Ethics, Religion, and the Meaning of Life
Ethics and morals attempt to explain human behavior and the underlying moral beliefs that distinguish right from wrong. Gordon Graham’s book “Eight theories of Ethics” reflects on the credence and theories that underpin human deportment and conduct. This paper summarizes the fundamental concepts of “ethics, religion, and the meaning of life” in Chapter 9 of Graham’s book. The section examines the religious perspectives, knowledge of good and evil, and the purpose of life.
The Meaning of Life
Graham starts his argument by explaining how various ethical theories have attempted to elucidate the meaning of life. He uses the conceptualizations of egoism and hedonism to explicate a person’s instinct to attain a good life and pursue his or her desires. The best life for an egoist, according to Graham (2014), is that which is typified by the possession of wealth and the capacity to do whatever they want and be famous for it. While egoists pursue wants, interests, and desires, hedonists chase the need for pleasure. They believe that the best life is that which you enjoy the most.
Graham (2004) notes that the hedonist’s viewpoint is not adequate because life has a more significant meaning than mere pleasure. As Aristotle noted, “There is more to life than pleasure” (as cited in Graham, p. 177). According to the author, the pursuit of a person’s happiness and well-being (eudaimonia) is the supreme human value because it connects with people’s innate function (Graham, 2004). Eudaimonia is a concept in the natural and virtue theory of ethics. Graham questions what the typical way of living is when individuals have several living methods and whether adhering to the “typic way of living” will resolve moral conflicts. He also notes that naturalist theories overlook an essential aspect of human life – freedom.
Existentialism theory reinforces the aspect of personal freedom and rejects the concepts of naturalism. The chapter incorporates conceptualizations such as the radical liberty of individuals, the absurdity of human existence, anguish, and authenticity in existentialism analysis. The author notes that if the principles of autonomy and authenticity are all that matters to people, then it is good to live as an actual villain rather than a real hero (Graham, 2004). Kantianism underscores the significance of rationality by positing that logicality is as equally important as human freedom.
Freedom and rationality could all be integrated into moral life. The Kantianism perspective gives crucial value to human will and intention over the consequences of people’s actions. According to Kant, an individual’s morality is defined by their commitment to virtuous duty (Graham, 2004). Although individuals have the freedom to act against their moral obligation, conforming to ethical rules is the key to leading a good life. Thus, the conception of a perfect life, according to Kantianism, is satisfying our moral responsibility. On the contrary, the author notes that Kantianism does not address happiness and personal motivation and desires, which are crucial aspects of human life.
Unlike Kantianism, utilitarianism underscores the concept of human happiness. It asserts that it is morally acceptable to prioritize other people’s interests. It answers the question of why people should strive to live virtuously. Utilitarianists argue that the end will always justify the means; it emphasizes consequences more than will and intention. However, utilitarianism does not explain why individuals should execute their moral duty or value their social obligations. On the other hand, Contractualism attempts to create a link between personal desire and social responsibility; it addresses moral authority, consent, and the justifiable or legitimate forms of reasoning.
Given the limitation of the ethical theories, Graham (2004) wonders whether religion can help understand the connection between personal vendettas and social obligations. However, in his analysis, the author concludes that religion is as defective as other ethical theories. It is more concerned with pleasing God than meeting people’s needs because a human’s relationship with God is based on God’s will and not his/her wellbeing. He asserts that religion is also unhelpful in resolving moral conflicts because it typically provides contradictory prescriptions of the good life.
For example, he notes that Christianity and Islam have contradictory views on marriage (monogamy/polygamy), even though they both receive moral guidance from God. Additionally, religion cannot be used to distinguish what is objectively reasonable from what is subjectively acceptable. The ethical dilemma is perfectly poised by Socrate, who asked, “Is something good because God approves of it, or does He approve of it because it is good?” (as cited in Graham, 2004, p.187). The chapter does not provide any viable solutions to the question regarding the meaning of life. Gordon concludes by asking whether a good life exists and if the conception of life and happiness are different.
Conclusion
In summary, Graham finds that religion, similar to the eight theories of ethics, is deficient in explaining the concept of the good life. The author notes that Kantianism and utilitarianism fail to interlink the concepts of egoism, altruism, and satisfaction of human desires. He further highlights that fame and money are unsatisfactory and unworthy ambitions since they lack intrinsic value. An adequate theory should accommodate the moral duty to others, but at the same time, satisfy humans’ egotistical demands.
Reference
Graham, G. (2004). Ethics, religion, and the meaning of life. In eight theories of ethics (pp. 176–206). Routledge.