Essay --

In Iris Murdoch’s â€Å"Morality and Religion† the author, an English novelist, makes many arguments that writers can either agree with or disagree. She talks about morality and religion and the philosophy behind the two. Murdoch’s main argument is whether there can be morality without religion. She asserts her view of morality and religion by defining religion, explaining the differences between the two while questioning both, and analyzing virtue and duty. By comparing and contrasting morality and religion she makes her view ambivalent and complex therefore letting her readers decide whether or not religion is necessary for morality. While some writers extend Murdoch’s claims other writers like Aristotle complicate her view of religion and morality. Iris Murdoch starts her argument by stating that â€Å"there is only one way to acquire religion and that is through being taught it as a small child† (363). She sees religion as something that can only be attained when one is a child. She then claims that â€Å"people who take up religion as adults are merely playing at it† (Murdoch 363). By stating this, the question of whether there can be morality without religion comes into mind. If religion is needed to have morals and religion can only be attained as children that would mean that adults who weren’t raised religious don’t have morals since they are only â€Å"playing at it†. But if religion doesn’t define whether people have morals then that shows how religion isn’t necessary for someone to be moral. Murdoch is basically stating that people who take up religion as adults don’t truly know the meaning of faith and religion yet that doesn’t necessarily mean they donâ⠂¬â„¢t have any morals. A writer that complicates Murdoch’s claim is Basil Mitchell, autho... ...iveness is important to religion and it is the duty of people to forgive in religion therefore there is a relationship between both. Murdoch separates religion and duty but Lauritzen complicates her view by explaining how duty comes from religion and forgiveness is an example of that. In Iris Murdoch’s â€Å"Morality and Religion† the author questions whether or not religion is necessary for morality. She is very ambivalent with her answer as she explains the similarities and differences between morality and religion but never specifically choosing one side. Many writers extend and complicate Murdoch’s arguments but only for readers to get a better understanding of both concepts. This is significant because it helps readers better understand morality and religion and they can decide for themselves whether religion is necessary for morality or if morality is just natural. Essay -- In Iris Murdoch’s â€Å"Morality and Religion† the author, an English novelist, makes many arguments that writers can either agree with or disagree. She talks about morality and religion and the philosophy behind the two. Murdoch’s main argument is whether there can be morality without religion. She asserts her view of morality and religion by defining religion, explaining the differences between the two while questioning both, and analyzing virtue and duty. By comparing and contrasting morality and religion she makes her view ambivalent and complex therefore letting her readers decide whether or not religion is necessary for morality. While some writers extend Murdoch’s claims other writers like Aristotle complicate her view of religion and morality. Iris Murdoch starts her argument by stating that â€Å"there is only one way to acquire religion and that is through being taught it as a small child† (363). She sees religion as something that can only be attained when one is a child. She then claims that â€Å"people who take up religion as adults are merely playing at it† (Murdoch 363). By stating this, the question of whether there can be morality without religion comes into mind. If religion is needed to have morals and religion can only be attained as children that would mean that adults who weren’t raised religious don’t have morals since they are only â€Å"playing at it†. But if religion doesn’t define whether people have morals then that shows how religion isn’t necessary for someone to be moral. Murdoch is basically stating that people who take up religion as adults don’t truly know the meaning of faith and religion yet that doesn’t necessarily mean they donâ⠂¬â„¢t have any morals. A writer that complicates Murdoch’s claim is Basil Mitchell, autho... ...iveness is important to religion and it is the duty of people to forgive in religion therefore there is a relationship between both. Murdoch separates religion and duty but Lauritzen complicates her view by explaining how duty comes from religion and forgiveness is an example of that. In Iris Murdoch’s â€Å"Morality and Religion† the author questions whether or not religion is necessary for morality. She is very ambivalent with her answer as she explains the similarities and differences between morality and religion but never specifically choosing one side. Many writers extend and complicate Murdoch’s arguments but only for readers to get a better understanding of both concepts. This is significant because it helps readers better understand morality and religion and they can decide for themselves whether religion is necessary for morality or if morality is just natural.