Cover Page

Ethics, Religion and Reality

Ever since the beginning of time, ethics were determined by a

holy scroll or miraculously sent by a greater holy entity, there moral
properties followed on these ethics to phase the perspective of the
people following those ethics thus making their decision of what is
right or wrong is related to whom they follow. These cases refer to
religions, where the worshiper of the greater creation follows the
decisions of what is right or wrong made by that holy entity. People
have followed through ethics of not just religions but overtime it came
to be that religions in different cultures caused different forms of ethics
to form overtime therefore these ethics were molded by the societies
they were integrated it causing many different ethics to form
worldwide. These ethics have been passed on through the ages to this
very own day. Do ethics require religion? Defying religions ethics is
accepted or denied? What is morally right and wrong when it comes to
religion? Religion defines absolute bedrock ethics, where trying to go
against them wouldnt be taken lightly, thus this argument comes to
the relationship between revelation and reason. Can you depend on
logical reasoning to define ethics? What is naturally right or wrong? Are
ethics and moral properties transient? Religion does define a set of
logical ethics, but believing in these ethics blindly is a mistake where
your own judgment isnt found, therefore what is good and right is
defined by you and not religion.

Religion has set forth the ethics followed in this world which
leads to moral properties that became somewhat part of the world.
Thus the idea comes up, are those ethics truly part of this world or are
they constructs where they came to be part of it because we intended

them to be their ? The natural law theory states that God created the
universe and everything in it, he even determined the purpose of living
life and the right way for people to act for them to fulfill that purpose in
life, which means God is natural and obligatory. This makes that
everything that goes against fulfilling that purpose is pointless or even
wrong and everything that goes for fulfilling that purpose is right, thus
religion stated the ethics indirectly. Although religion does state whats
wrong and right in some cases therefore it is not entirely indirect. Aside
from questioning the fact if religion is real or not, the ethics stated by
religion are constructs since the choice to make them part of the real
world came to be made by us. Since those ethics werent enforced on
us at beginning of their forming and many other ethics exist and if they
were all part of the real world all our senses of right and wrong would
be the same, but thats not the case here. Different cultures, different
religions are found and they are all considered irrelevant to the other
to some extent, since what one perceives as right isnt always the
same as another. What is natural and what is logical could contradict or
be the same, what you feel is right comes naturally since it Is said that
God intended it to be that way, but sometimes logic defies what
religion states. That is the argument that came to be argued over the
past decade and that is hard to argue with because the ethics listed by
religion have been followed for hundreds of years, if someone comes to
question them he/she would be labeled as a heretic or even hostility
might be taken towards him. If God created ethics to be followed, why
would he create a mind that could contradict these ethics? That is
because ethics shouldnt be an absolute thing where right is right in
and wrong is wrong in all cases, as it can differ from situation to
situation.

Evidence has been given stating that we do not need religion for
social morals. This criticism came to be from the evidence stated. A
gender inequality survey was made in regards to how much a country
is religious, the gender inequality numbers where directly proportional
to how religious a country is, such as when a country is highly religious
it is deemed to suffer from gender inequality. Another search done
showed that people without religions, atheists, were generally happier
than those who did have a religion to follow. Albert Einstein criticized
religion saying thatif people are good only because they fear
punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot
indeed.(Albert Einstein, 1970) That statement is actually pretty
accurate, since the morals enlisted in religion are usually punishment
and reward based, the more good you do the more rewarded you will
be in the afterlife, the more bad you do the more your chances of
suffering the punishments in the afterlife. So in reality morals and
ethics followed by humans who chose the religious ethics and morals
came to be out of their thinking of their own well being and not of their
care for others or the attempt at making the world the better place by
being good to people for the sake of being good. His statement is true
as well since the majority of the world follows religions and if the
religious ethics stated where actually said to make the follower do
them out of pure goodness then the majority of the world would be
living happily and peacefully, therefore in the end humans are afraid of
the punishment that follows but even that isnt enough to truly make
them abide by their own ethics.

The book Der Jure Belli ac Pacis is one of the newest Western
legal systems that declared the existence of Human rights was derived
solely from logic, rationality and humanitarianism. This book is famous
for putting effective morality into words without the need of any divine

source. (Vexen Crabtree, 2014) This secular way of thinking is

statistically proven to be better through statistics. This list of moral
laws stems from pure moral thinking and not from any particular
ethical philosophy. This has allowed the evolvement of ethics and
morals overtime and did not stay the same such as religion. When
ethics and morals are free to change and develop based on pure
logical thinking then they will always strive towards being better day
by day as that is human nature. On the other hand religion has been a
base on the many centuries that followed its creation with very little
room for changing. The religions morals and ethics came to survive
this far is purely because of the stemming of those morals and ethics
from the roots of beliefs, therefore the only thing that keeps religion
going at ethics and morality is the basis it has made overtime and
punishment/reward system therefore changing that is pretty much
hard. Although with regards to morality, religion has demonstrated that
it is not a safe source of moral improvement and moral conduct.
Regardless of the possibility that many people legitimize their own
particular conduct as far as their convictions, it is additionally
unfortunately genuine that religion itself is the greatest obstruction in
the advancement of human rights and moral improvement. On a
number of issues, from gender equality to tolerance for homosexuality
and so on, religion has failed to live up to the logical reasoning that
follows these set of rules and even the divine entity that listed these
laws agrees with it. Criticisms include that religion has failed to
strengthen society as it causes division and tension in societies, which
is also true since we can see that religious people usually reject people
who do not follow their own religion and by the means of moral
standards they strictly reject other ethics and moralities and cant
comprehend those ethics even though it is only common sense to
change based on the situation you are in. Sadly in many cases
religions ethics remain firm and cannot change no matter what the

situation is. This gets us to the point that ethics truly must depend on
the situation you are faced with and not be forced as a set of rules
down your throat.

Ethics depends on the situation you are put into and not a set of
rules youre supposed to follow for every situation that comes along.
An example is murder, murder is wrong and should not be committed
as you would be taking away someones life, but in case your life was
endangered or someone elses you have the right to kill a person in
order to save that life at risk. This is a clich example, but to more
complicated situations it differs where what religion says is wrong or
right is very close to being true and so as your decision even though
they contradict. Such a case occurs when you have to lose in both
cases, whether you are going for what religion says is right or what you
are thinking is right, you weigh the losses and choose accordingly.
These cases are rarely found but when they are they are considered
situations where a moral decision has to be taken, in some cases you
could have all the rights you were forbidden, some of those examples
are known as the horrors of war and such. But in terms of religion the
losses could be not going to heaven or being punished etc. whereas in
opposition is the real world losses, such as losing face, punishment and
etc. this could be considered problematic, because as humans we
naturally are greedy, wed want to be satisfied with the real world and
also fulfill our purpose given by God. Therefore the sense is that they
are actually constructs that can go a far way into believing they are
part of the real world, the only way it can go to be real world ethics is
that if the whole universe decides to make them come through that
way, that fact alone would make ethics unchanging and fixed. To add
to the reason why it is practically hard to have unchanging ethics is the
thought that the ethics and moral properties used a thousand years

ago are still the same to this date, that idea alone is impossible
therefore ethics did change hence it isnt permenant. The logic
integrated into our minds that allows us to assess the situation to
weigh the losses and wins causes our inner morals to see what is right
or wrong, even to the point where you feel what is right because you
might be thinking about yourself could be weighed against what is
right when you think of someones better good over your own.

The criticism of religion does exist and so does the criticism of its
ethics, the idea that the religions ethics is said to impose irrational
rules of good and bad behavior and that it offends the basic human
rights such as not being equal to women or gay people and that it is
anti-democratic(BBC,2016). That doesnt mean its true, even though if
you compare the other ethics, they might be better, that doesnt label
off religions ethics as completely wrong, since religions ethics started
off many ethics to grow and the development and growth as well, if we
reached this day it was probably because religions advanced ethics
that was available back in the days, still holds place to this very day
and it still holds head to other ethics. Religions golden ethics rule is
that all actions done as being regarded as right or wrong are related to
your intentions. Since if youre intentions were good and youre actions
ended up causing harm to someone you would feel bad about it but
you would know that you never meant any harm, and religions moral
properties states that these actions wouldnt be taken as bad actions
since you never meant no harm and that God knows what your
intentions were. This ethical property makes religion a rather notable
ethical source but in the end some people dont care about the
intention only the result therefore there is a dilemma in that case as
well. Criticisms arise to oppose ethics formed or were formed; this is
because humans tend to go for the change. These critics could lead to

changes in ethics and therefore development which is how the current

ethical system came to form, ethics and moral concepts that are
considered to be outdated or suspicious are faced with arguments and
accusations that could lead to the abolishment of the ethical law or the
modification of that law. An example is should women drive in ksa ?
Religious leader says that Saudi women shouldnt drive because since
it exposes women to evil, says Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz Al Sheikh.(Anne
Bell,2016) When you come to weigh it logically you come to think that
is isnt logical at all, a women that wants to be exposed to evil will
choose so herself and a person who tries to enforce evil is the one at
fault, that is the ethical logic and thats what it states that you cant
stop someone from doing something because someone elses actions
endangers it. Thus this rule is only found in ksa and eventually as time
passes it is supposedly supposed to change. Religion doesnt stick to
conformities as it is also applying changes that suit society and the
religious scrolls found.
Moral properties arent fixed and unchanging, they are transient.
What you perceive as right and wrong could change at a later phase in
your life, which normally happens to people and isnt out of the
ordinary. In religions case it is permanent as the set of ethics set forth
to define the moral properties cannot be changed since they were
handed down by God, although religion is said to be understood abit
differently as time moves on, but the idea that ethics is permanent
remains true, how is that ? Religion comes in a very complicated form
where it is said its very hard to perceive the little details listed, since
the language used dates so far back its very hard to understand, when
that happens a general set of ethics arise causing us to believe these
are the holy ethics listed to us to follow, but as time moves on and
that complexity becomes a bit simpler we come forth to slight changes
in these ethics over very long periods of times, in return though we

would have gotten used to the old ethics and transitioning to the new
ones is a bit tricky, these changes are not considered actual changes
since in their perspective it is simply identifying the actual truth behind
the ethics, hence there is a change in religions ethics so in a way the
ethics do change. Ethics is ever changing and thats the nature of it,
new laws are forming day by day, and even our own way of perceiving
is changing, overtime the cultures and societies change and hence our
own logic is changing. Simply put that that doesnt mean that Gods
ethics are bad, on the contrary they are almost all good, but that
doesnt necessarily mean that its good since God commands it, but it is
easy to relate both since God is the all knowing then whatever he
states is for the better good. Therefore its not that Gods ethics that
are truly good its that we believe that Gods ethics will lead us to the
better good or in other words the purpose we possess in our life. Even
if what we think is right turns out to be bad we could always believe
that this is for the better good, but the difference is one is that youre
believing in God, whom is wiser and all-knowing, and yourself who
doesnt match to God of course. Therefore it is all about the mindset
but one thing is for sure is that it is not definite to call ethics
permanent as history showed us many forms of ethics and they have
changed drastically through times, even for religion.

Now, what is goodness? This is a question asked when the metaethical view is taken into consideration. Meta-ethics is a branch of
ethics that seeks to understand the nature of properties, statements,
attitudes and judgments.(Wikipedia,2016) Unlike the normative
approach that addresses what should I do, the meta-ethics approach
asks questions such as what is goodness. This approach deals with
what is good and what is bad, how do you perceive what is right and
what is wrong. It all simply lies in weighing the consequences versus

gains. What you presume is right is simply the act of what suits you
better, some would say that is not true since I could be helping out
another person such as giving money to the poor or community
service, but the idea still remains since in an indirect way you would
also be doing that for your own good. That is to feel a good sensation
which is eventually good for you. Even the act of doing something
good for someone is directed to your own good as well and that all falls
in the idea that you would weigh how you would feel about helping
someone and therefore since you would feel a good sensation of
fulfillment you would most likely go for it and think it is the good
ethical choice. A sub-idea of perceiving what is good or not lies in what
is ideally perceived by society as right and wrong, sometimes the
culture or society you live in defines your sense of judgment, a rape
crime can be seen in many different ways for example. In some men
dominant societies a rape crime wouldnt be taken as seriously as a
liberal society. Good and bad is a simple idea of what you gain versus
what you lose, it is a simple concept in life, selfless acts that come
from the so-called pure heart, such as favoring someone over yourself
since you love them is simply good and bad is a simple idea of what
you gain versus what you lose, it is a simple concept in life, selfless
acts that come from the so-called pure heart, such as favoring
someone over yourself since you love them is simply you saying that
your own good lies in that person being good, that is to say the
sensation youd get from helping out the person you love is related to
your own good. When it comes to what is bad and the act of doing
something harmful on purpose is also to satisfy a certain type of
feeling, which would eventually lead to satisfaction and once your
satisfied youd feel good about and also maybe guilty, but you weighed
the consequences and you decided to go for that choice even though it
was eventually bad for you, therefore an act that is in general bad is
simply when the losses are greater than the gains in terms of the

action you made. The meta-ethical approach that is taken in terms of

religion is that they are good actions since they will result in the
ultimate reward, such as going to heaven or spiritual Namaste.
Therefore those who follow the religions ethics on moral properties do
so blindly since they believe it is all rewarded in the after-life.

As a conclusion, ethics and the idea of moral properties as to

what is right and what is wrong differ depending on the situation,
environment or even setting raised in between the people. That is to
say ethics cannot be constant and that you have to take on several
different points of views into consideration in order to formulate a view.
This goes on to say that in order for one to understand how to ethically
act and know what is right from wrong, that someone has to explore
life and know the many ethics integrated in this life and form his own
unique ethical thinking that that person believes as right, such a thing
would lead that person to a sense of fulfillment. This is not saying that
that person should go against all ethics and argue with them, he can
agree with a certain type of ethic if he believes it is right or wrong, that
is when he logically comprehends the reasons behind the making of
that moral ethic, thus also resulting in your own view. Religion and
ethics and reality and ethics are ethically not common, although
maybe the religions set forth to the foundation of todays ethics which
can be considered the construct of our own world; it is basically the
modern version of religions ethics. Therefore what religion perceives
as right and wrong shouldnt be set aside and one shouldnt be stuck in
the idea that only religion is right.
References
(BBC,2016)

(Wikipedia,2016)
(Anne Bell, 2016)
Dawkins,2006 (a book)
http://www.humanreligions.info/secular_morals.html#Religion (Vexen
Crabtree, 2014)