Ethics can emerge simply as a natural and rational response to our very humanity and our common human condition, not necessarily requiring grounding in religious concepts or faith. -- Dalai Lama<\/p>\r\n
Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion - several of them. -- Mark Twain<\/p>\r\n
Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. -- George Washington<\/p>\r\n
If people are good because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. -- Albert Einstein<\/p>\r\n
What is the relation\u00a0between religion and ethics? Many people insist on their close connection. They also often claim that the only way to provide an alternative to the \u201canything goes\u201d attitude of the relativists is to turn, or return, to a set of strict ethical rules grounded in religion. This chapter examines these claims. We will do this by looking at two of the most important approaches to providing a foundation for ethics in religion. The first emphasizes the authoritative character of religion, highlighting one traditional role played by God in monotheistic faiths, that of providing laws for human conduct. This approach is known as Divine Command Theory and is most popular, in the United States, among conservative Protestants. The second emphasizes the order inherent in the natural world, considered as something created by and reflecting the plans of a divine creator. It is known as Natural Law Theory and is the official ethical theory of the Roman Catholic Church. Before we get to these theories it is worth considering in more general terms what motivates them both. What are they trying to accomplish and why?<\/p>\r\n
Divine Command Theory: Crash Course Philosophy #33<\/a> (9:02)<\/strong><\/p>\r\n[embed]https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=wRHBwxC8b8I&t=27s[\/embed]\r\n\r\nIf you are experiencing issues viewing the video above, please use this link: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=wRHBwxC8b8I&t=27s<\/a>.\r\n It almost goes without saying\u00a0that when any public figure in the United States speaks about things like \u201cvalues,\u201d or \u201cmorality\u201d they are usually talking about religion. Hence it probably wouldn\u2019t come as a surprise that the political organization called\u00a0The Moral Majority, a Christian group that advocated a much greater role for religion in public life. But on what basis do we make this assumption that morality and religion are so closely connected? There are several reasons for this:<\/p>\r\n\r\n Now this doesn\u2019t yet\u00a0show that morality and public order must be based on religion as Voltaire seemed to assume when he asserted that \u201cIf God didn\u2019t exist, we would have to invent him\u201d as a method of social control. But at least it shows that many people are comfortable with asserting a close connection between the two. It is important to keep in mind, however, a distinction between three things: the origin, explanation and justification of a thing or concept.<\/p>\r\n\r\n NOTE:\u00a0we should keep in mind the distinction between three things.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Even if religion\u00a0is often\u00a0a source\u00a0of moral ideas, does this mean that religion is\u00a0necessary\u00a0for morality? Even if we can\u00a0explain\u00a0the role of religion in societies in part by its role in providing moral guidance, does that mean that religion is the only possible source of moral ideas or that it\u00a0can\u00a0in fact provide an adequate justification of those ideas? Backers of the theories we will be looking at here claim that we\u00a0need\u00a0religion, or at least a religiously inspired conception of reality, if there is to be any hope of avoiding the trap of moral relativism. Likewise, they assume that their theoretical attempts to provide a detailed account of how religion might provide a framework on which to build morality are up to the task. We shall see soon how things work out.<\/p>","rendered":" Ethics can emerge simply as a natural and rational response to our very humanity and our common human condition, not necessarily requiring grounding in religious concepts or faith. — Dalai Lama<\/p>\n Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion – several of them. — Mark Twain<\/p>\n Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. — George Washington<\/p>\n If people are good because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. — Albert Einstein<\/p>\n What is the relation\u00a0between religion and ethics? Many people insist on their close connection. They also often claim that the only way to provide an alternative to the \u201canything goes\u201d attitude of the relativists is to turn, or return, to a set of strict ethical rules grounded in religion. This chapter examines these claims. We will do this by looking at two of the most important approaches to providing a foundation for ethics in religion. The first emphasizes the authoritative character of religion, highlighting one traditional role played by God in monotheistic faiths, that of providing laws for human conduct. This approach is known as Divine Command Theory and is most popular, in the United States, among conservative Protestants. The second emphasizes the order inherent in the natural world, considered as something created by and reflecting the plans of a divine creator. It is known as Natural Law Theory and is the official ethical theory of the Roman Catholic Church. Before we get to these theories it is worth considering in more general terms what motivates them both. What are they trying to accomplish and why?<\/p>\n Divine Command Theory: Crash Course Philosophy #33<\/a> (9:02)<\/strong><\/p>\n\r\n \t
\r\n \t