Examining Religion and Morality- Murdoch and Nietzsche

In their essays, Murdoch and Nietzsche both approach the topic of relating morality and religion, but the two have very different views and styles of presenting their points. It is obvious that religion and morality have ties with each other given their similar focus on such things as what it means to be a “good” person. Murdoch does not take a definite position on religion but rather examines the different sides of it. Simply being a religious person does not make you more moral, and the converse is also true. This supports the saying that my dad would always tell me, “Sitting in church doesn't make you a Christian”. This is to say that going through the motions of religion is not enough; for it to have a strong connection with morals you must mean what you are doing and do it for the right reasons. I believe that religion can help a person become more moral, but it cannot be credited with being the only contributing factor. As Murdoch points out, other factors such as duty are separate from even morality and govern how we act.

                On the other hand, Nietzsche out rightly condemns religion as everything that is wrong with society.  He claims that it leads people down the wrong path by suggesting detrimental ways to reach morality. I found his exploration of moral formulas very interesting. Nietzsche says that the formulas religion comes up with for being a good person are too strict. I am a practicing catholic, however I agree with him on this point. I have always found the church’s teachings to be too specific. What is good for one person or one situation is not necessarily the best moral choice for another. Although I do think that some of Nietzsche’s points have merit, I feel that he goes too far by condemning religion in such an absolute manner. The connection between religion and morality is a complex issue that cannot be defined as either wholly good or wholly bad. Murdoch’s approach, while at first seeming confused or even hypocritical, overall seems to present a better argument in my opinion than Nietzsche as she is not so absolute in her judgments. 

Reading Log 3: “Toward a Universal Ethics”

Gazzaniga brings a new dimension to the debate on universal ethics in this excerpt. I found his inclusion of the trolley problem especially interesting. I did a research project in ninth grade on evolutionary psychology so this was not my first experience with this ethical dilemma. As Gazzaniga explains, “Most people claim they won’t throw a nearby person in front of the trolley. At the same time, they will pull a switch and divert the train to another track, which will spare the five people even though the switched train will run into and kill a single person.” There have been countless books written on the subject, and a real life situation even occurred in San Francisco with a cable car. In my own research I took the problem a step further and created a survey with questions that were different variations on the trolley problem. They included variables such as whether or not you knew that person (family member, friend, etc.) and how long you had to make the decision.  

My results supported the author’s claim that while people have trouble explaining why they made their decisions, they tend to favor preservation of people who are close to them either emotionally or simply physically. These findings support that humans most likely do have a universal ethical code but it is derived from evolutionary instincts and impulses in the brain that help us survive rather that from a deity or general human sense of what is “right”. As humans our brains have been programmed over thousands of years to respond to the plight of others because in general if we help others they will be more likely to help us. Scientists and philosophers may still be far from finding out the full truth behind human ethics, but I believe that evolution and our brain activity will play a huge role in finding out.

Collaborative Project Introductory Assignment

My choice of assignments in order are:

Politics and Social Movements: After taking AP Gov in high school I became interested in politics and the way government is run in our country. While we have arguably one of the best systems in the world, there are still massive amounts of problems and inefficiencies with everything from election rules to congressional voting procedures that could be fixed if work was done to implement solutions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/21/peoples-climate-march_n_5857902.html

This article recounts the Climate March that occurred this past weekend in New York City. It was a grassroots movement in hopes of inspiring political leaders who will be attending the United Nations Climate Summit to work towards stricter standards on climate issues. This showcases how grassroots movements have become a major part of modern day American government. I found it interesting how the movement combines all walks of life: young, old, politicians, celebrities, and religious leaders.

Nature: I have always been very interested in nature and making sure that the environment is protected and taken care of for future generations. I think many people grossly underestimate that role that nature plays in our lives and take for granted the many benefits we receive from it. This ties in with my major, environmental engineering, and I would like to look more into the ethical issues within this topic.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/animal-rights-group-peta-accuses-4190961

This article discusses the opposition that the Dublin Zoo has faced after a baby zebra was recently born there. The zoo claims that it is part of a captive breeding program and that the baby will live a happy life and be able to bond with its mother. On the other hand PETA believes that the zoo is using the baby as a money maker, accusing the zoo of incarceration of animals. This touches on the larger ethical issues of zoos which is something I find very interesting.

Genetics: I have always found it fascinating how a basic code could program so much of who we in everything from our personalities to what diseases we will get throughout our lives. I love hearing about new discoveries that are made on innovative ways genetic technology will benefit or could potentially harm our lives.

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/530631/gene-silencing-drugs-finally-show-promise/

This article is about how a new type of gene therapy RNA interference that was thought would never work, but has recently made a massive breakthrough. RNA was always thought to have promise but once testing was started there were many problems with getting it to actually work. The article tells how researches have now found a way to get the RNA into the liver. The work could help cure things such as cancer, high cholesterol, and many others. This breakthrough could be the start of a whole new type of treatment for a huge variety of diseases.

Reading Log 2: "The Case against Character"

I have always believed that it is hard to define people’s personalities, morals, and ethics in absolute terms and this excerpt only furthered these feelings for me. I agree with the situationist mentality that the environment a person is in will affect their decisions as well as  what they believe is a fundamentally ethical action. As Appiah says, “We all know all know that such traits aren't served up in a fixed combination like a categorical Happy Meal”. Most people go through many varying states of ethical conducts throughout the day as they cycle from work, school, sports, etc.

In high school, I knew a person was incredibly smart, took many AP classes, and would have never considered taking any short cuts to receive or further her academic success. She was a prime example of a model student. However, after school when it came to the cross country team she could not have been a more polar opposite. She cut corners on courses, walked when the coach wasn’t looking and would think of any possible way to do less work and still be a part of the team. What stood out to me was how long it took my teammates and I to notice what was happening. Since she worked so hard academically we had correspondence bias and believed that she put the same hard work into everything she did. Unfortunately this was not the case but it was a valuable lesson for the girls on the team that people’s ideas of what is ethical are not always consistent.

The anecdote from Lydia Davis used to start the article was very relatable and connected with many of my experiences as well. We all have different people inside of us such as the “playful man” or the compassionate man”, and each of these different people has a slightly different set of morals. What is important to remember is that each of these situations and personalities combine together creating a personal set of ethics for each individual to live by.

Reading Log 1: Response to "Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight"

After reading about the Balinese cockfights, I find it impossible not to agree with the author, that the cockfights are an integral part and representation of Balinese culture. These people shelter themselves from the outside world but the cockfights shed light onto the value they put on hierarchy, loyalty, and respect of tradition.  As Geertz says, “it is a Balinese reading of a Balinese experience; a story they tell themselves about themselves” (10). After decades of oppression and poverty, the Balinese people hold onto these cockfights desperately as a way to maintain their culture and have something uniquely their own to control.

At first when I was reading, I thought the first part where the author described his initial experience of being isolated in the village and the second where he explains the cockfights were fairly unrelated and disconnected. However, upon closer inspection, I realized how truly connected they are. The Balinese are very private and do not take well to outsiders. The author and his wife had to prove themselves before they could be included. Similarly, in a cockfight lower class members are discarded to the outside of the circle and hardly acknowledged. It takes a large amount of work and social prestige to be accepted and included into the inner circles, especially the large cockfights. Another parallel can be seen in the loyalty these people feel to others who they consider their own. Once Geertz was accepted they would do almost anything for him, just as they are willing to sometimes place a losing bet to support their kin or village. I think this loyalty can be seen in other cultures as well. Protecting your own is a universal theme seen around the world from the beginning of human history.

In America an activity like this would never be possible. Our culture places the focus on more winning for the sake of money than the societal meaning behind it. Balinese people do not question the authority of the official overseeing the match. In American sports, coaches, players, and fans all constantly question and complain about calls. Overall, I thought the article provided an insight into a very different culture, that if not for the author’s instinctual cowardice to run from danger, many would not get the opportunity to learn about.