Role Of Morality In Religion

1028 Words 5 Pages
Religion in an Age of Science
Morality: The Argument for Objective Moral Values Morality has been debated by scholars and philosophers for centuries, more specifically, morality’s origins have been disputed with only recent examinations bearing fruit. These debates explore the dichotomy between objective morality and moral relativism. These perspectives are controversial due to religious beliefs, but also to the understanding of human essence and purpose. This problem or debate will be analyzed by using Christian apologetics in favor of objective morality, in order to introduce a new perspective based on morality as it pertains to Christianity. To understand the entirety of the issue, the Euthyphro dilemma will be employed along with arguments
…show more content…
First, it assumes that God exists. Second, it further understands God’s existence as necessary and perfect. Finally, if God exists and is perfect, then God is the ultimate standard for humans. William P. Alston, former professor of philosophy at Syracuse University even writes in his textbook, Philosophy of Religion: A Reader and Guide, that “God, being the source of our being and governor of the universe as well as the standard of value” (Alston 294). If God exists, then there are no other means by which to attribute morality. The underlying importance of this point is that objective morality adheres to an ultimate design or plan for humans regarding the Christian view of the afterlife. If morality is not objective, then God does not exist, and if God does not exist, then there is no reason for people to be moral. Paul Copan, professor of philosophy and ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University, simplifies this claim in his article, “God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality”, that “the acceptance of objective values assumes a kind of ultimate goal or design plan for human beings…[an] ideal standard for human beings” (Copan 17). Morality hinges upon the understanding of an afterlife. If God is removed from morality, then morality itself no longer exists because there is no reason for it to exists. Right and wrong simply do not matter if the previous assertion holds …show more content…
As stated previous, moral relativism asserts that morality is subjective to the human experience and belief. Morality can differ from culture to culture in this argument. In his article, “The Superficial Sophistication of Moral Relativism”, Shane Drefcinski, professor of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Platteville, explainsstates the definition which is that “moral relativism states that what is morally correct is relative to different individuals or cultures” (3). This belief has been advanced greatly in contemporary culture. The problem, as Drefcinski later states, is that “no set of moral beliefs and practices are superior to any other…justice is not objectively superior to injustice” (15). The hole in the moral relativist argument, in essence, is that everything is allowable. If this were true, then there would be no need for a legal system or punishment. If right and wrong are solely subjective, then humans lack a purpose for existence because there is no end goal or purpose to abide by a moral

Related Documents