The dilemma I have chosen to write about is about whether society is the source of moral values or not. The two viewpoints from the textbook are Functionalists and Moral Theists. They do not disagree on the fact that there a set of rules that should apply to everyone, but on where these rules come from. The Functionalist believes that morality is molded by society and is used to meet our needs. The Moral Theist believes that our morals come from God and not society. Both viewpoints appear similar to absolutism in the fact that they all believe that there is a set of rules everyone should abide by, however Moral Theists and Functionalists don 't discuss what moral values are most important but where moral values are derived from.
The Moral …show more content…
The Moral Thiest thinks that more people are acting immorally because people are not following rules that they say God has commanded. However in Christianity same-sex marriage and abortion are seen as being immoral, but most of society didn 't see it that way when many passed laws making same-sex marriage legal in all fifty states recently. So how would the Moral Theist respond, by saying society is wrong? Would they say God would punish us for not agree with him? I also think by saying we have to follow all rules set by God without question can be dangerous, in the same way, that Questioners believe that having faith can be …show more content…
As society changes so do our moral values and we change them to coincide with the changes in society. For example, in our country 's history it was once acceptable to own slaves and be racist. People once used religious freedom to excuse their behavior towards people of color but when more and more people realized how wrong that was things changed. Not because their religion change but because society had changed and made racism something to be frowned upon. The textbook says that basic morals are the same among many societies even if it seems like they are not. It also says that some societies just have their facts wrong which is what leads them to act differently. However, a problem with both of these views is that either one deity or the majority is who decides what is right and what is wrong. For example if a person decides that stealing isn 't morally wrong and doesn’t care that society or God thinks it is wrong, then they will continue to steal because they feel like it 's okay. This also true as to when there is a war the, winners get to write history, not the ones who have lost.
A problem with the Moral Theist 's point of view is, what if a person doesn’t fear or believe in God? For them who decides what morals to value? It would be hard to persuade a Questioner that God is who creates all basic moral rules. For them, the Functionalist 's explanation of society
The Moral …show more content…
The Moral Thiest thinks that more people are acting immorally because people are not following rules that they say God has commanded. However in Christianity same-sex marriage and abortion are seen as being immoral, but most of society didn 't see it that way when many passed laws making same-sex marriage legal in all fifty states recently. So how would the Moral Theist respond, by saying society is wrong? Would they say God would punish us for not agree with him? I also think by saying we have to follow all rules set by God without question can be dangerous, in the same way, that Questioners believe that having faith can be …show more content…
As society changes so do our moral values and we change them to coincide with the changes in society. For example, in our country 's history it was once acceptable to own slaves and be racist. People once used religious freedom to excuse their behavior towards people of color but when more and more people realized how wrong that was things changed. Not because their religion change but because society had changed and made racism something to be frowned upon. The textbook says that basic morals are the same among many societies even if it seems like they are not. It also says that some societies just have their facts wrong which is what leads them to act differently. However, a problem with both of these views is that either one deity or the majority is who decides what is right and what is wrong. For example if a person decides that stealing isn 't morally wrong and doesn’t care that society or God thinks it is wrong, then they will continue to steal because they feel like it 's okay. This also true as to when there is a war the, winners get to write history, not the ones who have lost.
A problem with the Moral Theist 's point of view is, what if a person doesn’t fear or believe in God? For them who decides what morals to value? It would be hard to persuade a Questioner that God is who creates all basic moral rules. For them, the Functionalist 's explanation of society