In Mavrodes article, “Religion and the Queerness of Morality,” he uses the theory of Bertrand Russell that describes a world that is Godless. In which men occur as accidental atomic collections and exist only until the point of death as a basis for claiming that secular morality is an inadequate method for providing reasons for people to be moral. He calls this world the Russellian world where there are Russellian benefits such as; a long and content life that is filled with sexual pleasure and a good reputation amongst peers. However these “Russellian” benefits exist outside the Russellian world. At the same time this world created by Russell does not have spiritual benefits, aka heaven and the life after death theory. Therefore in this world that Russellian created the only benefits and losses are of those that Russell also created. Mavrodes then identifies that Russell makes it quite clear that some moral obligations are consistent with the real world and would end with a bad moral result, such as paying off a debt. Further Mavrodes states that since there is no afterlife and no higher judgment that there is no real incentive to be moral. Mavrodes brings up several arguments that come across him. He states that one is, that it would be in everyone’s best interest for everybody, including oneself, to be moral. However in a Russellian world it is only the best interest to be moral if everyone else is also being genuinely moral. It would be ideal if everyone in the world was to act morally, however that is not, and will never be the case. And although your efforts of being moral may be great, you cannot control the actions of others through the hardest of efforts.
Many argue that secular morality does not work, and that with it there cannot be real morals with no God (higher judgment) to “enforce” these laws. The say that secular morality is based on negative motivation and negative motivation will not get people to follow rules. Mavrodes argues that religious morality is also based on negative motivation, a different light is just shined down in it, giving it a different, brighter glow. Mavrodes argues that if secular morality runs on negative motivation so does religious morality. In the sense that Christians, or people of religious morality follow there morals in fear that they will be condemned by their God, that they will be cast into hell for eternity, they fear that the will be damned, or forced into undesirable conditions of purgatory before making the cut into heaven. Mavrodes point is that it could be argued that secular ethics are replacing religious ethics in most people’s everyday life. Although many people may say that their ethical and moral behaviors stem from a religious background, Mavrodes states that his is not the case, and those principles stem from another place entirely. Most commonly from egoism, whereas the decisions made by an individual are made because they will provide results that are best for the individual making the decisions…
No comments:
Post a Comment