MODULE 1: Basic Concepts in Ethics unacceptable to a community that is based on

personal beliefs or communal traditions which

Ethics is not formally presented or imposed to the
- it is all about behaviors of a human person community.
and it is all about what is right and what is
wrong. - Meaning to say, morality is almost the same
- This refers to both all the good things and with ethics. In fact, in some other references
deeds we should pursue and the bad things we they are used interchangeably.
should avoid as human persons. - The difference is that ethics is an
established set of norms/standards and an
- The word ethics came from the Greek word academic discipline itself while morality is the
‘ethos’ which translates as “character” or moral quality of an action and at the same time
“manners”; it is also translated as a standard regarding good and bad which is
“characteristic or habitual ways of doings personal or subjective.
things” in some other references.
Ethics is concerned with human acts.
Ethics is the branch of Philosophy which Being focused with the morality of human
studies the morality of human actions. actions, it is necessary to clarify what these
- It is also called as Moral Philosophy and actions are. In the study of ethics, actions are
concerned with the rightness or wrongness of classified into two:
acts done by individuals and how are they
considered right or wrong. 1. Human acts- are the exact opposite of acts
- Ethics refers to established standards or of man as the former requires intentions and
norms regarding good and bad or right and knowledge about the morality of the act to be
wrong behavior that are recognized by the performed and its consequences.
people in consonance with their religious - Human acts are done voluntarily with
beliefs and cultures. awareness about the nature of an action
whether it is naturally good or bad. Acts such
ETHICS is a branch of Philosophy. As defined as;
by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, two of the  helping other people by giving money to
most significant thinkers in the whole history of the needy even if you yourself is in need
philosophy, but because you think it is a good.
Philosophy is the science of all things through - and right thing to do is an example of a moral
their ultimate causes, reasons, and principles act.
acquired through the use of human reason
alone. - Killing a person whom you hate so much
even if you know that it is wrong and you
Philosophy is mostly referred to as the “Love would end up in prison but still you do it is
of Wisdom” since it seeks the highest/ultimate another example of a human act.
reasons and causes for the existence of
anything. - Since human acts include deliberate use of
- Unlike other academic disciplines which knowledge and will, these make such acts to
have their own specific concerns and focus be subjected to the study of ethics as they are
only on their specific concerns, Philosophy the result of the choices and reason of a
seeks to know the ultimate truth about person.
everything.
- Meaning to say, anything can be a subject 2. Acts of man- acts done by a human person
for the study of Philosophy and that no other that no longer requires will, intention, and
instruments, devices, or apparatuses are being knowledge. These acts are done
used except the human person’s capacity to spontaneously as they are actions natural to
think, understand, reflect, and to reason out. a human person or non-related to morality or
- When you think hard about something and otherwise known as neutral acts or amoral
its reasons and purposes, it is already acts. These actions include;
philosophizing.  walking in a shopping mall, eating lunch,
brushing your teeth, and doing laundry.
Ethics is a study about morality. - These acts do not belong to a person’s idea
Morality may refer to the quality of an action of morally right and morally wrong.
as either good or bad; hence we call an action
immoral if it is bad and moral if it is good
according to our standards. Moral Vs. Non-Moral Norms
- It also refers to the code or system of
behaviors that are considered acceptable and
These standards of what is good and bad and impartial means that our judgments are not
are not related with morality are called non- biased and are absolute.
moral standards.
- It refer to norms of fashion, mechanics of a Foundations of Morality
game or sport, some house rules and rules of A. Freedom
public institutions, and some laws. B. Responsibility
- In short, non-moral norms refer to human
acts or actions that are not related to FREEDOM
morality or that cannot be morally and The human person is endowed with free will as
ethically judged as right or wrong. part of his rational soul which enables him to
For example, a person playing basketball choose and do whatever he wills and think.
without dribbling the ball is not immoral, if you Because of this free will, a person becomes
wear clothes that are not part of the trend; you autonomous or is capable of deciding for
are not an immoral person. himself whichever course of action to take in
response to a given situation.
Moral Norms
- refer to standards categorizing human acts as - But freedom does not consist only of deciding
either moral or immoral. to do things which please the person doing the
- These are the actions that can be ethically or act. Freedom should be understood as the
morally judged as either right or wrong as they capacity of doing anything or any act which is
are related to our ideas of what is ideally and morally good.
morally good behaviors for a human person as
a part of society and as an individual. - Without the existence of free will in a human
person, there can be no study of morality or
How are moral standards different from non- ethics itself because freedom is important in
moral standards? judging or determining the morality an action of
a person.
1. Moral Standards include actions that will
greatly affect the well-being of a person. - There is no point in judging a person for his
acts if that person has no control to his body
2. Moral Standards tend to or ought to out- just like a computer or a robot that does only
weigh other norms and standards. what is commanded to it and is not even aware
- Actions that we can consider good and the that he did a certain thing.
morally right thing to do even if for some other
norms those same actions are considered - That is why we cannot judge animals for their
wrong. Such as giving alms to the poor even if murderous acts towards fellow animals or to
your country deems it illegal because you think some people because they do not have
it is a moral thing to do. rationality and freedom; they are just governed
by their instincts, but not human persons.
3. Moral Standards come from the
immediate judgment of a person and not - The rational soul of the human person
just dictated by sources of authority. enables a person to become aware of what is
- Moral actions can come from an individual’s acceptable and what is not, what is good and
own perception and understanding of good and what is bad. It also enables a person to will
bad even without the guidance the sources of things that may they be good or bad. Since a
authority such as the religion, the law, and the person is knowledgeable and is aware of what
culture of a person. is good and bad, it is up to his freedom if he
will choose to do bad things despite his
4. Moral Standards can be agreed knowledge of it.
universally.
- There are some actions that people with - Ethics is concerned with human acts, and
different race, religion, culture and belief would human acts require knowledge and will, and
agree that are right or wrong. Killing is this ‘will’ gives a person freedom which is a
universally regarded as wrong and respecting requirement in studying the morality of an act.
one’s parents is also universally regarded as Hence the existence of human freedom is
good. an indispensable factor and requirement for
judging actions in Ethics.
5. Moral Standards are based from
impartiality. RESPONSIBILITY
- Actions we regard as morally right and It is stated above that freedom is a foundation
morally wrong remains the same regardless of of morality and that it comes from the free will
the persons who do those actions. Being of the rational soul of a human being.
Freedom gives the capacity to choose judgment of an action without any bias and
whatever one person wills or wants. But it does prejudice.
not end in just choosing what action to take.
- This refers to becoming objective of using
Imagine a person that intends nothing but to one’s reason in judging the morality of an
help out of good will and ends up messing up action or of an
or having unexpected negative results for the individual. Before a person to be called moral,
one this person intends to help. A person his/her actions must be based on impartial
cannot just do anything s/he wills because considerations, not giving or showing any
s/he has freedom. In every action, there are favors upon judging other’s actions.
always consequences. A person is
accountable and responsible for every action For example, a teacher has two students who
s/he takes. A person is always ought to do had a fight; one of the students is the teacher’s
what is morally good. nephew.

Minimum Requirements for Morality When the teacher asked the students their
reasons for fighting, the teacher did not show
1. Reason any biases or favoritism between the two and
2. Impartiality made appropriate actions regarding the matter.
3. Moral Dilemmas This is an example of impartiality. Being
objective and disregarding biases and
REASON preferences is a requirement for being moral.
- The first requirement for morality is reason. In
order for one to be called moral, s/he should MORAL DILEMMAS
be a rational being first, and being a rational - Basically, dilemmas are instances wherein a
being means having the capacity to reason out person or a group is confronted by a problem
and to grasp knowledge. that requires courses of action that are
contradicting with each other and that produce
- Without reason, a person cannot be moral different results;
since being irrational would render a person to
lack the capacity to reason out and understand such as a group of students preparing to make
things; and that means this being that lacks the a research.
capacity to reason and to grasp knowledge
does not have the slightest idea of how is it to These students, upon brainstorming, might
be moral or know the word moral itself. argue what to research about considering
many factors and might ended up unable to
- That is why we say ‘only humans can be decide. This is an example of a dilemma, is it a
moral beings’ since animals lack the capacity moral one? Or not?
to reason out and we do not sue or file cases
against these animals when they kill other A moral dilemma is almost the same thing
animals or humans or when they steal food. with a dilemma, it is also a situation or an
We do not judge animals as morally good or instance wherein a person or a group is
morally bad because they simply lack reason presented with a problem and that a difficult
and they are just guided by their instincts to choice has to be made between or among two
survive. or more courses of action.

- Unlike animals, human persons are rational. - The only thing that might be the only
Humans possess knowledge of what is moral difference of a moral dilemma to a non-moral
and immoral. Given these propositions, people dilemma is that
come to know what makes their actions moral among the choices to answer the dilemma,
or immoral. each of them entails violating a moral
principle. In its simplest sense, moral
- Reason helps people to understand and to dilemmas are conflicts between moral
justify actions they see and do in the society. principles.
It should be reason to be the guide and drive of
every For example, a family is in a dilemma where a
people in their actions not just only instincts or family member is in a hospital, incurable, and
feelings. is attached with life support, without this life
support this family member is sure to die.
IMPARTIALITY
- The second requirement for morality is The family’s resources are nearly running out
impartiality. This pertains to an individual’s and might endanger the whole family as their
bill in the hospital is growing. They are left with - The dilemma experienced in this level
the question how far can they go? Will they requires a collective decision of all the
exhaust their resources even if their patient is members of the organization or majority of the
incurable or shall they give up the life support members at least. This does not depend on a
to preserve the well-being of the family? If they decision made by a single person in the
give up the life support, they will transgress the organization.
moral principle of “killing/mercy killing is
immoral”. If they don’t give up, they will - This dilemma is more difficult than the first
transgress the principle of “well-being of the level as it requires more people to respond to a
many”. problem. This might mean that there would be
more conflict in the organization in coming up
The common thing between moral and non- with the solution compared when there is only
moral dilemmas is that they both have conflicts. one person to choose a course of action.
A person in a moral dilemma sees that s/he
has the reasons to do either of the courses of Structural Dilemmas
action but it is not possible to do both. - In this level, dilemmas are experienced by
- These are the features of a two or more organizations. This dilemma
moral dilemma: involves more than just an organization but two
(a) a person is ought to perform a solution or more of them to answer a certain problem.
to a dilemma;
- It may pertain to a national or international
(b) a person can perform either of the concern or matter, concern of a province with
choices to solve the dilemma but cannot do many cities or municipalities, concern of a city
them both; with many barangays.

(c) a person, no matter what course of - This might be the most difficult level among
action s/he chooses, will fulfill a moral the three since it requires collective decision of
principle and transgress another moral organizations and institutions. Compared to the
principle at the same time just like the organizational dilemma, this needs
example above. organizations to settle first before they can
present their solution to other organizations
Three Levels of Moral Dilemma involved in the dilemma.

A. Personal Dilemmas Important Keywords:

B. Organizational Dilemmas
C. Structural Dilemmas 1. Philosophy – The science/knowledge of all
things through their ultimate reasons, causes,
Personal Dilemmas and principles acquired through use of human
- In this level, dilemmas are experienced by a reason alone.
single person and are resolved by this person
alone who is experiencing the dilemma. 2. Ethics - The branch of philosophy that
studies the morality of human actions.
- This means that a person will not depend on
a collective decision but will depend of his/her 3. Morality - The code or system of behaviors
own moral reasoning guided by the moral that are considered acceptable or
principle s/he is following or believing. unacceptable to a community that is based on
personal beliefs or communal traditions which
- An example of a personal moral dilemma is is not formally presented or imposed to the
the famous ‘trolley problem’ where five people community.
were tied on a railway track and one person on
another track. 4. Human Acts – These are acts of human
A trolley or a train is rushing towards the five persons that are done with knowledge, will,
people and you find yourself in front of a lever and intention.
to decide where the train will go. Will you
choose to save the five people or the one 5. Moral – the quality of an action being good
person? or acceptable, the quality of being subject of
morality
Organizational Dilemmas
- In this level, dilemmas are experienced by 6. Non-moral – the quality of not being subject
people who belong to the same group or to morality, not related to morality.
organization.
7. Freedom – the capacity of doing anything ➢ The theory therefore proposes that
that is morally good. when we say that something is morally
good,
8. Moral Dilemma - a situation or an instance this only means that we approve of that
wherein a person or a group is presented with thing. Simply mean the believer believes
a problem and that a difficult choice has to be it on his own.
made between or among two or more courses ➢ When we state that something is
of action. Conflict between moral principles. immoral simply mean also that the
believers believe it on his own and
nothing more.
Module 2: Feelings as Instinctive Response 2. Emotivism
to Moral Dilemmas ● A lot of Ethicist considered this
● philosophers firmly believe that feelings one as an improved version of
play an important role in talking of Subjectivism.
morality. ● more subtle and sophisticated
● Others believe, to the extent, that ethics ● Emotivism is deemed
is only a matter of feelings/emotion. invulnerable to any objections.
● instinctive or trained response to ● theory was postulated by the
moral dilemmas. American Philosopher Charles
● There is no specific difference between L.
reason and emotion. Both of them have Stevenson (1909-1979).
relative roles in moral decision making. ● Emotivism is actually the most
○ feelings and emotions are said to popular form of non-cognitivism.
be judgments about the It claims that ethical arguments
accomplishment of one’s goal. do not convey authentic and real
● Feelings and emotions are also propositions.
instinctual by providing motivations to ● Moral judgments are not
act morally. statements of fact rather it is only
● Moral decisions are highly emotional as a mere expression of the
people emotionally show their emotions of the subject simply
agreement or disagreement in different because these are all feelings-
human acts. based.
● Moral sentiments highlight the need for ➢ emotivists based their belief on logical
morality to be based also on sympathy positivism which claimed that any
and empathy on other people. legitimate truth must be empirically
● Some ethicists conclude that feeling Verifiable.
overpower thinking in moral decision ➢ utterances in Ethics are not fact-
Making. stating sentences.
➢ only a command or a conveyor of
Feelings as Obstacles in Making the Right information
Decisions ➔ two different purposes:
● Two famous (but erroneous) theories in ◆ First, they are used as a means
Ethics. of influencing other’s behavior.
1. Subjectivism ● “Stealing is immoral,”
● contrary to the principles that ◆ Emotivism interprets it as an
stand for objective truth. attempt to stop you from doing
● not about what things are good the act. Thus, the utterance is
and what things are bad. more like a command. An
● It also does not tell how we equivalent only of saying “Don’t
should live or what moral norms do that!”.
we should practice. ◆ Second, moral sentences are
● It is a principle that speaks to used to express the point of view
the nature of moral judgment. of the subject.
● This theory states that moral ● Accordingly, saying “Fair
judgments totally rely on our play is good” is not like
personal perspectives. saying “I approve of fair
➢ It claims that our moral opinions are play,” but it is like saying
based on our feelings and nothing more. “Hurrah for fair play1”
➢ moral opinions are based on our 3. Loopholes of Emotivism and
feelings, and nothing more. Subjectivism
1. They are inconsistent in promoting
tolerance.
 ★ They tolerate the actions (even if it is explore the roles God is presumed to play in
obviously wrong) of others by saying let shaping moral life:
them do that because that is what is 1. Metaphysical Role: God serves as the
right for them. metaphysical foundation for the
★ they are inconsistent because once the objectivity of morality. The argument
action of the others go against with posits that if God doesn't exist, objective
them, they cannot tolerate it. morality has no adequate basis. This
○ For example, if I will steal money forms a potent moral argument for the
to them because this is what is existence of God, suggesting that the
right for me, they cannot tolerate very existence of objective morality
me because they are the direct implies the existence of God.
victim of the said action.
2. It considers wrong practices such as 2. Epistemological Role: God provides
selfishness and egoism. the means to discern right from wrong.
★ Man by nature is a social being. This epistemological function implies
★ We cannot live alone. Meaning, our that God is the source of moral
unique existence is not just for us but knowledge, guiding individuals on the
also for others. principles of virtue and vice.
★ They show a self-centered kind of life.
Thus, to live in accordance with their 3. Motivational Role: God offers a
thoughts is going against our human motivational incentive for morality,
nature as a social one. especially in the context of an afterlife.
3. Self-contradictory Theory This perspective argues that earthly
❖ Emotivism and Subjectivism are self- costs and benefits alone may not
contradictory theory because there sufficiently encourage moral behavior.
claim that there is no absolute truth is God's rewards and punishments in an
claiming that there is absolute truth. afterlife serve as a prudential motivation
4. Cognition and Persuasion as Two Pillars for morality.
of Moral Decision Making
● Cognition pertains on the function of the The contention that God is the metaphysical
mind. It focuses on rationality. ground for objective morality is a robust
● Persuasion, on the hand, refer to the argument, known as the moral argument for
emotional choice of human person. God's existence. It posits that God is the sole
● In moral decision making, cognition foundation for objective morality, challenging
alone is not enough. any alternative natural or non-religious
● moral decision making is always a foundations. Such alternatives, historically
decision not by emotion alone neither by presented, are critiqued for grounding morality
rationality alone. It should be a choice of in evolving factors and imperfect standards.
both heart and mind. These two serves
a wing of a bird. It cannot fly with only Lesson 2a: Divine Command Theory (DCT)
one wings. Overview

Module 3 Divine Command Theory posits that the

Religion and Morality objectivity of morality is grounded in God's
Lesson 1 Review: The Relationship commands. This theory asserts that what is
between Religion and Morality morally good or bad is solely determined by
God's directives. It suggests that without God,
The intricate connection between religion and there can be no objective morality binding on
morality has been a subject of significant humans. The intuitive appeal of DCT lies in the
debate. Some argue that morality and religion idea that many moral rules are perceived as
are inseparable, while others challenge this divine commandments, such as the Ten
view. The controversy arises from diverse Commandments.
religious beliefs, as illustrated by ancient Lesson 2b: Euthyphro Dilemma
polytheistic religions like those of the Greeks The Euthyphro Dilemma challenges the idea
and Romans, which focused more on that objective morality depends on God. The
explaining natural phenomena than prescribing dilemma asks whether something is good
moral rules. because God commands it or if God
commands it because it is good. The second
The fundamental question emerges: Can horn of the dilemma, suggesting that God
morality exist independently of religion, commands something because it is inherently
specifically without God? To address this, we good, leads to the concept of divine
independence, implying a realm of ethics
beyond God's control. The first horn, asserting coherence, historical accuracy, and
that something is good because God intuitive appeal.
commands it, raises concerns about moral
arbitrariness. In conclusion, Divine Command Theory faces
significant challenges, but proponents offer
Lesson 2c: Five Problems for Divine responses that seek to address concerns
Command Theory related to arbitrariness, moral abhorrence,
1. Arbitrariness: DCT faces the problem divine incomprehensibility, and hermeneutics.
of arbitrariness, suggesting that if These responses, particularly those within the
morality depends on God's commands, Christian worldview, aim to provide a nuanced
moral laws could be arbitrary. understanding of DCT in the face of
philosophical scrutiny.
2. Emptiness: If good means
"commanded by God," then calling God In Lesson 3, the discourse revolves around the
good becomes tautological, potentially contention that the existence and nature of
allowing inherently bad actions to be morality depend on God. The argument
labeled as good. unfolds through three essential elements:
objective moral values, objective moral duties,
3. Moral Abhorrence: DCT implies that and moral accountability.
inherently wrong actions could be
deemed right if God commands them, Objective Moral Values: The lesson posits
leading to moral discomfort. that objective moral values are those that
remain good or bad irrespective of human
4. Divine Incomprehensibility: opinions. The author argues against a purely
Understanding God's commands secular perspective, as exemplified by J. L.
becomes challenging due to the Mackie, asserting that grounding objective
nonspatial, nontemporal nature of God. moral values in God is necessary. The
perfection of God's nature, described as loving,
5. Divine Hermeneutics: Interpretations generous, just, faithful, and kind, provides the
of God's commands can vary, leading to absolute standard against which all actions are
moral disagreements within religious measured.
traditions.
Objective Moral Duties: The second element
Lesson 2d: Responding to the Problems explores objective moral duties, defined as
1. Basis in God's Nature: DCT can acts one ought to do regardless of personal
overcome the charge of arbitrariness by beliefs. Theism, belief in a personal God, is
grounding God's commands in His just presented as the foundation for these duties,
and loving nature. God's commands are stemming from God's commands and the
a reflection of His moral excellence. created order. The differentiation between
human moral terms and those applicable to
2. Avoiding Moral Abhorrence: lower animals is emphasized, with the
Recognizing God as the source of moral conclusion that our moral duties find legitimacy
values, DCT can avoid moral in God, who created humans in His image.
abhorrence by asserting that God
cannot command actions contrary to His Moral Accountability: The discussion then
just and loving nature. shifts to moral accountability, highlighting the
perceived lack of ultimate moral accountability
3. Divine Incomprehensibility: in a secular perspective. Without theism, the
Addressing the challenge of divine argument suggests moral nihilism, asserting
incomprehensibility involves that the only credible ground for accountability
acknowledging the difficulty of is God. The ultimate moral judge, according to
understanding nonspatial and theistic perspective, ensures cosmic justice,
nontemporal beings. The Christian addressing the question of why individuals
worldview's narrative of God taking should refrain from immorality.
human form is proposed as a way to
bridge this gap. Evaluation and Critique: The presentation
4. Divine Hermeneutics: The problem of effectively weaves philosophical arguments
divine hermeneutics is seen through the with real-world examples, making the content
lens of moral disagreement, with the accessible. The appeal to God as the
suggestion that the credibility of a grounding force for morality is articulated
religious tradition's claims can be through logical reasoning, albeit from a theistic
evaluated based on evidence, standpoint. However, the perspective is
explicitly biased towards theism, assuming that theological perspective, particularly in religious
morality's only legitimate foundation is in God. traditions like Christianity.
The critique of secular views lacks a nuanced
exploration of alternative ethical frameworks. Morality and Nonbelievers: The lesson raises
questions about the implications for
Altruism and Heroism: The narrative extends nonbelievers and their ability to discern
to discuss moral heroism and sacrifices, objective moral facts if these facts originate
exemplified by Good Samaritan altruism and from God's commands. It firmly asserts that
the actions of Christian missionaries. The atheists and nonbelievers can be moral without
author contends that without God, such acts belief in God, dispelling the notion that morality
may be deemed irrational or morally is exclusive to religious belief. The distinction
reprehensible from a purely secular standpoint. between the metaphysical basis of objective
This section adds a practical dimension to the morality and the epistemological issue of moral
philosophical discourse, illustrating how beliefs knowledge is emphasized.
about God influence perceptions of self-
sacrificial acts. Evaluation and Critique: The lesson provides
a thoughtful exploration of the relationship
Conclusion: Lesson 3 endeavors to establish between God's commands and morality. It
a robust connection between God and morality. effectively presents the argument that God's
It succeeds in presenting a coherent argument goodness is intrinsic to the concept of God and
favoring theistic perspectives, emphasizing the contends with challenges related to the
role of God in providing a foundation for identification of divine commands. However, it
objective moral values, duties, and could benefit from a more extensive
accountability. However, the lesson could exploration of counterarguments or alternative
benefit from a more inclusive consideration of perspectives, providing a more balanced view
diverse ethical frameworks and a recognition of of the complex relationship between morality
the subjective nature inherent in discussions and religious beliefs.
about God and morality.
Inclusivity and Morality: The narrative
Lesson 4 Review: The Authority of God’s successfully emphasizes the inclusive nature
Commands of morality, asserting that nonbelievers can
discern moral facts without the need for belief
In Lesson 4, the exploration centers on the in God. This inclusive approach adds depth to
authority of God's commands as the basis for the discussion, acknowledging the moral
morality. The narrative navigates through the agency of individuals irrespective of their
inherent goodness of God, the challenges in religious beliefs.
identifying genuine divine commands, and the
implications for believers and nonbelievers Metaphysical and Epistemological
alike. Clarification: The lesson effectively clarifies
the distinction between the metaphysical basis
God's Essential Goodness: The lesson of objective morality and the epistemological
argues that the moral force of God's issue of moral knowledge. This clarification
commands stems from the contention that God enhances the understanding of the Divine
is essentially and perfectly good. It posits that Command Theory's role in explaining the
God's goodness is a defining characteristic, existence of objective moral facts, regardless
integral to the very concept of God. The of how individuals come to know them.
presentation effectively links the oughtness of
following God's commands to the belief in Conclusion: Lesson 4 delves into the
God's benevolent nature. authority of God's commands with a focus on
God's essential goodness and the challenges
Identifying Genuine Divine Commands: The in discerning divine commands. It navigates
discourse acknowledges the challenge of the nuanced relationship between morality and
ascertaining the authenticity of divine religious belief, offering insights into the
commands. The philosopher Kai Nielsen's inclusive nature of moral discernment. While
perspective is introduced, highlighting the need presenting a compelling argument for the
for an independent ethical standard to judge metaphysical basis of objective morality, the
purported divine commandments. The lesson lesson could benefit from a more
explores the idea that shared ethical intuitions comprehensive examination of opposing
among humans can serve as a basis for viewpoints to foster a well-rounded
evaluating God's commands, while asserting understanding of the topic.
that these intuitions find illumination in a
Lesson 5
Arguments Against Religious Morality: provides a guarantee of cosmic justice,
1. History of Atrocities: The argument where good actions are rewarded, and
starts by highlighting the numerous bad actions are punished. The absence
historical atrocities committed in the of God is portrayed as potentially
name of religion. From witch burnings to leading to a lack of motivation to refrain
religious wars, the claim is that religion from immoral acts, and the concept of
has been used to justify heinous acts divine justice adds meaning and hope to
throughout history. The argument the moral life.
implies that the absolutistic thinking in
religion contributes to wars, killings, and 2. Addressing the Moral Gap: The
discrimination. philosopher John Hare's concept of the
moral gap is introduced to argue that
2. Closed Critical Thinking: Religious God provides a solution to the inherent
morality is criticized for closing off selfishness in human beings. It
critical thinking on moral issues. The suggests that divine assistance is
example of families being deceived by necessary to bridge the gap between
religious leaders into selling their lands human tendencies and moral perfection,
is used to illustrate how unquestioning ensuring that moral imperfection is not
obedience to perceived divine the end due to the promise of an
commands can lead to unethical actions. afterlife.
The argument suggests that religious
morality discourages critical thinking 3. Transmission of Basic Morality: The
and ethical dialogue. argument posits that throughout history,
religion has played a crucial role in
3. Conflicting Moral Principles: The transmitting basic moral principles.
existence of conflicting moral principles Children are said to learn morality
in different religions is presented as a primarily from religious teachings such
challenge to religious morality. The as the Ten Commandments,
argument questions how believers can emphasizing the essential role of
determine which religion has the correct religion in shaping moral sensibilities.
moral principles, considering that
different religions may hold opposing 4. Promotion of Rights and Dignity: This
views. This highlights the complexity of argument claims that religion has been
relying on religious morality as a instrumental in promoting human rights
consistent guide. and dignity, using the example of the
Christian principle of equality before
4. Dependency on Controversial God's God challenging the institution of
Existence: This argument points out slavery. It suggests that secular
that the objectivity of religious morality explanations struggle to account for the
relies on the existence of God, a matter origins of human rights and the concept
that has been a subject of philosophical of inherent human dignity.
debate for centuries. The claim is that
since the existence of God is 5. Inspiration from an All-Good God:
controversial and lacks definitive proof, The final argument highlights the
basing morality on religion introduces inspiration drawn from the belief in an
uncertainty into the moral framework. all-good, all-just, and all-loving God.
5. Inherent Immorality in Religious Religious believers are portrayed as
Precepts: The argument delves into the being motivated by their faith to engage
apparent contradiction between the in philanthropy and acts of kindness.
divine command theory, which asserts The argument suggests that the idea of
that God's commands are inherently an altruistic God inspires believers to
good, and instances in religious selflessly care for others.
scriptures where God commands what
appears to be immoral acts. This Evaluation and Critique:
inconsistency raises doubts about the The arguments against religious
reliability of religious morality and the morality present valid concerns about historical
nature of God's commands. abuses, potential closed-mindedness,
conflicting principles, and the dependence on
Arguments in Favor of Religious Morality: God's existence. However, the arguments in
favor emphasize the guarantee of justice,
1. Guarantee of Cosmic Justice: This addressing moral gaps, the role of religion in
argument asserts that religious morality
transmitting morality, promoting rights, and the
inspirational aspect of an all-good God.

The debate highlights the complexity of

the relationship between religion and morality,
with both sides presenting compelling points.
However, a more nuanced discussion could
involve exploring how religious and secular
moral frameworks can coexist or complement
each other, acknowledging the diverse ways
individuals derive their moral values.
Additionally, a more thorough examination of
counterarguments within each perspective
would contribute to a more comprehensive
understanding of the issue.