Chapter 5: Morality and Religion
Religion is known to be one of the principles that motivate people to behave in moral ways. However, this type of motivation is considered problematic at times. The idea of eternal punishment normally motivates people to behave in particular ways and manner. This is in a bid to avoid or earn certain consequences for the actions committed. This is considered problematic since a change in the nature of repercussions would imply a change in the moral compass, which means that people are not acting morally for the purpose of being moral but to evade punishment (Shaffer-Landau 13).
On the question of whether the existence of a law implies the existence of a lawmaker, it is believed that the law is a physical entity and therefore cannot simply emanate from thin air. This implies that a builder ought to assemble it like anything else build from different elements. It is philosophical right to say that “because God formed all, he also created morality. Thus, the delightful dominion theory is true” (Shaffer-Landau 25). Landau was detrimental in addressing the dilemma. He stated that since God is perfect in knowledge and action, he would not have left that which is moral and that which is not moral up to chance. Rather, God used his divine knowledge to interpret that which moral and the immoral; just like a thermometer precisely interprets the temperature but does not create the weather.
According to Socrates, there are two possible relationships between God’s commandments and morality. In this instance, the same analogy used above can be used here. This is because God used his perfection to interpret what is good and bad.
There are a bunch of religious manuscripts that offer people moral direction, although some give inconsistent guidance. There are reliable ways of deciding the correct texts to follow. When deciding which text should be followed, cultural heritage plays a significant role in the mindset of human. However, with many options to choose from, it is advisable to follow the footstep of parents until one has enough time and wisdom to interpret the texts and determine the one to be followed (Shaffer-Landau 26).
Having been raised in religious households and thus value what has been taught, I consider religion to be a good source of moral guidance. However, it is possible to act morally without the full guidance of religion. Religion plays a crucial role in laying down foundations of having a “good” life.
Chapter 6: Natural Law
Basically, there is a difference between empirical truths and conceptual truths. A conceptual truth is something which is known by simply acknowledging and understanding it. On the other hand, empirical truth lies within the sensory knowledge. The moral claims cannot be simply understood conceptually or through the senses of humans. Many people believe that human nature consists of innate traits shared by all human beings. This conception, however, is not a good measure of morality. This is because most human beings are susceptible to the pressure that emanates from the society and thus, the innate traits humans are born with may not pave the way for true morality. For instance, human beings may be born selfish, but still manage to behave in moral ways (Shaffer-Landau 36).
If animals behaved in a particular manner; that would not provide enough evidence that the act is natural and that human beings should follow the lead. Following the lead would have serious implications on the natural law theory. Moreover, just because something is a norm does not make is moral. If that was the case and many animals had a particular trait, those without the trait would be considered incomplete and not true members of a group (Shaffer-Landau 46).
The lives of human beings have purposes. Again, knowing the principle of human lives may help people to decide what is morally required. Everything on the face of earth, including animals, has a purpose to fulfill in the world. If human beings understand their purpose in life, then acting in a particular manner to achieve the purpose is considered moral. There is no particular definition of human nature. Human beings have devised different interpretations of what human nature is. Once human beings have identified the definition they are taking into account, what follows is taking substantial defense to prove the definition (Shaffer-Landau 57). The defenses are huge undertakings by themselves.
Definitions play an important role in resolving important moral disputes. Many moral arguments rely heavily on how one defines certain phrases and words. One of the arguments that may be used is the argument for humanity used by anti-abortion proponents. The argument states that it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being. The fetus is considered an innocent human being, and thus a crime to intentionally murder it. The defense and the attack on this argument emanates from how people define human beings. Therefore, the argument of humanity is an important factor when defining the moral dispute (Shaffer-Landau 64).
There is a difference between the moral laws and the laws of physics and chemistry. The physical laws of physics and chemistry can only be proven empirically through a series of tests. In the contrary, moral laws cannot be readily tested and tabulated in the laboratory like the physical principles. This implies that the moral laws are of different nature from the physical laws. The differences are known to support the Natural Law Theory and not degrade it.
Chapter 7: Psychological Egoism
Contrary to the opinion of many, psychological egoism cannot be considered a moral assumption, but an expressive view on the behavior of human beings. Therefore, psychological egoism has implications on ethics. This argument can pose a challenge to the study of ethics by nullifying most causation arguments that were previously presented. The argument states that humans should act with some sort of suffering, mitigation, or personal gain. The theory continuous to state that self-interest of human beings guides them to do the right things out of fear of being persecuted for actions (Shaffer-Landau 66).
Psychological egoists stress that there is something worth gaining in all the situations regardless of the recognition by them and others. In instances fuelled by adrenaline, a person does not have to think about possible benefits of jumping on a grenade. This is considered instinctual moves that people are compelled to make. The benefits of such rush decisions is to save friends’ lives, which applies at maximum self-suffering which is quite the opposite of self-interest. According to many people, whenever one acts voluntarily, they are acting on the basis of their personal desire. If people volunteer to do something, it is expected that some good is seen coming out of the situation. The desire to help is our motivation and thus makes it self-interest (Shaffer-Landau 69).
If people are always allowed to do what they want to do, that is not enough to show that psychological egoism is true. People who perform their duties rather than what they mostly want to achieve must be taken into account. This poses a challenge to the egoists because then people would be motivated by the duties and not self-interest. If someone expects to benefit from a particular action, that shows that they are trying to advance their self-interest. People sometimes have to expect outcomes which is not what they intended. For instance, a student who has not revised for the exam expects to receive poor grades. This, however, does not follow that by not studying they were pursuing their personal self-interest. This applies most specifically in the long run.
Philosophers have argued that there are possible observations that could disprove psychological egoism. This can be justified like in the case of people whose sole purpose is to provide for the benefits of others. For example, a mother who gives her last bit of food to her baby is a possible observation that discredits the theory of psychological egoism. In addition, it is understandable that a mother seeing her baby flourish prevents serious suffering, an action which is altruistic in nature. I disagree with the idea that psychological egoist’s claim that all human behavior is self-interested. In life, we “called” many times to perform certain tasks. Also, these tasks will in many cases fly in the face of human’s predetermined lifestyles and norms. In addition, these tasks have the ability to and power to define human beings. If the tasks are ignored so that we can pursue self-interest, then we are missing on great pleasures of life (Shaffer-Landau 78).
Chapter 8: Ethical Egoism
There is a difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism. While psychological egoism is the mindset involved while one is looking out for self-benefits, ethical egoism states that it is the moral duty of human beings to improve their well-being. It is clear that this definition draws strength from psychological egoism which is not dependent upon it. To be specific, it is possible to believe in the need of one to be altruistic while at the same time opposing the notion that human beings have to be.
It is in one’s self interest to commit murder, rape, and theft. Unfortunately, human beings usually stand to benefit by committing these heinous actions. That being said, the credibility of ethical egoism crumbles because the principle of this theory is to make it a moral requirement to pursue our own self-interests. People will not be better off if each of them pursued their own self-interest. This is because the world would become cold and selfish. Everyone holds the opinion that human being should strive to be self-reliant and also agree to libertarian viewpoint of moral duty. Nevertheless, I hold the opinion that people should be in a position to evaluate the cost of aid they provide to others. If helping other people has minimum impact on our lives, then we should be obliged to help at all times without expecting any returns (Shaffer-Landau 87).
Consents and reparations are not the only sources of our moral duties. I believe that there are strong worldly arguments in order to have a moral duty. But as a religious man, I cannot say that they are the only ones. However, the moral duties placed by God can only be upheld by following the necessary rules. The rules, however, do not leave room for being altruistic.
It is not rationale to act contrary to our own self-interests. That being said, I believe that there is a fine line between being detrimental to our self-interest and performing an action that comes at little cost to ourselves. More so, I believe that that there is no real case for one to deliberately affect our self-interests in a negative way. There is no duty whosoever to do so. Nevertheless, if something can be done with minimum negative effects, then it is the duty of human beings to do it. It is possible for an ethical egoist to try and argue for the existence of moral rights. Those who will hold the argument would cite that fact that given all things equal; any person will favor themselves over other people, therefore promoting their self-interests. This is the main truth of humanity that should be accepted as truth without putting into consideration sound reasoning (Shaffer-Landau 105).
Many people appreciate the fact that discrimination on the basis of morally irrelevant traits (such as gender and race) is immoral. Ethical egoism does not endorse such discrimination by promoting self-interests over the interests of other people. This is because ethical egoism makes no particular references to such specific forms of bias. It only says that it is morally right to pursue one’s self-interests over others.
Works Cited
Shaffer-Landau. The Fundamental of Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Print
