Morality

Morality is morally relative. Ruth Benedict and James Rachel opposed this contradictory problem. Benedict is "the most important American anthropologist teaching at Columbia University" (Pojman 370) and believes that morality is related to human culture. Her argument is this: 1. 2. There is no objective moral principle and all moral principles are related to culture Rachels' Professor of Alabama University (Pojman 375) does not match Benedict. And believe that morality is not relative.

Moral absoluteism believes that there is an absolute standard for judging moral issues - whether an action is right or wrong. It is contrary to moral relativism, that is, there is no universal moral principle - they are culturally defined. Religion is a perfect example of doctrinal-based tension, as the word "like Romans in Rome" continues. Religion is about the dignity of life and fulfilling our purpose as a human being. Focus on commonality. What is the purpose behind your religious beliefs? We accept that we can share the same goal even if others have different beliefs

Religion is closely related to morality. But they are different ideas, different reality, they influence the political community and the legislative in different ways. Religion is not morality, religious freedom is not moral freedom. Religion attempts to find correspondence to the transcendental problem including the ultimate beliefs and beliefs. Morality tries to answer questions about intentions, decision-making, and behavior of good-will (good) or malicious (wrong) of people of individuals and communities.

Morality has both political and religious divisions. The difference between political morality and religious morality is that political morality should be reasonable, that is, it should be based on moral theory. Otherwise, it can not be applied according to the standards, rules and procedures of the legal system (Constitution, Criminal Law, Tax Law, Property Law etc). However, religious morality can be based on moral theory, based on moral "super rational" (not opposite, but beyond reasonable), even irrational moral claims. The religious prohibition of slavery is based on moral reasons, not moral super rationality. Therefore, political groups and religious organizations can agree to prohibit slavery based on unethical conduct. The religious ban on abortion and euthanasia is also based on moral reasons. There is no need to become a Christian to refuse abortion and euthanasia.

Political ethics should be based entirely on moral theory. The reason can not depend on religious claims. Therefore, the political circle should not impose super rationality of religious morality. Such compulsion infringes freedom of religion and goes beyond state power or jurisdiction. The political compulsion of fasting during the period of Lent opposes religious freedom, as well as political forcing to wear kippers and veils or to impose men's circumcision. It is not contrary to reason (to obey the rules of God that it does not go against the reason) to fast for a lunch-off, to wear kippers and veils, to practice circumcision of a boy, even ones based on moral reasons There is none. Unless there is a legitimate political and moral reason, the political ban on religious morality is also against religious freedom. There are no political and moral reasons and therefore do not infringe freedom of religion