Essay 1: Assignment Topics and Instructions
Philosophy Student
Professor Name
PHIL 1301
29 May 2019
Religion and Morality: What’s the Connection?
[why this is a good title: it specifically relates to the main idea of the essay; the reader knows exactly what this essay will be about]
A conundrum of philosophers for centuries is “What is it to be human”? Many have tried to formulate an answer, but few have gotten close to achieving that goal. Ai Weiwei, an artist out of Germany [well done: always say who someone is rather than just giving a name, e.g. ‘Jane Doe, a professor of philosophy at Yale, says blah blah blah’], presents an answer that contains minimal details but significant meaning: it changes over time and is different for each person. His article “The Question We Must Keep Asking” [the writer of this essay should have also given the publication for the article, The New York Times; always give title, author, and publication the first time you refer to a newspaper article] provides an insight into his analysis of the question. He mentions that religion is an important influence on humanity. Religion plays a large role in the human experience and making it unique for everyone whether they participate or not. Some argue that religion provides a moral lifeline for its followers and others claim it has no effect on a person’s morals. The philosophical question posed in this essay is “Without religion would people become more, less, or be equally morally corrupt”? [well done: the focus of the essay is an analysis of a philosophical question, so that should be indicated in the introduction; the reader should know what question will be analyzed in the essay] While Weiwei provides a complex, intriguing answer to the first question, the second question is a bit more difficult yet important to explain, and two important views provide a counter argument to the article’s viewpoint on the philosophical question. [why this is a good thesis: the writer gives an indication of what will be discussed in the essay: the philosophical question being analyzed and how it will be discussed (in relation to counter arguments, in this case)]
[why this is a good introduction: after reading it, the reader knows he or she will be reading an essay about a philosophical question that relates to an article discussed in the essay and has a general idea of what will be discussed: philosophy as it relates to this question]
In the article, “The Question We Must Keep Asking” in the New York Times, the author Ai Weiwei attempts to describe his opinion on the question: “What is it to be human”? His answer is that there is no subjective answer that is the same throughout time; he claims that it is dependent on two factors: the person’s social, cultural, economic, and political experiences and the way he defines himself. Furthermore, he says that the answer is continually changing every day, and each experience a person has will influence his outlook on the topic. Weiwei points out that different institutions that are the backbone of each person’s life are changing every day as well; some are becoming stronger, and others are diminishing. These changes can challenge the views one had previously and cause the emergence of a completely different answer. The author then discusses how many of the cultural and moral changes that have occurred in the past are accredited to the posed question at the beginning. The only difference is the contexts of the time. According to Weiwei, people’s reluctance to tackle this question is the source of the majority of issues in the world today. Near the end of the article, the author focuses on two important rights and qualities that each person is entitled to, no matter the situation: self-definition and human dignity. If humankind loses these two qualities, then the answer to the original question becomes “nothing”. To conclude, the author states that everyone’s morals, faith, direction of life, and definition of a human are dependent on each person’s experiences and view of himself (Weiwei).
[why this is a good summary: it uses author tags and transitions (indicated in bold) to indicate the order of ideas in the original, it is objective (does not contain any evaluative or opinionated comments from the writer of this essay), and it clearly and succinctly conveys the original’s main ideas (not too much detail, and after reading the summary, someone has a general idea of the article’s main points)]
The main point of Weiwei’s article connects quite well to the posed philosophical question, “Without religion would people become more, less, or be equally morally corrupt”? Weiwei focuses on the point that the definition of a human is dependent on each person’s self-perception and free-thinking ability. These two qualities are the support system of each person’s way of life, which includes his morals, faith, and opinions (Weiwei). Since the author claims that one’s morals are based on his religion and other factors, the philosophical question seeks to understand if this point is actually true. This question has philosophical importance because if religion is proven to not have a positive effect on one’s morals, then religion could be viewed as obsolete, leading to significant changes in societal structure and the viewpoints of billions of people. The answer to this question could also cause a shift in opinions of various philosophical arguments regarding religion such as the mind-body problem and the existence of a soul. It is important for each person because the majority of the population practices in one version of faith or another, whether that be Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, or Islam. The negation of religion would drastically alter the majority’s way of life and belief structure that had been built over centuries. This could lead to unprecedented changes in culture and society. While there are many theories that take each side of the debate, two important ones that propose a world without religion would be equally morally corrupt are secular humanism and utilitarianism.
[The above paragraph addresses all the points given in the instructions for paragraph 3:
“Third Paragraph: A thorough discussion/explanation of the philosophical question to be analyzed in the essay
Here are some points you should address in this paragraph:
· How does the topic of the article you chose relate to this question?
· Why is this question of concern philosophically; in other words, what about this question makes it a philosophical question?
· Why does it matter how this question is answered? In other words, what is at stake in this question? Why do we care about it? Why is it important for everyone, not only philosophers?
· What other philosophers have addressed the question? (only mention those you intend to discuss in your essay) What philosophical theories or positions might help us discuss this question? (also, only mention those you intend to discuss in your essay)”]
One theory that aims to undermine the importance of religion in morality is secular humanism. [topic sentence for the paragraph: each body paragraph should have a topic sentence that expresses the main idea of the paragraph] Secular humanism refers to “a set of ethical and political values that is agnostic about religious claims and embraces a certain separation of church and state” (Gascoigne). Although those who subscribe to this theory usually have the same morals and ethics as Christian followers, they do not believe in God. However, they do not discredit that a god exists, but rather that they do not share in the belief of an all-powerful being. That key separation is the only substantial difference between the two discussed groups except their debates on “sexual ethics and bioethics” (Gascoigne). For example, Gough Whitlam, the Australian prime minister from 1972 to 1975 and a secular humanist [well done: always explain who people are when you mention them for the first time], said that his political goals during his 1972 campaign were “a commitment to human dignity, manifested in the pursuit of justice and motivated by a love of neighbor—a love of neighbor expressed, for example, in his passionate dedication to eliminating discrimination” (Gascoigne). These views are similar to the Christian belief that each person should be treated with the love and respect that God bestowed on humanity. Whitlam shows that a person does not need to believe in God or a structured religion to have a correct set of ethical values (Gascoigne). [well done: this sentence directly connects the topic of this paragraph, secular humanism, to the question being analyzed]
[why the above is a well-written paragraph: it has a topic sentence and stays focused on the idea expressed in the topic sentence; it explains what secular humanism is, rather than assuming that the reader knows; it discusses sources in a meaningful, relevant, and substantial way that supports the thesis of this essay; it uses transitions to connect ideas, making the paragraph coherent; it directly connects to the philosophical question being analyzed.]
While secular humanism holds similar beliefs to those in a religious structure, utilitarianism takes a completely different approach to the issue. [excellent transition from the previous paragraph to this paragraph] In utilitarianism, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Yim). The word happiness in this situation is described as “intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (Yim). No longer are ethical decisions based on some religious code but whether a decision will bring about the most pleasure to the majority. Pleasure is the point at which there is the least amount of pain possible but at the same time rich in enjoyment. Therefore, a right action is one that promotes the destruction of pain rather than the existence of it. While utilitarians do not say that their ethical decisions have more justification than those of another religious group, they believe that the source of moral guidance is significantly different. This follows the conclusion that utilitarianism claims that a world without religious influences would be equally morally corrupt compared to the modern world (Yim). [well done: this sentence directly connects the topic of this paragraph, utilitarianism, to the question being analyzed]
[why the above is a well-written paragraph: it has a topic sentence and stays focused on the idea expressed in the topic sentence; it explains some aspects of utilitarianism, rather than assuming that the reader is familiar with the theory; it discusses sources in a meaningful, relevant, and substantial way that supports the thesis of this essay; it uses transitions to connect ideas, making the paragraph coherent; it directly connects to the philosophical question being analyzed.]
While both theories contain valid points, I do not subscribe to either side. [excellent transition from the previous paragraph to this paragraph] Rather, I would align myself with the view that religion promotes a more morally good world. As a Catholic, I take my faith and its beliefs very seriously. While I do not think that my morals are higher than another person who does not believe in God, my belief is that religion provides a moral structure that acts as a support and guidance system for a believer of that certain religion. Without its presence, many people would be left wandering endlessly through life, looking for some moral code to subscribe to. A lack of guidance means more choices that could result in an immoral outcome. This can be problematic in many ways but mainly would cause the decrease in overall sentiment of morality of the world.
[why the above is a well-written paragraph: it has a topic sentence and stays focused on the idea expressed in the topic sentence; it gives the author’s views but is directly related to the philosophical question being analyzed.]
While the human experience and religion are closely related, the effect of religion creating a morally better world is a highly debated question that is difficult to answer. [excellent beginning to the conclusion; it directly refers to the question being analyzed.] While opposition to this point claims religious doctrine is not needed to live a morally good life, a structured doctrine allows a person to live by a guideline of rules to promote a morally good experience. This is clearly seen as secular humanist and Christians hold similar ethical beliefs, but believing in the religious doctrine allows a larger group of people to follow these beliefs and promote a society with a better set of morals, especially those people who are more easily swayed to the wrong when given the freedom of choice. As humans, we are naturally inclined to do what makes us feel good. This may be completely different from what the morally good choice is. If people treat each other with dignity and respect, as the majority of religious ideologies promote, the best possible moral world will come to fruition.
[why the above is a well-written conclusion: it relates directly to the main idea of the essay: the question being analyzed; it brings the essay to a close without simply repeating what has already been said in the essay; it brings up another point about why this philosophical question matters.]
· It is a specifically, explicitly philosophical essay, meaning that it is about philosophy from beginning to end; it discusses 2 philosophical theories and relates them to the question being analyzed
· It uses sources in a meaningful, substantial way, meaning that rather than simply mentioning sources, it discusses sources and relates them to the question being analyzed; also, the types of sources meet the requirements for allowed sources
· It is well proofread; errors are minimal
· It uses MLA correctly for in-text citations and the works cited page (see below)
· It meets the minimum length of 4 pages
Works Cited
Gascoigne, Robert. “Shared Commitments.” Commonweal, vol. 142, no. 11, 12 June 2015, pp.
11–14. Religion & Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost, dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-ebscohost-com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rlh&AN=102954416&site=ehost-live. Accessed 27 May 2019.
Weiwei, Ai. “The Question We Must Keep Asking.” The New York Times, The New York
Times, 23 Aug. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/opinion/ai-weiwei-art-human.html. Accessed 26 May 2019.
Yim, Dan. “The Logic and Mill's Infamous Proof in Utilitarianism.” British Journal for the
History of Philosophy, vol. 16, no. 4, Nov. 2008, pp. 773–788. Religion & Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/09608780802407530. Accessed 27 May 2019.