Business Ethics - Whether Morality Is Ultimately Based on Religion

#1:

1. The text questions whether morality is ultimately based on religion, … In each case, how compelling are the objections raised against the view in question?

I think that what a particular society happens to think about a moral question depends on the society in which it is raised; for example, ethical relativism would be relevant here compared to laws or religious influence. I went on a trip to Mexico some years ago and discovered that most of the cops were corrupt, and that if you had a vehicle accident, the one who gets away without going to jail is the one that pays off the highest amount to the police officer. The individual’s (cop’s) self-interest for taking someone’s money was greater than the rule of law, and his conscience was more aligned with the underground practices of the local culture that taking bribes was morally acceptable, even if his Catholic upbringing insisted that “thou shalt not steal”. Today, these rules in Mexico are changing, but for a long time this was not the case because it was the cultural norm and so was ethically relative to his environment.

1. The text outlines various standards for evaluation of arguments for moral claims. To what extent do you think these standards can help us make progress in ethical disputes?
   
   I absolutely agree that evaluating arguments for any moral claim, in my opinion, should follow logic and facts in order to defend a moral standard. Ethics introduces moral judgments that are defensible by facts and logic, which is an indicator of truth. For instance, if the facts are not relevant, then the moral standard is not supportable; whereas if a moral judgment and its corresponding facts are true, then the moral standard is defensible. An example is if a man claims he did not kill someone by stabbing them, and the facts show he had an alibi and that the person died from a gunshot wound, then the moral judgment to punish him via imprisonment would not stand. At that point it would have been “wrong” for the accused man to be judged wrongly for a crime he did not commit, and if he was arrested, jailed, lost his job and reputation in the process, then different moral standards for recompense should ensue to make it “right”, which would be a moral standard based on the facts that he was wrongfully accused.