Ethics and Religion
Most people often assume ethics and religion to be similar in that they serve the same purpose of guiding human morality through the definition of good and bad, moral and immoral. Although religions are different, they often serve the purpose of providing humanity with a path of salvation and enlightenment. Ethics are universal in that they serve as decision-making tools that are often used by people of different religious persuasions as a basis for reason and logic. The relationship that exists between ethics and religion is about reason and revelation such that ethics is founded on the tenets of reason while religion is based on the measure of a supernatural being revealing various insights about the meaning of life (Arli, 2017). Although they serve the same purpose, ethics and religion in that ethical principles do not acquire their authority from any religious doctrine nor do religious provisions acquire their power from ethics principles. However, both religion and ethics are often upheld for the value to promote responsible and independent individuals with the capability of making viable decisions that promote their well-being and respect the well-being of other people.
Ethical Path of Conduct
Case 1
Most time, religion and ethics tend to burst in a manner that leads to disagreements and conflicts. This is best evidenced in the scenario evidenced by John Doe and Jane Doe. John Doe is sterile and would love to have a child of their own; however, his condition prevents him from having a family and children that are connected to him biologically. In this case, John Doe has an ethical path of conduct in his desire to have a child and in the recognition that he might not afford the child the love they deserve in that they are not biologically his own. In this, he is acting in an ethical manner in his venture to identify a path that will seem fair to him and to the child. However, it is unethical to have a child by cloning due to restrictions by international laws owing to its inherent implications in the society
Case 2
Jane Doe has presented a positive ethical path of conduct by accepting herself regardless and appreciating the fact that she is different owing to her sexual orientation. However, she is acting in an unethical manner by lying to her parents and failing to reveal her true identity to them.
Perception of a Natural Law Ethicist
Natural law refers to a legal theory that recognizes the existent connection between human morality and law. According to a natural law ethicist, human laws are often defined by morality rather than by an authority figure such as a government. As such, human beings are often guided by inherent human nature to identify laws and act in conformity with the laws. Such people believe that everything in nature including humans has a purpose and the main purpose of life is to live a happy and fulfilling life. As such, the actions that prevent another individual from living a happy and fulfilling life are considered immoral and unnatural.
Case 1
A natural law ethicist would agree with the explanation of John Doe’s ethical path of conduct that John Doe is being unethical by thinking of an option to clone. He is however being ethical by being truthful to himself through his acceptance that he cannot love a child who is not his blood and flesh. According to a natural ethicist, cloning is unethical and unacceptable in that only the owner of all supreme power, God, has the right to give life (Broyde, 1997). As such, scientists should not play the role of God to give life since it is considered unethical and illegal. Additionally, cloning an individual would go against the beliefs of a natural law ethicists since they believe that everything that happens has an unseen reason. As such, going against the provisions of nature can present complications for the clone such as health or mental problems that cannot be reversed.
Case 2
A natural law ethicist would not accept that sexual orientation is acceptable. One could, however, agree that Joe is acting unethically by failing to reveal her true status to her parents. According to a natural law ethicist, human being is created in two genders and it is unacceptable for an individual to choose their sexual orientation. According to natural law theory, the concept of morality is the same for all people, everywhere, and it is not subjective (d’Entreves, 2017). Natural law ethicist would reject John Doe’s orientation as unacceptable in that same-sex marriage tend to disregard the importance of the institution of marriage that serves as a foundation for individuals and functional society. According to this assumption, such ethicists would advise Joe to align their lives to the natural form of creation and align their behavior to that which is acceptable in society.
Conclusion
The core purpose of religion, ethics, and the law is to provide justice and ensure peaceful co-existent of people with others. Religion is different from ethics in that while the principles of religion are provided by a higher power, ethics are founded on reason and often act as guidance for both religious and non-religious people. Religion and ethics are similar in that both reject practices that do not promote the well-being of self and others such as cloning and abortion. However, while ethics accepts an individual to have the right to their own sexual orientation, religion rejects this phenomenon in that it is founded from a natural law phenomenon. According to this provision, an individual’s life has a purpose and thus, it is acceptable to clone or assume sexual orientations that disrupt the balance inherent in nature. Additionally, people are created with the sole purpose of procreating and advancing good and ethical practices which is inherent in their nature.
References
Arli, D. (2017). Does ethics need religion? Evaluating the importance of religiosity in consumer ethics. Marketing Intelligence & Planning.
Broyde, M. (1997). Cloning people: A Jewish law analysis of the issues. Conn. L. Rev., 30, 503.
d’Entreves, A. P. (2017). Natural law: An introduction to legal philosophy. Routledge.
Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education.
Singer, P. (2011). Practical ethics. Cambridge university press.