The morality of an action is the standard or degree of its goodness or badness. Every individual has a value system and understanding of right and wrong. However, the current culture values the result more than the methods and will often overlook moral breaches, like deception, in pursuit of a desirable result. Notably, there is no space for error in deceit with unethical or self-serving motivations. Although deception is biblically perceived as unethical, it is an exception in several circumstances. The current society embraces the utilitarian approach, which relates an act’s goodness or badness with its repercussions instead of the action itself.
Utilitarianism holds that the best path of practice is the one that maximizes aggregate suitability, regardless of how that good is achieved. Thus, this starkly contrasts conventional standards, such as the biblical Ten Commandments, which promote unwavering adherence to the code regardless of the repercussions of one’s actions (Galindo 6). The following article examines the development of morality and its place concerning God and the cosmos.
Consequently, the relationship between morality and God is a controversial topic. The biblical teachings emphasize the Christian virtues, which form extreme elements of morality. Morality and religion exist separately, but morality has immensely influenced the Christian religion (Galindo 6). The Catholic Church adopted its stance on abortion and women from morality. Moreover, morality and religion are inextricably intertwined, with the former frequently adopting the latter’s tenets. Therefore, the existence of morality is courtesy of the presence of religion. However, the available viewpoints are partially discontented by this argument.
Religion educates people on the right and wrong of deeds, giving them the tools to determine what constitutes a morally good life. This approach, however, raises more questions about the origin of morality. Globally, there are too many faiths to know which one to follow (Galindo 6). Equally, potential sources of information about the relationship between God and morality are many, with each having its moral position.
The urgency of religion on moral guidance and the correctness of actions is a dilemma. It is established that religion cannot be the only source of knowledge because there are many more sources of information. It is indisputable as religious considerations are not the sole reason people operate decently (Pitson 40). A variety of forms of motives inspire individuals to perform the right things. Nevertheless, comprehending what is moral does not originate from religion alone, as morality dates back ages long before religion was discovered
In addition, there are several various Christian philosophies and, as a result, diverse sources of information that can be found all over the world; each of these philosophies has a unique perspective on what constitutes right and wrong. As a result, choosing just one informational resource out of the many readily accessible might be challenging (Sarkissian 2). Similarly, morality cannot be founded only on the precepts of God; hence, morality may live without God.
No one can serve two masters, according to Matthew 6:24, for the either rejects the first and embraces the latter or clings to the first and despises the latter. No man can serve God and material possessions. Therefore, individuals cannot draw moral conclusions from different sources. They must rely only on the Bible because it guides them in the moral direction. Notably, human beings are moral creatures made special by God. Ultimately, God gave them religious convictions that exposed them to their moral or immoral actions. Correspondingly, human beings should not necessarily pursue their intuitions since they often accompany dire consequences. Believers have the law written on their hearts, according to Romans 2:15, and their morals and internal conflicts may be used to either condemn or exonerate them. The Bible is engraved on the hearts of Christian’s aid in developing their moral judgments. Humans were naturally born sinners and, therefore, must cling to Jesus for guidance in making moral choices that will enhance their lives.
Over time, people’s perceptions of what truth is have shifted. Distinct points of view known as moral relativism have been featured in the current generation. Moral relativism defies logic by differing the validity of truth if everyone considers a particular thing is true. Evident in Catholicism, the members believe in moral responsibility, holding that morality is grounded on absolute principles and that God is as immutable as they are. These moral rules greatly assist us in improving righteousness and are essential in pursuing Holiness. Moral relativism is deleterious to Christianity, as evidenced by the rise of theological liberalism, syncretism principles, and relativism’s foundations.
Equally, moral relativism is deleterious to Christianity, as evidenced by the principles of syncretism, the rise of theological liberalism, and the foundations of relativism. Ideological tolerance is a nonverbal way of indicating a person’s disregard for what they believe is flawed and arguing endlessly with anybody who dares to think the contrary. The Catholic viewpoint is that sociological tolerance is the polar opposite of theological tolerance. Sociological tolerance is characterized by embracing human beings with a distinct point of view on an issue with courtesy, even when there are disagreements.
The fundamental premise underlying morality relies on what God has ordained. Individuals who hold to this philosophy think that if God commands us to perform an act, then the act is morally acceptable; if He forbids an act, then that act is morally evil (Pitson 42). Furthermore, Heavens gifted all individuals with freedom of choice, offering them an option to live morally perfect lives by doing what God wants them to do or morally flawed lives by performing things that God forbids
To summarize, no form of moral argument delivers adequate “evidence” of the existence of God (Pitson & Tony 46). Every edition features unsatisfying assumptions though it does not imply that the various views are without merit. Any form of the argument may be conceived of as intending to set out the “price” of rejecting the outcome (Sarkissian 4). Certain scholars will undoubtedly be prepared to pay the ultimate price and will have their motives for doing so. Nevertheless, it would be remarkable and noteworthy if Christians believed that secularism compelled one to defy moral realism completely or to partially embrace an implausible account of how moral knowledge is acquired.
Related arguments may enhance the cumulative case for theistic belief for individuals who believe that some versions of the arguments have force. There is no subjectivity since whatever God allows is good, and anything He forbids is harmful. Since God will judge human beings at the end of life, it is necessary to live appropriately and not simply think about oneself. In other words, any behaviors that have a terrible impact on other humans will be linked to them and may not be seen favorably by God.
Works Cited
Galindo, Joaquín. “Primatologists and Philosophers Debate on the Question of the Origin of Morality: A Dialectical Analysis of Philosophical Argumentation Strategies and the Pitfalls of Cross-Disciplinary Disagreement.” Argumentation, 2022, pp. 1-30. Web.
Pitson, Tony. “Hume and Humanity as ‘The foundation of morals.” Journal of Scottish Philosophy 17, no. 1, 2019, pp. 39-59. Web.
Sarkissian, Hagop, and Mark Phelan. “Moral objectivism and a punishing god.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 80, 2019, pp. 1-7. Web.