History of relationship Essay
History of relationship
The moral naturalists believed that moral responses are a result of a long history of relationship. The naturalists argue that we observe people as they live thus one do not have to rely on metaphysics or exposure. The moral naturalists were not able to elaborate the reasons as to why morality is very important. The fact that if at all morality is natural, why are we struggling to maintain moral standards, yet it’s in the process of evolution. Moreover, the naturalist relied on science given that they related man’s morality with primates and that due to evolution, morals do change (Wikipedia. org, 2010).
They argued that moral judgment is a result of intuition which makes us to come up with justifications after the facts. Moral naturalist fails in accepting that transcendence and the sacred plays a most important role in every human in the society. They consider gentleness, fairness and kindness to be moral life while neglecting awesomeness, greatness and transcendent morality satisfaction. In addition, it lays emphasis on group cohesion via cooperative virtues e. g. empathy over individual dissent which encourages strives for recognition and superiority.
The moral naturalist show that religion has led to increased cases of abortion, murder, suicide and sexual immorality which in the real sense are not the case (Brooks, 2010). They support their view by arguing that belief and worship of God is unnecessary for healthy society in view of the fact that it contribute to many social problems. In support for Brooks against moral naturalism, its evidenced that each community have got different beliefs and coming up with a common moral for all society it can prove to be disastrous.
This is because the motivating factor that makes a person to do what is right or wrong is what accounts for morality. This study contrast religious believers’ attitude that religion is the best in fostering moral and ethical behaviors for a healthy society. On the other hand, the religious groups believe that religion has got many benefits to the society for it helps in dealing with crime, and all other vices in the society thus lowering them and offering social beneficial.
Furthermore, the study analysis shows that devotion of religious believers contribute to many ills in the society which according to Christians and other believers is not true for they consider religion as a source of blessings to their society for it carries God blessings. The moral naturalist’s favors secularism that it is more effective in securing social cohesion and non-violent resolution in the society of conflict unlike religious believers on the ground that moral order is not instituted on religion.
The religious naturalist focuses on the real meaning of life. They claim that the world should be understood in religious way without a detailed system of beliefs. They endeavor to ensure that human need to value their lives and also recognize that they are part of nature. Thus they should accept science for it tries to provide reliable information about nature and the world at large. The moral naturalist claims that the religious believers have got a strong sense of right and wrong making them to indulge in vices like the secular ones.
And that some religion grants people doors for committing crimes like the terrorist Muslims who blow themselves up with confidence that by so doing they will go straight to paradise. This is another shortcoming of the moral naturalist given that religious believer do have a common moral on knowing what is wrong and right since they have a moral compass from their creator (MST, 2010). When one act contrary to morality, he becomes blasphemous and thus evolved intuitions do not guarantee the right or consistence answers to any moral dilemma.
The Americans do not agree with these scientific claims of morality. Most of them especially those who support Christianity support consider religion to be the promoters of morals leading to a decent society which is free from any sort of wickedness. Moreover, the theory can not find access to the American society given that most of them are Christians who believe in the existence of God. Though the scientist argue that morality is a biological adaptation and yet people are steered by their deepest cares and concerns.
The study of scientist on countries with the lowest social ills revealed that non religious nation had less cases of social ills compared to religious nation, they concluded that religious belief is the main contributor of social evils (Hauser & Singer, 2005). In addition, most informed Americans will not agree to the naturalist theoretical emphasis that human morality has evolved together with those of other primates. Given that naturalism involves a deep respect to science methodology which can be proved wrong or right depending on the argument posed.
Naturalism therefore can’t be a substantive proposal for it’s a result of science. In addition, attention will only be paid on what is morally upright to the society and not what scientists are trying to imply (Wisdomresearch. org, 2010). Rationality is to be the key concern of the Americans in ensuring morality has been maintained in the society hence much attention is left out of naturalism on the ground of it being just a research program and not real. Works cited Brooks, David. The Moral Naturalists, 2010.
Retrieved on 1st August 2010 from, http://www. nytimes. com/2010/07/23/opinion/23brooks.html? _r=2&ref=davidbrooks Hauser, M. & Singer, P. (n d). Morality without Religion. Retrieved on 1st August 2010 from, http://www. wjh. harvard. edu/~mnkylab/publications/recent/HauserSingerMoralRelig05. pdf MST, Participation in the MST, 2010. Retrieved on 1st August 2010 from, http://wjh1. wjh. harvard. edu/~moral/test. php Wikipedia. org, Religious Naturalism, 2010. Retrieved on 1st August 2010 from, http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Religious_naturalism Wisdomresearch. org, Defining Wisdom, 2010. Retrieved on 1st August 2010 from, http://wisdomresearch. org/Arete/GreeneVideo. aspx