Morality is shaped by Religion
Broadly put, religion and morality are two concepts that are often viewed as intertwined with each other. Religion is often associated with piety, which may be explained to imply a case where someone has to be prosecuted for the wrongs they have done. For example, any one who is guilty of committing either murder or sacrilege ought to be prosecuted for their crime whether they are young or old. Not doing this may be regarded as irreligious (Plato 6).
In this vein, there should be a demarcation between what the person has done and aspects such as the relations or age of the individual. Their crime is what sets them apart as being irreligious and thus immoral. There is an idea whose nature determines whether someone is pious or impious.
Put in other words, religion is closely associated with the gods and what they like and irreligion is attributed to what the gods detest. In the words of Plato, “Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods and impiety is that which is not dear to them.” (Plato 8). Religion has its roots in gods who comprise of some traits such as hatred, enmities, and differences.
Religion and morality are therefore related in a way. There are personal points of difference that call for respective solutions. Differences about magnitude are resolved through measurements and so forth. However, some differences make people not only angry at each other, but may also create enmity between them. This happens when the underlying issues causing differences are based on good and evil, justice and injustice, as well as respect and discredit.
It is on this platform that people end up quarreling and differ with one another. Socrates put this in a better way in the sense that, “But what differences are there which cannot be thus decided, and which therefore make us angry and set us at enmity with one other?
I dare say the answer does not occur to you at the moment, and therefore I will suggest that these enmities arise when the matters of difference are the just and unjust, good and evil, honourable and dishonourable. Are not these the points about which men differ, and about which when we are unable satisfactorily to decide our differences, you and I and all of us quarrel when we do quarrel?” (Plato 10).
It is argued that the things that make men quarrel and differ with each other are also the same that make the gods behave in the same manner. Therefore, to some extent, there is correlation between the character and nature of gods and the morality of people.
People’s way of doing things may be because of how they are influenced by the gods. It is further argued that the gods have different opinions regarding various aspects; for example, what may be loved by some may be hated by others just as Euthyphro’s prosecution of his father may be acceptable by Zeus but be refuted by Uranus.
Therefore, just like men, gods are said to hold differences in opinion over various issues. Whereas both gods and men have an unwavering stand regarding what is just and unjust, and, punishable and unpunishable, the differences rather arise in determining who the wrong doer is, what wrong was done and when.
It is a common fact between both parties that the doer of what is unjust should be punished. Defining “piety as that which is dear to gods and impiety as that which is not dear to them” (Plato 12), is not therefore sufficient; this is because what may be appealing to gods may not necessarily appeal to others.
In the case of being holy or unholy, it should be noted that whatever is “dear to the gods is dear to them because it is loved by them, not loved by them because it is dear to them” (Plato 14). As much as there may be a similarity between religion and some moral components, the two are not completely similar. Morality may be perceived as a function of religion but morality may not be a function of religion.
Socrates, in trying to elucidate this, illustrate it using reverence and fear that: “I should not say that where there is fear, there is also reverence; for I am sure that many persons fear poverty and disease and the like evils, but I do not perceive that they reverence the objects of their fear… but where reverence is, there is fear; for he who has a feeling of reverence and shame about the commission of any action, fears and is afraid of an ill reputation” (Plato 19).
Religion may be viewed as a sense of men’s duty to the gods. It is likened to the attention granted by the ox herd to the ox, the huntsman to the dogs, and horsemanship. In the same vein, “piety or holiness may be explained to be the art of attending to gods” (Plato 20). In attending to dogs, horses, and oxen, the one offering attention normally benefits or improves the one being attended to. However, the attention accorded to the gods does not improve them in any way, in the same way it happens to other objects of attention.
It is rather a master – servant kind of attention (Plato 22). It is an act of ministration, which, like any other ministration, serves to accomplish a given purpose. In people’s administration to the gods, there are numerous and fair works that they receive from the gods in return.
Euthyphro asserts when he says, “Let me simply say that piety or holiness is learning how to please the gods in word and deed, by prayers and sacrifices; such piety is the salvation of families and states, just as the impious, which is unpleasing to the gods, in their ruin and destruction” (Plato 24).
Morality is not Shaped by Religion
On the other hand, Nietzsche does not see how religion influences morality at all; the aspects of religion that connote purity and impurity should not be fathomed in a symbolic, serious, or even broad way. They should be perceived from an ancient way that defined them from a narrow, crude, and plain manner. Purity entailed keeping off from some diets that could cause skin disorders, not sleeping with unclean women, detesting blood. The introduction of some priestly religious values has not done any good.
It has in fact resulted to differences and conflicts among people (Nietzsche, Clark and Swensen 15). From the onset, something is not good about religion and the habits that define the conduct of religious people. This has affected priests of all times. Humanity still suffers from the consequences of the priestly acts such as fasting, sexual abstinence, their callous metaphysics, and self-hypnosis.
Priests have initiated danger in almost all things resulting to conceit, lust to rule, perception, disease and vengeance, just to mention a few. It is on this dangerous basis that man became not only an interesting creature, but also evil in soul. These two aspects are the distinguishing marks between man and other creatures (Nietzsche, Clark and Swensen 16).
Religion is perceived to have impacted negatively on the morality of its adherents such as priests. It has made them to be the most powerless people, haters, and most evil enemies. “Priests are, as is well known, the most evil enemies – why is that? This is because they are the most powerless. Out of their powerlessness, their hate grows into something enormous and uncanny, into something spiritual and most dangerous. The truly great haters in the history of the world have always been priests (Nietzsche, Clark and Swensen 16)”.
Jesus, the Jewish embodied gospel of love has made Israel reached the height of its desire for political revenge. In their manifestation of revenge, the Jews nailed Jesus on the cross to use him as a bait to let the rest of the world receive him (Nietzsche, Clark and Swensen 18). The church aims at poisoning the entire body of humanity through the Jewish culture. Although this is happening gradually, it is affecting everybody’s way of behavior.
Conclusion
Plato sees action of people as controlled by gods. Piety is viewed in terms of being favoured and acceptable to gods while impiety contrasts this by being unacceptable and unpleasant. There is a correlation between the morality of people and their allegiance to the gods.
On the other hand, religion is seen by Nietzsche as an influence that has made man a very dangerous creature, made him evil, hateful and vengeant. It has not shaped the morality of humanity in any way. The Christian religion is leading in the spread of the Jewish poisonous culture of revenge and seduction to humanity.
If the actions of people are controlled by the gods who in themselves may exhibit hatred, enmity and differences, then it follows that people who manifest such traits (which are not necessarily morally correct), may still be under the influence of gods. These gods are different from the ones that influence the actions and behavior of the morally upright. If religion is the measure of someone’s attention to the gods, then someone’s degree of morality is determined by their commitment to attend to the gods.
However, we know of cases where people who are devoted to the gods are morally wanting like the cases that Nietzsche puts across. Plato asserts that the nature of the gods influence the morality of men. The implications of this are two-fold. First, these people may not be genuinely ministering to the gods as they purport and so their morals are not being positively influenced by the gods as it were.
Secondly, there could be two different types of gods: those that are of good character and nature impart good morals and those that are of weird traits and nature impart ill morals to people who attend to them. People whether knowingly or ignorantly pledge their allegiance to those gods that are of evil nature. This affects their morality negatively.
There is also another case of people, who do not consciously attend to any god but they are amoral. This may imply that either, by not attending to the gods of good character, the gods of ill character still influence them, or such men are naturally amoral. This later implication is most probable since we are living in a world where it is very easy to do what is wrong than what is right. Therefore, our morals may be primarily rooted in our nature. The influence of gods may just be a secondary one.
Works Cited
Nietzsche, Friedrich W., Clark, Maudemarie and Swensen, Alan J. On the Genealogy of morality: a Polemic. Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company. 1998. Web.
Plato. Euthyphro. NY: Forgotten Books. 1964. Web.