Ethics vs. Morals – An Exercise in Proper Word Choice [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:05:35 +0000

Any modern debate inevitably includes the quality of “rightness”, in both arguments for and against the topic in question, and is often presented using “morality” as a base descriptor. While the word “moral” can be a synonym of “ethical”, it is often not used or intended to be defined in this fashion, with the speaker instead implying an inherently subjective view that intersperses strictly secular activities with unnecessarily religious aspects. This affront to secular life, especially in the Western World, must end.

In the religious definition of “morality”, the speaker is subjecting their views upon another person, action, or object, describing this object of their criticism from an internalized and personal viewpoint, rather than objectively analyzing the situation based on common, widely accepted ethical criteria. Where the criticisms have strict ties to religion, such as a religious leader giving advice on spiritual action, this is completely appropriate; however, when this specific word choice is applied to common, secular situations, such as politics, healthcare, or interpersonal behaviors, this is entirely unacceptable.

The assault on secular life by religious institutions and their followers is not new, nor will it cease in the foreseeable future. But with the recent, and inexplicable, rise of Christian fundamentalism in America as an extremely vocal and volatile minority, this battle is taking on heights not seen in half a century. This is not to say that religion itself is inherently negative, but that its ideas and principles have their own place within society, either kept separate from the public or completely internalized within a practitioner. What is difficult to swallow, however, is the evangelical nature of many modern day Christians, who do not approve of religions other than their own and wish to either convert or condemn those who are not their spiritual brethren.

Besides the obvious issues that arise with the condemnation of one religion for another, an extremely vocal minority drowning out the voices of others, or the judgment that is subsequently cast upon outsiders, word choice and usage is a major problem. The English language grows, changes, and morphs by virtue of its viral nature, and humans are naturally inclined to reuse words that are common in their own interactions of others, which illuminates the growing problem: when an individual with a certain religious affiliation uses morals, rather than ethics, in discussions of common activities, the word choice becomes instantly associated with the topic in the mind of the other party, and the chances of its repetition increase significantly.

It is by this very method that phrases such as “Obamacare is immoral” become commonplace among certain population segments, where a slight rephrasing as “Obamacare is unethical” would be more appropriate – completely disregarding the illogical nature of the claim in the first place, of course. To many, this is not an issue of concern since they are themselves religious and see no issue with such a word choice. But among those who are strictly secular - including atheists, agnostics, and others - or those who are sympathetic to their interests, it is of great concern.

These nonreligious individuals already receive a large amount of criticism and prejudice because they choose to base their existence in rational thought rather than speculative fantasy, and do not appreciate the inequalities dealt to them in everyday life: advertisements for churches are approved, while secularist advertisements are not; religious symbolism is present in almost every facet of American government, despite the claim of being a secular nation; deferential respect is demanded of those with theist beliefs, but is not a reciprocal.

When an unbiased word without hidden theist meaning can be applied rather than one laden with such meanings, the one without a religious tinge must be chosen - this is an issue of political correctness, religious sensitivity, and intellectual propriety. The continued reference to morality by journalists, reporters, and other public figures is merely exacerbating the issue, quickly becoming just another dagger stuck in the hearts of those who do not share the devotion of the theist population of America.

Atheism: Not Always Godless Heathens [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:23:39 +0000

Here's yet another paper I had to write for a class. This time it was in defense of atheism as a rational concept, and not some sort of epic bringer of destruction like so many religious people would have you believe.

It's not my all-time best work, and it's not as "punchy" as usual... the teacher forbade me from using my characteristic tone. But I managed to sneak in a good closing line all the same...

Either way, here it is...

--- --- ---

Atheism, the immortal bane of all religions, is typically portrayed as the black sheep of the family of religions, creating chaos and wreaking havoc purely for the simple and thrilling joy of it. This, however prevalent in the minds of the modern religious, is a manifestation of the fear of the unknown and variable on behalf of the religious authorities and believers alike. That fear can be easily put to words, as shown by Nevermore, a Seattle-based progressive metal band, in a song called "Narcosynthesis":

Alienate me, learn to hate me
Crucify your ideals, the flesh is the swine
We are the last ones and we're bleeding
For an unseen God. (Dane et al.)

Such fears are largely unsubstantiated in today's modern and largely free-thinking society, since, in actuality, a large majority of the innovative human intelligence relied upon by the world at large is atheist, or it's close cousin of the uncaring sort, agnostic.

Atheism is defined as "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings" ("atheism", Dictionary.com), note that the pure meaning does not contain any mention of malevolence or destructive intent. However, atheism is also associated by some with acts of violence and chaos, despite evidence to the contrary. Catholic Online, which provides an online repository of Vatican doctrines and other Catholicism related information, categorizes atheism as without morals and that, according to the internal view of an atheist, "human actions would be neither right nor wrong, good nor evil" ("Atheism", Catholic Encyclopedia). Each characterization of atheism presents a different image and seem to be polar opposites of each other: a relatively innocent belief vs. a rejection of morals.

Throughout recorded history, atheists have been blamed for having "abandoned duty and embraced hedonism" ("Criticism of Atheism"). However, in attempts to defend themselves, an atheist's arguments fall largely on deaf ears. There is no central body of atheists, unlike the majority of faith-based religion, and therefore there is no loud voice proclaiming what is truth and lies, presenting an elegant defense against dogmatic invaders. This typically leaves the individual atheist alone in the defense of their particular brand of faith, where the religious, both the fervent and casual believers, find the arguments full of nonexistent insults, appalling methods of reason, and shocking blasphemy, none of which they are willing to hear ("Criticism of Atheism").

Conveniently, the majority of criticisms and holy wars against atheism avoid the unavoidable: some of history's most intelligent and well renowned individuals were non-believers. The halls of heathens include: Paul Dirac, the original quantum mechanics theorist; Sigmund Freud, groundbreaking psychiatrist, foundation for much of modern philosophy; Stephen Hawking, considered to be the world leader in theoretical physics; Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Inc.; Issac Asimov, acclaimed author considered to be one of the fathers of Science Fiction; Karl Marx, revolutionary philosopher; and Woody Allen, a Hollywood director of "highbrow" movies ("List of Atheists"). Given the ever-growing list of respected atheists, one can begin to see the holes in many counter arguments.

To the majority of atheists, their non-belief is very simply explained and understood, and does not stand for a larger purpose or cause. They do not have goals of destroying The Catholic Church, or making Islam illegitimate. An atheist simply does not believe in a higher power, and therefore does not subscribe to the doctrines and ideals laid out before them by a secretive and archaic organization. Truthfully, the same individuals are not keen on church burnings or worshiping Baal; these actions are often transposed onto atheism from a completely unrelated vein known as Satanism. Ironically, and much to horror of Christians worldwide, Satanism may be considered a branch of Christianity, if the branch of Satanism in question worships the Christian representation of Satan ("Satanism").

However, a common misconception is that without religion, a modern individual has no morals ("Criticism of Atheism"). Many people believe that morals are independent of religious values, and that religion merely incorporates into their beliefs and services, indoctrinating their followers in the ways of "good" and "evil". When considering morality from a religious viewpoint, one must consider the plethora of religious standards, beliefs, and views that continue to coexist in a mostly peaceful environment. The existence of parallel religions indicate that although the beliefs of people and cultures may be different, the value systems are largely the same. How, then, are the concepts of morality and ethics attached to religion?

Quite simply, they are not. When a small child learns that pulling another's hair is not a good behavior, do they prescribe the reason to a higher power? When chimpanzees share their food with each other, or even with humans, do they do so because their supreme being said to? Examples of morality or ethics, such as these, can be found throughout the world, where intelligent animals or still-developing children act in a manner that coincides with many of the same activities of the religious, without being even remotely religious in it's very nature.

Additionally, the central cause for many atheists to believe as they do is typically found to be reason. Their beliefs are not bourne out of an irrational fear of the supreme, nor are they founded in an attempt to explain the otherwise mystical. As previously mentioned, the largest contingent of atheists or agnostics typically fall into the categories of scientists, engineers, mathematicians, or otherwise fact-based thinkers (Cray). Rational thinking begets a rational view of the world.

Fervent believers may try to argue to the contrary, citing examples of atheism in Soviet Russia ("Religion in the Soviet Union"), anti-religion movements in Red China ("Religion in China"), or Karl Marx's belief that "religion is the opium of the people", which is also commonly translated as "religion is the opiate of the masses" ("Karl Marx"). They may even start gathering their pitchforks while screaming "Out with you, godless heathens!". Who knows.

In any discussion of atheism as a culture or true belief, it becomes prudent to mention that non-believers (notably differentiated from heathens) have been discriminated against throughout the ages, and have suffered the same injustices many of the "true" religions have. Once again, the religious fanatic may cry that this is a modern injustice, and while a shame, it may be warranted. But, once again, the religious would be incorrect: the discrimination and occasional persecution of atheists began in the Late Roman Empire... merely a hundred years after the birth, and death, of a certain religion's savior under the same empire ("History of the Roman Empire").

Given the modern religious climate of high anxiety, defensive posturing, and wild accusations between different religions, not including internal strife, it is most likely safe to assume that the attacks on atheists will decrease. As religions become increasingly disorganized, their ability to viciously defend their beliefs, whether rational or not, will decrease, but the heart of the matter will remain. Unless atheists are truly understood as having their own beliefs, and a substantial amount of morality as well, many of the religious will still wage war in their hearts. But first, atheism must be given the same blanket of religious tolerance in the media that all others have, including Scientology, in order to begin to change the hearts of the devoted.

Unless, of course, a Pope, Imam, or otherwise empowered religious leader grants atheism it's rightful status. And the famous Jesus Christ rode dinosaurs around Jerusalem as a means of travel.

--- --- --- Works Cited --- --- ---

“Atheism.” Catholic Encyclopedia. Catholic Online. 21 Oct. 2008 .
"atheism." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 20 Oct. 2008. .
Cray, Dan. “God vs. Science.” TIME 5 Nov. 2006. 21 Oct. 2008 .
“Criticism of Atheism.” Wikipedia. 21 Oct. 2008 . Path: Morality.
Dane, Warrel, et al. “Narcosynthesis.” Dead Heart In A Dead World. Century Media, 2000.
“History of the Roman Empire.” Wikipedia. 21 Oct. 2008 .
“Karl Marx.” Wikiquote. 21 Oct. 2008 .
“List of Atheists.” Wikipedia. 21 Oct. 2008 .
“Religion in China.” Wikipedia. 21 Oct. 2008 .
“Religion in the Soviet Union.” Wikipedia. 21 Oct. 2008 .
“Satanism.” Wikipedia. 21 Oct. 2008 .

Kyle Brady: Blog » Atheism

Ethics vs. Morals – An Exercise in Proper Word Choice [OpEd]

Atheism: Not Always Godless Heathens [Old Content]