Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s Argument on Morality Without God Critical Analysis

Assignment Question

Select the reading by Sinott-Armstrong.(Please see the attached file) In your own words, briefly explain the argument made by the philosopher (i.e. what is the thesis and how is the thesis supported). Provide a possible moral objection or challenge to at least one of the arguments that this philosopher makes – even if you agree with their conclusions. Please read the requirements below and follow them. * Use only the course reading I submitted and do not use outside sources. * When referencing the reading, simply provide the author’s last name and page number for the claim/idea etc. that you wish to refer to. For example, “Smith claims that there is no “i” in “TEAM”…(Smith, p. 67). A works cited page is not required.

Assignment Answer

In this assignment, we will delve into Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s argument presented in his work “Morality Without God” (Sinnott-Armstrong 228). We will discuss the thesis put forward by the philosopher, how he supports this thesis, and consider a possible moral objection or challenge to one of his arguments.

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, a distinguished philosopher at Duke University, has contributed significantly to the field of ethics, particularly concerning the relationship between morality and religious belief (Sinnott-Armstrong 228). His work, “Morality Without God,” challenges the conventional notion that morality is intrinsically tied to religious foundations.

The central thesis of Sinnott-Armstrong’s argument is that morality can exist independently of the belief in God (Sinnott-Armstrong 228). He argues that moral principles can be grounded in secular and non-religious foundations. Rather than relying on divine command theory, which asserts that moral obligations are based on the will of a higher being, Sinnott-Armstrong proposes that moral values and obligations can be justified through secular means.

Sinnott-Armstrong supports this thesis through a multifaceted approach. He draws from various branches of philosophy, empirical moral psychology, and neuroscience to argue that morality is a product of human evolution and social cooperation (Sinnott-Armstrong 228). He emphasizes that moral judgments are not contingent upon religious beliefs but are deeply ingrained in human nature. The philosopher also explores alternative moral theories, such as utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, which do not require a divine foundation (Sinnott-Armstrong 228).

One of the key arguments made by Sinnott-Armstrong is that secular moral systems can provide a more robust and inclusive framework for ethical discussions (Sinnott-Armstrong 228). He contends that a morality grounded in reason and empathy, rather than religious doctrine, is more accessible and acceptable to a diverse society. This argument aligns with the principles of pluralism and multiculturalism, advocating for a moral system that transcends religious boundaries.

Evolution of Morality and Secular Foundations

Sinnott-Armstrong’s argument begins by examining the origins of morality and how it evolved over time (Sinnott-Armstrong 228). He draws on the findings of empirical moral psychology and neuroscience to assert that moral behavior is deeply ingrained in human nature. This is supported by studies that suggest humans have an innate sense of empathy and fairness, which are crucial elements in moral decision-making.

Moreover, the philosopher discusses the role of social cooperation in shaping moral values (Sinnott-Armstrong 228). He argues that the development of morality was essential for early human communities to thrive. As humans formed social groups, cooperation and a shared sense of morality became indispensable for their survival (Sinnott-Armstrong 228). This, he posits, led to the evolution of moral principles that are not dependent on religious beliefs but rather on the practical necessities of human societies.

Secular Ethics: Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics

Sinnott-Armstrong also explores alternative ethical theories that do not rely on religious foundations (Sinnott-Armstrong 228). He discusses utilitarianism, which asserts that the right action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or utility. This theory can be applied independently of religious beliefs, making it a strong contender for secular ethics (Sinnott-Armstrong 228). It provides a clear framework for moral decision-making without requiring divine guidance.

Another ethical theory he examines is Kantian ethics, which emphasizes the importance of moral duty and rationality (Sinnott-Armstrong 228). Kantian ethics can stand alone as a secular moral framework, as it does not necessitate belief in a higher power. It focuses on the inherent dignity and rationality of individuals as the foundation for morality.

The Inclusiveness of Secular Morality

One of the significant advantages of a secular moral framework, as argued by Sinnott-Armstrong, is its inclusiveness (Sinnott-Armstrong 228). It provides a common ground for ethical discussions that people from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds can participate in. By basing morality on reason, empathy, and social cooperation, it transcends religious boundaries and promotes a more inclusive moral discourse.

Moreover, secular ethics can be more easily accessible to individuals who do not adhere to any particular religious faith (Sinnott-Armstrong 228). It offers a moral compass that doesn’t require religious belief, making it relevant in a secular and increasingly pluralistic world.

Possible Moral Objection: The Divine Command Theory

While Sinnott-Armstrong presents a compelling argument for secular morality, it’s essential to consider possible objections to his thesis. One common objection comes from a perspective deeply rooted in religious faith. Some individuals argue that morality is inherently tied to divine command, and without God, there can be no ultimate moral authority. They might challenge Sinnott-Armstrong’s assertion that secular ethics can provide a sufficient basis for morality.

From this perspective, moral values are seen as emanating directly from the will of a higher being. Those who object to secular morality may argue that without a divine foundation, there is no objective standard for distinguishing right from wrong (Sinnott-Armstrong 228). In the absence of a divine command, moral values become subjective and arbitrary, which could lead to moral relativism.

Concerns of Moral Relativism

A moral objection to Sinnott-Armstrong’s thesis is the potential consequence of moral relativism in a secular framework. Moral relativism posits that what is morally right or wrong is subjective and varies from one individual or culture to another. Critics argue that without a divine moral authority, secular ethics can lead to moral relativism (Sinnott-Armstrong 228).

The concern here is that if morality is not anchored in a transcendent source, it becomes malleable and subject to cultural shifts and personal interpretations. What one society deems morally acceptable, another may not. The absence of a universal moral standard could make it challenging to address complex moral dilemmas that require clear ethical guidance (Sinnott-Armstrong 228).

Conclusion

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s work “Morality Without God” presents a compelling argument challenging the conventional belief that morality is inseparable from religious foundations. He argues that morality can be grounded in secular and non-religious principles, drawing support from various fields, including moral psychology and philosophy (Sinnott-Armstrong 228). While his thesis has strong points, it is not without moral objections, especially from those who advocate for the inseparability of morality and religion.

The debate surrounding the relationship between morality and religion is an ongoing and complex one. While Sinnott-Armstrong makes a robust case for secular ethics, objections rooted in religious faith underscore the diversity of perspectives on this topic. Ultimately, the question of whether morality can exist without God remains a subject of philosophical inquiry and ethical reflection.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the central thesis of Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s argument in “Morality Without God”?

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong argues that morality can exist independently of the belief in God, and he supports this thesis through various philosophical and empirical approaches.

How does Sinnott-Armstrong support the idea of secular morality?

Sinnott-Armstrong draws on moral psychology, neuroscience, and alternative moral theories to support the idea that morality can be grounded in secular principles such as reason, empathy, and social cooperation.

What is the moral objection raised against the idea of secular morality in the assignment?

The moral objection comes from a perspective rooted in religious faith, asserting that morality is inherently tied to divine command and challenging the sufficiency of secular ethics.

What is the potential consequence of moral relativism in a secular moral framework, as discussed in the assignment?

Moral relativism, discussed as a concern in the assignment, implies that without a divine moral authority, secular ethics could lead to subjective and culturally variable moral standards, making it challenging to address complex moral dilemmas.

Why is the inclusiveness of secular morality considered an advantage in the assignment?

The inclusiveness of secular morality is considered an advantage because it provides a common ground for ethical discussions among people from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds, promoting a more inclusive moral discourse.