RELIGION DOES **NOT** MAKE PPL ETHICAL!
Freakley, M. & Burgh, G. (2000). Engaging with Ethics: Ethical inquiry for teachers. Katoomba: Social Science Press. pp. 100-101.
.................................................................
It is sometimes assumed by adherents of religious traditions that systems of morality must have a religious foundation. As a matter of empirical fact this is not the case. Although many people still use the words “morality” or “ethics” to refer to codes of behaviour that are associated with, for example, the Judeo-Christian or Islamic religious traditions, many of these moral codes are followed by non-believers who are able to justify their support or non-religious grounds.
For instance, it is clear that there are many people who do not accept the authority of either the Hebrew Bible or the Koran who nevertheless share the belief, expressed in those texts, that it is morally wrong to commit murder.
In principle, too, there are problems with the idea that morality can be based on religious authority, such as the idea that morality necessarily consists of God’s commands to us revealed either directly or through interpretation of sacred writings. On one version of Divine Command theory, God’s command makes thinks morally right or wrong, on another version, God so commands because these things are morally right or wrong.
Consider the first version, given the plurality of religions, the possibility that our interpretation of the many sacred writings may be mistaken, and the similar possibility that our conscience may not “hear” God’s voice without error, it is difficult to see how we can be at all clear about what is right or wrong.
And the second version leaves open the possibility that we humans can also discover, through means quite apart from religious observance or divine revelation, what is right or wrong.
Ethics, because it involves the search for reasons rather than authority, is not compatible with the first version of Divine Command theory but it may be compatible with the second version.
For instance, it is clear that there are many people who do not accept the authority of either the Hebrew Bible or the Koran who nevertheless share the belief, expressed in those texts, that it is morally wrong to commit murder.
In principle, too, there are problems with the idea that morality can be based on religious authority, such as the idea that morality necessarily consists of God’s commands to us revealed either directly or through interpretation of sacred writings. On one version of Divine Command theory, God’s command makes thinks morally right or wrong, on another version, God so commands because these things are morally right or wrong.
Consider the first version, given the plurality of religions, the possibility that our interpretation of the many sacred writings may be mistaken, and the similar possibility that our conscience may not “hear” God’s voice without error, it is difficult to see how we can be at all clear about what is right or wrong.
And the second version leaves open the possibility that we humans can also discover, through means quite apart from religious observance or divine revelation, what is right or wrong.
Ethics, because it involves the search for reasons rather than authority, is not compatible with the first version of Divine Command theory but it may be compatible with the second version.
(The heading-linked article with provide further information as well as the basics on ‘Ethics.’ Notice the author’s portrayal or Islam)
posted by »|m|u|n|i|r|a|« at 6/01/2005 04:49:00 pm
3 Comments:
If the questions don't make sense, let me know, i'll reword them for you.
The article doesn't only give Islam negative connotaions, but simply alludes to the misconception that ALL religious doctrines are baseless...that in fact, human beings have an instinctive capacity to deem what is right or wrong WITHOUT religious (or Divine) guidance. However, as Muslims, we should all recognise the utter ridiculousness of the claim that religion is unnecessary.
Consider the fact that we have all been created by the One and Only Lord. In light of this it also becomes apparent that our Lord hasn't left us to "blindly" follow our instincts. That He has endowed us with the capacity to reason is proof of the fact that human beings have the natural capacity to be able to distinguish between the halal and the haram (we refer to this as having a conscience). But, we are only capable of learning so much- there is much more knowledge that we simply don't have and cannot gain. As such, ethics contrived by human beings doesn't have that all-encompassing justification as do the morals and values set by Allah.
I'll try to elaborate if anyone has any questions regarding what I'm trying to say here.
Frekley and Burgh also claims the same that religions (whether Islam, Judaism or Christianity) is not the basis for people doing right or wrong rather its peoples' reasoning and conscience (they don't consider it is given by God).
People who are ethical by such standard is only ethical as far at they're monitored by law i.e. if they're in a situation where its hard to take the ethical stand and on the other hand there is no repercussion for being unethical, then the course of action for these people is clear. They're most likely to take the unethical course of action. Whereas Muslims' belief in the hereafter and the all-seeing, all-knowing God ensures that they take the ethical stance no matter what the threat or loss.
There's another important point to mention about the comparison between the ability of God and humans, but I'll wait for someone else to come up with it.
Post a Comment
<< Home