Yeager Hudson "The Independence of Ethics from Religion"

The Independence of Ethics from Religion-Yeager Hudson

In Yeager Hudson’s, “The Independence of Ethics from Religion” he stresses two ideas, moral rules and moral duty. Moral rules are obligatory because god commands them, they are right or wrong based on whether or not if follows a command given by god. Moral duty is known by reason, part of universal law called natural law, that is true are present/true in all cultures at all times. Moral duty applied is, if god commanded us to hurt innocent people god would be wrong, just as god can’t make 3+3=7. If god is omniscient god would never command such a thing in the first place.

In the class discussion we began by warming up with a scenario that was provided by Mr. Bollinger-Danielson. The scenario was a couple that was trying to cheat the hotel into letting them use a coupon that they found, even though they had already used a coupon the previous night. The couple was discussing how they were going to approach the front desk in the elevator. There was another man in the elevator who witnessed the entire interaction. This man was also headed to the front desk and the man happened to be an investor for the hotel. As a class we discussed what moral action the man should take. Some students argued that the man should tell the administration that the coupon system is being abused because it will help keep future clients/guests honest and moral. Other students believed that the best thing the man could do, would be to confront the couple, to stand up for what is honest and then leave it up to the couple to decide what to do. The conversation slowly turned away from the specific scenario and more towards other ideas that can be applied at a larger level. The question was asked what is most beneficial to the most people and where the line is between honesty and being a snitch. The class agreed for the most part that the answer will vary depending on the situation for both of those questions. Two ideas that stood out towards the end of the coupon discussion were that actions do not equal what ought to happen and gut instinct is not always what is ethically right.

“Morality is a matter of rational inquiry. It involves the exercise of a faculty—reunion—that is the same in all normal human without regard to culture, religion, or time in history” (304). Moral disputes come from different applications/beliefs of different cultures, but the basic law always stays the same, it is just applied to different types of situations. Morals are universal, and the moral natural laws are what explain how humans ought to act.

The class discussed how you can choose to do the wrong thing easily because the laws are breakable. In any action that you take, you have to know that you might be wrong. The question was raised, whether or not emotions play a role in rational thinking. The class discussed the idea that your ethical stance can be changed by your emotions.

The most interesting part and most controversial part of the discussion was about genetalia tribe mutilation and a tradition in an Eskimo tribe. We talked about the value of life, value of gender rights, value not to harm, value other cultures, value other religions and the right to choose. It was hard for me to choose where I stand and what I think is moral or immoral, because as a human being with compassion I am horrified at how these two different tribes treat different members of their tribe. But at the same time, as an American I don’t understand their culture or religious beliefs. America always projects American morals/ideals on other cultures and it’s hard for me to know what parts are my own human morals versus what parts are my American morals that I have inherently adopted.