacked. Keeping her alive served no benefit to her, making organ transplantation a reasonable choice to help others in need. The Argument That We Should Not Use People as Means: Critics argued that taking Baby Theresa’s organs would treat her as a tool for others’ benefit, violating the principle of not using people as means to an end. However, this principle relies on the idea of autonomy—making one’s own decisions based on desires and values. Since Baby Theresa had no autonomy, wishes, or preferences, this argument didn’t apply. In such cases, decisions should focus on her best interests, and using her organs would not harm or violate her in any meaningful way. The Argument from the Wrongness of Killing: Critics argued taking Baby Theresa’s organs would be killing her to save others, which is wrong. However, exceptions like self-defense exist. Since she wasn’t conscious, would never have a life, and would die soon, her case might be an exception. Some suggest she could be seen as already dead if the definition of brain death included anencephalics, as they lack the capacity for conscious life. In that case, taking her organs wouldn’t count as killing. This makes the argument against transplantation weaker than those supporting it. 1.3.Second Example: Jodie and Mary Jodie and Mary were conjoined twins with one heart and pair of lungs, making survival for both impossible. Jodie was stronger and sustaining Mary. Doctors proposed separating them, which would save Jodie but lead to Mary’s immediate death. The parents, devout Catholics, opposed the operation, citing the sanctity of life. Despite this, the courts approved the operation, which saved Jodie while Mary passed away. Arguments for and Against Separation 1. The Argument That We Should Save as Many as We Can This argument suggests that when we have the option to save one life instead of letting both die, it’s better to save the one life. In the case of Jodie and Mary, separating the twins would save Jodie’s life, and many people, including 78% of Americans in a poll, agreed with this idea. They felt that saving one child was a better option than losing both. 2. The Argument from the Sanctity of Human Life The parents believed it was wrong to intentionally kill Mary, even to save Jodie. They argued that all human life is sacred, and no life should be taken, regardless of the circumstances. This principle is rooted in traditional ethics, where the killing of innocent human beings is considered morally wrong under any condition. The Court’s Argument: The Operation Wouldn’t Kill Mary The court disagreed with the parents, stating that the operation wouldn’t directly kill Mary. Lord Justice Robert Walker explained that Mary’s death would occur because her body couldn’t sustain life after being separated from Jodie, not because of the operation itself. They made a distinction between killing her and letting her die due to her medical condition. The Natural Objection to the Argument from the Sanctity of Life There is a counter-argument to the idea that killing an innocent person is always wrong. Some believe that in rare cases, killing an innocent human could be justified. This might be the case if: (a) The person has no future, as they would die soon regardless of what happens. (b) The person has no desire to live, or no ability to wish for life, like in Mary’s case, where she was unconscious and had no awareness. (c) The killing would save others who have the potential for a full life, like Jodie in this situation. In such rare cases, the killing of an innocent might be seen as morally acceptable if it helps save someone who can live a meaningful life. 1.4.Third Example: Tracy Latimer In 1993, Robert Latimer killed his 12-year-old daughter, Tracy, who suffered from severe cerebral palsy. She weighed less than 40 pounds and had the mental capacity of a three-month-old. Tracy endured constant pain, multiple surgeries, and a bleak future. Latimer argued that he acted out of mercy, relieving her from what he considered torture. However, this case sparked major ethical debates. The Argument from the Sanctity of Human Life argues that all human life is valuable, regardless of the individual's condition or suffering. Tracy’s critics emphasized that killing her violated this principle, which is deeply rooted in moral and religious traditions. They stressed that no one should decide that her life was worth less simply because she was disabled. This perspective insists that respecting all lives equally is crucial, and Tracy’s death undermined this principle. The Argument from the Wrongness of Discriminating Against the Handicapped centers on the idea that Tracy was killed because she was disabled, which many critics saw as unjust discrimination. Advocates for disability rights argued that her death implied that the lives of disabled individuals are less valuable, which is a dangerous precedent. The president of the Saskatoon Voice of People with Disabilities highlighted that no one should decide someone else's life is worth less due to their condition. Latimer, however, denied this was about disability, claiming it was about ending Tracy’s suffering due to her catastrophic pain and medical challenges. The Slippery Slope Argument suggests that allowing mercy killing in cases like Tracy's could lead to dangerous consequences over time. Critics worry that if we accept the idea that it’s okay to end someone’s life because they are suffering or disabled, it might become easier to justify ending other lives, such as those of elderly or severely ill people. This could create a society where life is valued less, especially for vulnerable groups. Some people think this fear is exaggerated, but others believe it’s a real risk. The argument emphasizes being careful about setting a precedent that could lead to unintended, harmful outcomes in the future. 1.5.Reason and Impartiality Morality is fundamentally based on reason and impartiality, and these principles guide our understanding of right and wrong. First, moral judgments must be supported by logical reasoning, not just strong emotions. While feelings can show moral seriousness, they can also be irrational or rooted in prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning. For instance, historical examples, like the defense of slavery, show how feelings can lead to false moral beliefs. Thus, moral reasoning requires facts and arguments, not just personal or societal biases. Importantly, moral claims must be defensible with good reasons; otherwise, they are arbitrary and lack credibility. Second, impartiality means treating everyone's interests equally and avoiding discrimination. Moral decisions should not favor certain groups arbitrarily. For example, racism and sexism are morally wrong because they involve unequal treatment without justifiable reasons. However, impartiality does not mean treating everyone identically in all cases. Context matters, such as casting an actor of a specific ethnicity for an accurate historical portrayal, which is a justified distinction rather than arbitrary discrimination. Impartiality ensures fairness by requiring that any differential treatment must be backed by valid reasons. Additionally, moral reasoning relies on examining facts carefully and applying moral principles appropriately. Misunderstanding facts or allowing biases to distort judgment can lead to poor moral decisions. For example, those opposing Robert Latimer’s actions might emphasize the slippery slope argument due to their biases, while supporters might downplay it. Responsible moral thinking requires evaluating facts independently of personal wishes or preconceived notions. The minimum conception of morality describes it as guiding actions through reason and giving equal weight to everyone affected. A conscientious moral agent strives to base decisions on the best available reasons, critically examines facts and principles, and revises beliefs when reason demands it. This agent is not swayed by arbitrary preferences or biases but instead aims to act fairly and rationally. Most ethical theories adopt this foundation because rejecting it leads to serious challenges in justifying moral beliefs and actions. 2. The Challenge of Cultural Relativism 2.1. Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes This text explores how moral values and practices vary significantly between cultures, emphasizing that what one group considers morally acceptable may shock another. The story of King Darius of Persia illustrates this point: he demonstrated cultural differences by comparing the Greek practice of cremating their dead with the Callatian practice of eating them. Both groups found the other's customs deeply offensive, underscoring the relativity of moral norms. The Eskimos (indigenous Arctic peoples) provide another example. Their customs regarding marriage, sexual relationships, and attitudes toward life and death were starkly different from Western norms. Practices such as wife-sharing, infanticide, and leaving the elderly to die in the snow were not seen as morally wrong within their culture, despite appearing unacceptable to outsiders. These customs were shaped by their harsh environment and practical necessities for survival. The key takeaway is that moral codes are not universal but shaped by cultural context. Assuming that one's own moral beliefs are shared universally is naïve. Enlightened observers and anthropologists have long recognized that ethical systems differ widely, highlighting the need for understanding and tolerance in evaluating other cultures. 2.2.Cultural Relativism Cultural relativism posits that moral codes are not universal but are instead determined by cultural traditions and norms. According to this view, there are no independent standards of right and wrong; each society's moral code defines what is correct within its context. William Graham Sumner emphasized this by stating that moral truths originate from folkways and ancestral traditions, carrying inherent authority within a culture. Key claims of cultural relativism include: (1) societies differ in their moral codes, (2) a society’s code dictates what is right for its members, (3) no objective standard exists to compare different societies’ codes, (4) one society's moral code has no special privilege over others, and (5) judging other cultures is arrogant, so we should practice tolerance. However, these claims can conflict, as seen in cases where societal norms endorse intolerance, such as Nazi Germany’s actions during World War II. If cultural relativism insists on tolerance, it appears inconsistent with norms that promote harm or oppression. Cultural relativism fundamentally asserts that each culture’s norms are supreme within its context, encouraging individuals to respect and follow local customs. The principle of “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” reflects this idea, advocating adherence to the moral standards of the society in which one resides. 2.3.The Cultural Differences Argument The Cultural Differences Argument claims that variations in moral beliefs across cultures indicate the absence of universal moral truths. For example: 1. The Greeks believed eating the dead was wrong, while the Callatians believed it was right. 2. Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor wrong—it’s merely a matter of opinion. This reasoning generalizes to assert:  1. Different cultures have different moral codes. 2. Therefore, morality is subjective, with no objective truth—just differing opinions. While initially persuasive, this argument is flawed. For an argument to be sound, its premises must be true, and the conclusion must logically follow. Here, the conclusion does not follow from the premise. The premise addresses what people believe about morality, but the conclusion asserts what is objectively true. Disagreement alone does not prove that no objective truth exists—one culture might simply be mistaken. For instance, some societies believed the Earth was flat, while others believed it was spherical. Their disagreement does not negate the existence of an objective truth about the Earth’s shape. Similarly, moral disagreement does not inherently disprove the possibility of universal moral truths. This critique does not claim that cultural relativism is false, only that the Cultural Differences Argument fails to logically support its conclusion. 2.4.What Follows from Cultural Relativism Even if the Cultural Differences Argument is unsound, Cultural Relativism might still be true. William Graham Sumner states: “The notion of right is in the folkways. It is not outside of them, of independent origin, and brought to test them. In the folkways, whatever is, is right.” If this were taken seriously, several consequences would follow: 1. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. For example, Cultural Relativism would preclude us from saying that the Chinese government’s policies of oppression are wrong. We could not even say that a society that respects free speech is better than Chinese society, for that would imply a universal standard of comparison. 2. We could no longer criticize the code of our own society. Cultural Relativism suggests a simple test for determining what is right and wrong: whether the action conforms to the moral code of the society. For instance, if someone in India wonders whether the caste system is morally correct, they only need to ask whether it conforms to their society’s code. Cultural Relativism bars us from seeing ways in which other cultures might be better and stops us from criticizing our own society’s code. 3. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt. Cultural Relativism implies we cannot judge societal changes as progress because this would require a universal standard. For example, the expansion of women’s rights in Western history cannot be seen as progress because the old ways were correct by their time’s standards. Social reformers like Martin Luther King Jr. could only improve a society by making it better conform to its ideals, not by challenging those ideals. These consequences lead many to reject Cultural Relativism, as it implies judgments about practices like slavery and moral progress make no sense. 2.5.Why There Is Less Disagreement Than It Seems Cultural Relativism begins by noting cultural differences in moral beliefs but suggests that these differences may not be as significant as they appear. 1. Example of not eating cows: A society might refrain from eating cows, believing that the souls of humans inhabit animals, especially cows. If a cow could be someone's grandmother, their values align with ours—both agree that one shouldn’t eat Grandma. The difference lies in beliefs, not values.  2. Eskimos and infanticide: Eskimos killed healthy infants, particularly girls, due to harsh conditions. They did not lack respect for life or love for their children. Scarcity of food, the need for mobility, and the absence of birth control shaped this practice. Infant girls were killed because males were the primary food providers and suffered high mortality rates. Without female infanticide, there would be an imbalance in the population that could threaten survival. 3. Adoption and survival: Adoption was common among the Eskimos, and killing a baby was a last resort. These measures ensured the group’s survival, not a disregard for children. Conclusion The customs of societies may vary due to environmental and practical factors rather than differences in values. The raw data of anthropology can exaggerate moral differences between cultures. 2.6.Some Values Are Shared by All Cultures Certain values are universal because they are essential for a society’s survival. For example, protecting children is a necessity since babies are helpless and require care to survive. Without this protection, the group would eventually die out. Thus, cultures that endure must prioritize the well- being of their young, making neglect the exception rather than the rule. Similarly, truthfulness is vital. If a society placed no value on honesty, communication would break down, making cooperation and societal functioning impossible. While lying might be acceptable in specific situations, truthfulness must be valued in most cases to enable communication and societal cohesion. Another universal value is the prohibition against murder. In a society without such a rule, people would live in constant fear and avoid others, leading to societal collapse. Even if smaller, safer groups formed, these would still require rules against murder. The general principle is that some moral rules—such as prohibitions against lying and murder—are necessary for society to exist. While cultures may differ on exceptions to these rules, they all share a broad agreement on their necessity. Therefore, the extent of cultural moral differences should not be overstated. 2.7.Judging a Cultural Practice to Be Undesirable In 1996, Fauziya Kassindja fled Togo to escape excision, a harmful practice often referred to as “female genital mutilation.” Excision, performed in 28 African nations, is a painful and permanent disfigurement. Fauziya, whose father opposed excision, escaped her aunt's plan to have her excised after her father’s death. She sought asylum in America, where her case sparked controversy about how to judge cultural practices. Some argued that excision is barbaric and should be condemned, while others warned against imposing our cultural standards on others. If Cultural Relativism is true, we can only judge excision by our own cultural standards. However, this raises the question: is this approach justified? Is There a Culture-Independent Standard of Right and Wrong? Excision, a harmful practice causing physical and psychological damage, has become widespread despite its detrimental effects. The procedure results in pain, loss of sexual pleasure, and long-term complications, but it's practiced due to cultural beliefs about controlling women’s sexuality and ensuring marital fidelity. The defenders argue that excision benefits society, particularly in preventing promiscuity and unwanted pregnancies. However, this raises the question: does excision, overall, promote or hinder the well-being of those affected? This leads to a potential independent moral standard: does the practice promote the welfare of people? This is a standard that Cultural Relativism forbids but could be applied universally to evaluate practices across cultures. It reflects a shared value in all cultures: human happiness. Despite this, many people hesitate to criticize excision for three reasons: the history of cultural interference by Europeans, a commitment to tolerance, and the reluctance to show contempt for other cultures. However, criticizing a harmful practice like excision does not imply contempt for the entire culture. Cultures are a mix of good and bad practices, and excision is one of the harmful ones. 2.8.Back to the Five Claims In evaluating Cultural Relativism’s five core claims, we find that some hold true, while others face challenges upon deeper examination. 1. Different societies have different moral codes: While this is true, many cultures share fundamental values such as truth-telling, caring for the young, and prohibiting murder. The differences often arise from varying factual beliefs rather than core values. 2. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society: While a society’s moral code defines right actions within it, that code can be flawed. Societies, like individuals, can endorse harmful practices, as seen in examples like excision or severe punishments for women in various cultures. 3. There is no objective standard to judge one society’s code as better than another’s: While it's challenging to define universal ethics, certain practices, like slavery or genital mutilation, can be judged as wrong by principles that are not confined to any society, such as promoting the welfare of the people involved. 4. The moral code of our society has no special status: Although our moral code isn't inherently superior, this doesn't imply that all codes are equally valid. Some societies may have better moral systems than others, and this remains an open question. 5. It is arrogant to judge other cultures: While tolerance is generally important, it’s not always necessary to accept harmful practices. Acknowledging historical wrongs and rejecting them marks moral progress. 2.9.What We Can Learn from Cultural Relativism Although Cultural Relativism has shortcomings, there are valuable lessons to be learned from it.n First, it warns us about assuming our practices are based on absolute rational standards. Many of our customs, like funerary practices or modesty in dress, are cultural products. For instance, the Callatians eating their fathers or different norms on modesty in dress demonstrate that cultural practices are often peculiar to specific societies and shouldn’t be seen as universally right or wrong. Second, it teaches us to keep an open mind. We may have strong feelings about certain behaviors, but Cultural Relativism reminds us that these feelings might stem from cultural conditioning. For example, we may have been taught that homosexuality is immoral, but realizing this could be a form of prejudice opens us to reconsidering our beliefs. The theory encourages us to broaden our minds and challenge dogmatic views. In conclusion, while we can reject Cultural Relativism as a complete theory, we should embrace its core insights. It reminds us to recognize our practices as cultural products and encourages us to remain open-minded when evaluating other cultures. 3.Subjectivism in Ethics 3.1.The Basic Idea of Ethical Subjectivism Ethical Subjectivism is the idea that moral opinions are based entirely on personal feelings, without any objective facts about what is right or wrong. For example, when someone says, "homosexuality is wrong," they are simply expressing their personal disapproval, and not stating an objective truth. Likewise, saying, "homosexuality is acceptable" reflects personal approval. The theory highlights that morality depends on individual perspectives and emotions, not universal standards. Morality and Personal Feelings Ethical Subjectivism suggests that all moral disagreements are rooted in differing personal feelings. This means that even with controversial topics, like homosexuality, people are not arguing about facts but about their subjective emotions. The theory applies universally to all moral questions, proposing that there is no inherent moral truth. 3.2.The Evolution of Ethical Subjectivism Like many philosophical theories, Ethical Subjectivism has developed over time. It started as a simple idea: morality is based on sentiment rather than fact, as suggested by David Hume. However, as people examined the theory, they found flaws and raised objections. Supporters responded by refining the theory, leading to more sophisticated versions. Despite this, new criticisms kept emerging, creating an ongoing process of revision and debate. (A philosophical theory may go through several stages…) 3.3.The First Stage: Simple Subjectivism The earliest version of Ethical Subjectivism is called Simple Subjectivism. This version claims that when someone says something is morally right or wrong, they are simply expressing their personal approval or disapproval. For example, saying "X is morally acceptable" means "I approve of X," while "X is morally unacceptable" means "I disapprove of X." Simple Subjectivism offers a straightforward explanation of moral statements based on individual feelings. Problems with Simple Subjectivism One major issue with Simple Subjectivism is that it cannot explain moral disagreements. For instance, if one person says homosexuality is morally acceptable and another says it is not, they seem to disagree. However, according to Simple Subjectivism, both are merely describing their own feelings, so there is no actual disagreement. Another problem is that Simple Subjectivism implies we are always right in our moral judgments. If morality is only about expressing personal feelings, then as long as someone is sincere, their moral statements cannot be wrong. This contradicts the fact that people can and do make mistakes about ethical issues. Because of these flaws, Simple Subjectivism is considered an incomplete and problematic theory. 3.4.The Second Stage: Emotivism Emotivism is a refined version of Ethical Subjectivism that emerged in the mid-20th century, primarily through the work of philosopher Charles L. Stevenson. Unlike Simple Subjectivism, which interprets moral language as factual statements about personal attitudes, Emotivism views moral language as a tool for expressing emotions and influencing behavior. For instance, saying "Homosexuality is immoral" under Emotivism is akin to exclaiming "Gross!" or issuing a command like "Don’t be gay!" The theory argues that moral language is neither true nor false, but instead serves to express attitudes and persuade others. The Nature of Moral Disagreement - A key advantage of Emotivism over Simple Subjectivism lies in its treatment of moral disagreement. While Simple Subjectivism reduces moral conflict to a misunderstanding of attitudes, Emotivism acknowledges that such conflicts often arise from disagreements in attitude rather than belief. For example, two people may share the same beliefs about a situation yet hold opposing desires, leading to genuine moral disagreement. According to Stevenson, moral disputes are disagreements in attitude, making them real and meaningful. Criticisms of Emotivism - Despite its improvements, Emotivism faces significant challenges. One issue is that it denies the possibility of being "right" or "wrong" in moral judgments, as these are seen merely as expressions of feelings or commands. This limits the role of reason in ethics, which is essential for justifying moral claims. For example, when someone argues against an action, we expect their argument to be supported by relevant and truthful reasons. Emotivism struggles to differentiate legitimate moral reasons from irrelevant or false claims, such as the assertion that someone's religion is a basis for political judgment. 3.5.The Role of Reason in Ethics Emotivism's failure to incorporate reason adequately in moral discourse highlights a broader critique of Ethical Subjectivism. While it is true that moral truths are not tangible like physical objects, this does not imply they lack an objective basis. A more robust view suggests that moral truths are grounded in reason. On this account, a moral judgment is true if it is supported by stronger reasons than its alternatives, making morality objective and independent of subjective feelings. This perspective underscores the importance of rationality in distinguishing right from wrong, offering a deeper understanding of ethical principles. Here’s a clear and simple summary using sentences from the text: 3.6. Are There Proofs in Ethics? People often think there are no proofs in ethics because science sets the standard for objectivity, and ethics seems lacking in comparison. In science, we can prove things like “the Earth is round,” but we can’t prove whether abortion is acceptable or unacceptable. However, moral judgments can be supported with good reasons. For example, a student might say a test was unfair. If the test included trivial material, skipped important topics, and was too long to complete, and the teacher couldn’t explain these issues, then the student has proven the test was unfair. Other examples show this too: “Jones is a bad man” because he lies, cheats, and even killed someone over 27 cents. “Dr. Smith is irresponsible” because he drinks before surgery and ignores others’ advice. “A car dealer is unethical” because she hides defects and pressures buyers unfairly. Providing reasons and explaining why they matter is a type of proof in ethics. While this is not like scientific proof, it is still valid and important. 3.7. The Question of Homosexuality Homosexuality is about love and happiness, not just sex. Gay people, like straight people, fall in love and want to build lives with those they love. To say they shouldn’t act on their desires condemns them to unhappy lives. Some argue that homosexuality is unnatural. However, “unnatural” can mean different things: 1. Statistically uncommon: Rare things, like being tall or left-handed, are not bad. 2. Against a body’s purpose: This would also condemn masturbation or using condoms, which is unreasonable. 3. A vague moral judgment: Saying it’s unnatural just because it’s wrong adds no real argument. The Bible is also used to condemn homosexuality. For example, Leviticus calls it an abomination. However, the Bible also forbids eating sheep fat, seeing your uncle naked, and says adulterers should be killed. This shows the Bible is not always reliable for morality. Moral thinking requires giving reasons, not just following feelings or authority. Ethical subjectivism, which focuses on feelings, misses the point of moral reasoning. But the main point of this chapter is not about homosexu ality. The main point concerns the nature of moral thinking. Moral thinking and moral conduct are a matter of weighing reasons and being guided by them. But being guided by rea son is very different from following one’s feelings. When we have strong feelings, we may be tempted to ignore reason and go with the feelings. But in doing so, we would be opting out of moral thinking altogether. That is why, in focusing on atti tudes and feelings, Ethical Subjectivism seems to be going in the wrong direction 4.Does Morality Depend on Religion? 4.1.The Presumed Connection Between Morality and Religion The Case of Judge Roy Moore In 1995, Judge Roy Moore of Alabama displayed the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, sparking a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which argued this violated the U.S. Constitution’s separation of church and state. Despite legal opposition, Moore gained public support and, in 2000, became Alabama’s chief justice, promising to “restore the moral foundation of law.” In 2001, he installed a massive 5,000-pound monument of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama judicial building. Though 77% of Americans supported him, Moore was removed from his position after refusing a court order to remove the monument, claiming he was putting God above the law. Religion and Morality in America The United States is a deeply religious nation, with nearly 80% of people believing in God and many identifying as Christians. Christian clergy are widely regarded as moral experts, often consulted on ethical decisions in hospitals, media, and even movie ratings. People assume clergy have special moral insight, even though there’s no evidence they are better or wiser than others. The Link Between Religion and Morality Many people believe morality is inseparable from religion, as religion provides a sense of purpose and value. From a nonreligious perspective, the universe can seem cold and meaningless, as philosopher Bertrand Russell described in 1902: humans are accidental products of nature, and their achievements are destined for extinction. In contrast, religious views, like those in Judaism and Christianity, teach that the world was created by a loving God, giving life meaning and purpose. This belief makes it natural for people to associate morality with religion, while atheism is seen as lacking a basis for values. 4.2.The Divine Command Theory: Summary The Divine Command Theory (DCT) proposes that morality is rooted in God's commands. According to this theory, actions are morally right if God commands them, wrong if He forbids them, and neutral if He neither commands nor forbids them. This provides a seemingly objective foundation for morality, linking ethical behavior directly to God's will and offering a clear reason for following moral principles: accountability before God. Socrates’ Challenge: Is Morality Defined by God or Independent of Him? The theory faces a central dilemma, highlighted by Socrates in Plato’s Euthyphro: Is conduct right because God commands it, or does God command it because it is right? If morality depends solely on God’s commands, several issues arise: 1. Mystery of God “Making” Morality The idea that God can make something like truthfulness "right" is difficult to understand. Physical objects can be created or altered, but morality is abstract. For instance, saying God could make child abuse morally right simply by commanding it defies human comprehension. 2. Arbitrariness of God's Commands If morality stems purely from God’s will, His commands become arbitrary. God could have commanded lying to be virtuous, and truthfulness would then be wrong. This undermines the belief that God’s commands are based on wisdom and goodness. 3. Inadequate Reasons for Moral Principles This view ignores inherent qualities that make actions wrong, like the harm caused by child abuse. If morality depends solely on God's commands, acts like child abuse would only be wrong because God prohibits them, not because of their harmful or malicious nature. Furthermore, the theory implies troubling conclusions: Without God, actions like child abuse would not be wrong since no divine command would exist. People might still be unsure of God’s will due to inconsistencies in religious texts, but they intuitively know child abuse is wrong. The Alternative: God Commands What is Already Right Socrates’ second option avoids these issues: God commands actions because they are right. In this view, God’s wisdom recognizes inherent moral truths, like the value of truthfulness or the wrongness of killing, and commands us accordingly. This approach has several advantages:  God’s commands are not arbitrary but rooted in His wisdom. It allows for deeper explanations of moral principles based on their intrinsic nature, not merely divine decree. However, it also introduces a challenge. If morality exists independently of God’s will, it implies a standard of right and wrong that is external to God. This means we cannot justify moral principles solely by saying, "God commands it." Instead, we must consider the reasons that guide God’s commands. Theological Implications Although some religious individuals feel morality must depend entirely on God’s will, rejecting DCT is not necessarily irreverent. Great theologians like Saint Thomas Aquinas rejected DCT for its flaws, instead linking morality to God’s wisdom and the natural law. This perspective preserves the relationship between morality and religion while avoiding the pitfalls of the Divine Command Theory. 4.3. The Theory of Natural Law The Theory of Natural Law is one of the most influential ethical frameworks in the history of Christian thought, surpassing even the Divine Command Theory in its prominence. Rooted in ancient Greek philosophy and later adapted by Christian thinkers, this theory envisions a world imbued with rational order and purpose, where morality is intertwined with the natural structure of existence. It proposes that ethical principles are not arbitrary but emerge from the very nature of the world and human beings, making morality a universal and reason-driven concept accessible to all. The Theory of Natural Law has three main parts: 1. A Rational Order in the World: This theory is based on the idea that the world has a rational structure with values and purposes inherent in its nature. Influenced by Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotle, it suggests that everything in nature has a purpose, from biological features like teeth to natural phenomena like rain. Christian thinkers expanded this idea, attributing these purposes to God's divine plan. 2. Harmony Between "Is" and "Ought": Natural law describes how things are and how they ought to be. When things fulfill their natural purposes, harmony exists; when they do not, there is disorder. This extends to human morality, where actions in alignment with human nature (e.g., beneficence) are deemed morally right, while deviations (e.g., certain sexual practices) are considered unnatural and wrong. 3. Moral Knowledge Through Reason: The theory posits that moral truths are accessible through reason, a faculty given by God to all humans. This reasoning process allows both believers and nonbelievers to understand what is right and wrong, making morality independent of religion. Saint Thomas Aquinas emphasized that moral judgments are "dictates of reason," equating them with God's commands. 4.4.Religion and Particular Moral Issues Some religious people believe that morality is directly linked to religion, seeing teachings from the Bible or church leaders as moral authority. For example, many Christians oppose abortion because they believe the church condemns it, and assume the Bible does as well. However, this view can be problematic. The Bible often doesn't offer clear answers to modern issues like abortion. Its teachings are general and don't address specific moral dilemmas like workers' rights or medical research. Additionally, religious traditions can be ambiguous, with differing interpretations among church leaders, making it hard for believers to know which stance to follow.