It can be seen as a good approach to morality as it does not allow people from different denominations such as cultures or where you are born or in different situation they may find themselves to build their own moral rules and framework to life, it is personal but is guided by these innate rules. Religious people also share natural law ideas as they argue that there is an eternal unchanging part of morality which remains unchanged regardless of personal opinions and preferences. They believe that God created them with a purpose and that all the rules guiding them from natural law help them to fulfil this purpose. Christianity has a great deal of support for the view that there is a natural law of morality. The Christian understanding of this concept is based largely upon the work of Thomas Aquinas as he explained that faith and reason are closely related.
Now it is considered offensive and unusual, therefore deviant. It can be difficult to give a clear definition of deviance as a lot of it depends on people’s values and opinions. What one person views as deviant behaviour another may view as normal. Also deviant behaviour is not always bad; there is good and odd deviant behaviour. This makes it harder to define as classifying behaviour requires taking a moral standpoint and judging.
At least, if someone did, that person never got enough support to make any type of change. Their system of justice came directly from their religion. Therefore, the people had to deal with laws that were rather strict and favored certain members of society more than others. Had the people questioned this system, they could have made a code that was fair to all and not as harsh. Unfortunately, the people of Mesopotamia never challenged their way of thinking and had to deal with the harshness of the Code.
Within the meaning of this interpretation, Jesus was a rebel, yet He did not campaign for the achievement of the aim through violence. The policy He followed to attain it was moral regeneration through peaceful means. Jesus directed His teachings and actions to establish equality among men. He also advocated justice and fair play for all irrespective of the position or status in the society. He did not encourage the violation of established rules and regulation.
Why Not Eighteen? Why is it legal for an eighteen-year-old to be able to sacrifice their life for their country, to get married, and to vote, but illegal for them to drink? The controversy and arguments for lowering the drinking age have been debated for years. Beginning with the early 1900s, the eighteenth amendment was ratified and had outlawed the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages in the United States following the Prohibition Movement. However, this amendment was ineffective in its enforcement and people continued to smuggle and consume alcohol as freely as they wanted.
Many people believe that morality is dependent is religion and morality is based on the religious scholars and holy books. There is no point in morality of God hadn’t set the moral values in the first place. However, some also say that humans only behave morally because they’re scared of God and any punishment to follow. There are several approaches that are taken when attempting to work out the relationship between religion and morality. ‘Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved?’ In Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma, Plato is asking ‘is x good because God loves it or does God love x because x is good?’ An example of this is murder; is murder wrong because God says it is or is murder wrong because it is wrong morally?
The difference between charity and duty in societies are the level at which each word and the associated actions that belong with these words are revered. The idea of duty is associated with obligations something that you have to do. In our society, it is considered a violation to ignore your duty, showing there is little room for discretion. While charity though revered allows for a varying degree of discretion. Charity is not an obligation, “giving aid would be a good thing to do but it would not be wrong not to do it” (Gilabert, 2007).
Laws were created to limit and contain harm to others, and keep order throughout the country. The law against polygamy provides none of these; it is merely the choice of numerous people wanting to marry. The government does not decide who we are to marry, this would be considered a violation of our rights. Therefore why is it acceptable for the government to determine the number of people in a marriage? The law against polygamy is a law based on morals.
The main issue here is not that America lacks the presence of religion the problem is that the US separates religious views from the state and therefore they make laws based on ethics and what is deemed right by society and not what any particular religious teaching deemed as right, if America attempts to make their laws based on religious laws then in order to eliminate bias and chaos they would have to include the laws of every religion and every sub-sections of each religion in the country and we can see how difficult that could be for law makers. On the other hand, law makers in the three religious countries that I mentioned they do not have that problem since there is only one dominating religion and the majority of the citizens are a part of or in agreement with the laws and teachings of that religion. And with that said whenever religion is the corner stone of a country it is most likely that gay rights will be frowned upon and will definitely have no room
The study of religious belief hasn’t changed my view of religion or my faith. It has however, enhanced my view that religion cannot be run counterpart to government control. The majority of all current issues in the world have some sort of religious connection. Now I don’t mean all issues between governments are due to religious belief, but it does have a significant impact. In my personal opinion all connections between the government and religion need to be abolished.