Essay Sample on 21st Century Conflicts: God vs. Culture

Introduction

As time changes, the degree of western people fearing God keeps lowering. In the 21st century, culture, technology, political practices, and other social norms are more feared than God. The aspect of good is perceived as natural or human-oriented, unlike in history, where God is the founder and sustainer of morality (Cherry, 2018, Pg. 615). Philosophers have, in time, argued the point of dilemma that exists between the relation of culture change and God. Philosophers like Kant, Aristotle, and Tristan all agree that without the concept of God, there is no topic of controversy in the current world (Cherry, 2018, Pg. 615). Morality and truth are meant for people who tend to think they are replacing God through their norms. In her text of ethical philosophy, Barbra MacKinnon describes that the change in practices such as euthanasia, sexual morals, and globalization are the agents of disposal of old perceptions and beliefs; in this article's case, the old and depriving phenomenal is God.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Various authors comment on the journal of 'After God' some extending the analysis while some are criticizing the text. All these converge to the point that God is eliminated slowly from the existing moral frameworks and social trends, reorganizing the ranging strengths. Bioethics is not secure as some of Engelhardt's philosophical arguments are not a reality of traditions and religion. God is related to morality, but human bioethics relates morality as part of its achievements. For example, a philosopher named Maurizio in 'After God' article argues that there are challenging issues of Engelhardt's philosophical stand bearing that believes, and perception of God by a human is prone to political and healthcare policies, which are convective to human in practicality. Maurizio Mori is for the point that readers have to consider cultural frameworks as this takes a good point of tradition and religious out view (Cherry, 2018, Pg. 616)

On the same point of evaluating Engelhardt's view, in her ethical texts, Fiala and Barbara philosophically argue that human minds are great to positive thinking and can transform weakness to the justification for personal gain. She argues that the topic of religion and human dwelling cannot remain the same forever as minds develop the existing aspects. This concludes that God is an aspect of morality, but time is the determinant of the extension or change to ethics through globalization, including bioethics (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg.19). Supporting this is the example of cartoonists who draw the Caliculture of prophets and saints in entertainment. The case of cartoons of naked persons in the bible is one that Socrates proves that humans are disregarding God and his molarity (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg. 21). In the same text example, pastor Terry argues that America is God founded. Therefore there should be respect to God, and this is a religious viewpoint that the Americans find it awkward for a historical precedent of culture and the changing world. To the western domination free minds, this is not a point of freedom but allegations demanding followership and mind bounding (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg. 17). This is the controversial or dilemma point of God's morality and modern bioethics of change.

Western Culture

Although the context of after God acknowledges that the western culture has never inducted the concept of God, Engelhardt recognizes that atheists have been there since the dawn of time, and freedom is diverse. Therefore, moral purism is not new, and a Socrates official approach of such is ultimately not significant (Cherry, 2018, Pg. 617). This point is crucial in explaining why religion and culture cannot converge to God's common perspective. To support this, the example of philosopher Thomas Nigel's argument is sufficient and matches with Engelhardt's philosophical point (Cherry, 2018, Pg. 626). Thomas argues that the epistemic state of God and western culture are two correct points of freedom. He says that if there is anyone responsible for controlling the universe, then there will be no sense of independence that we have as humanity would be devoted and depending on such God. Thomas continues that there is no particular reference that the universe would lack anything like it does (Cherry, 2018, Pg. 618). American norms believe in hard work and positive attributes as the sources of morality and not God (Cherry, 2018, Pg. 626).

Fiala and Barbra discuss the point of the morality of purism as a philosophical context of freedom to beliefs and performance. The two philosophers argue based on other philosophical standings from Kant and a variety of other deep thinkers (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg.27). These activists analyze various cases, such as Henry David and Thoreau, to Mohmand Gandhi. These philosophers believe that this is a choice that exists between political and religious followership. Similarly, western culture is, but a decision like religion is equally a choice (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg.26). The point is further portrayed by Fiala and Barbra's open field to identify what we need and deserve. For example, According to Kanti and other thinkers, there should not be an allegation of God's disregard in a community that never believed in that God at first (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg.34).

Civil Disobedience

Another good example is the explanation given by Martin Luther King Junior, who concluded that civil disobedience is on morality and not on god avocation. Luthur Junior develops his ideas that Indian independence is much relying on the violent Gnha and the nonviolent Ahimsa. Transferring this situation to western culture, atheism, and religion should not be on a fight to reach a universal morality goal (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg.29).

Engelhardt lays a philosophical argument on religion and western culture human ethics. Engelhardt explains the dilemma that exists between the perspective of Socrates and culture. The debate is unending as cultural competence vies the intuitions of reproduction, sex, euthanasia, and the creation of human biological life as normalcy. At the same time, religion believes that God is the alfa of these norms (Cherry, 2018, Pg. 621). Life is a point that Engelhardt emphasizes n as bioethics and dictate based on political and healthcare betterment. Western culture sees external human fertilization, death sentence, and sex, manipulation as a way of life, and maintains morality, which is not the case to Socrates and their 'God.' An example of this argument is the Vitro fertilization, which religion affirms as embryo wastage, but bioethics stands with it as a humanitarian development (Cherry, 2018, Pg. 627). For example, the western view of marriage and sex is ethically proven tp be free and polarized with a good frag of humanity (Cherry, 2018, Pg. 629). At the same time, religion is for the point of marriage sacredness, and particulars such as homosexuality, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide are immoral. This is why western culture seems to have doomed the God in their midst of morals.

The Meaning of Life

Fiala and Barbra elaborate on this Engelhardt point through the meaning of life. The philosophers argue that questions that are relative to humanity can only be explained in the context of understanding and not through unique creation or beings. For example, Fiala and Barbra tell why the bioethics concerns are atheistic and not religious (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg.33). It is because there can only be careful in life in every deed. Although some of the sex-related functionalities are immoral, there exists some justification in thereon of the accord. For example, a Russian novelist named Fyodor Dostoevsky defends the arguments that life is freely given and that God is not related to human decisions and ways of living (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg.34). His writing explains that God, if he exists, cannot allow sin to be done on earth to punish the wrongdoers in the next afterlife. It is irrational to speak of immortality while the body is suffering and worthless material. Besides, another example by philosopher John Hick is the golden rule of life. Western culture is morality that exists naturally (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg.35). A human being has to do to others whatever they think is right if done to them. Culturally this is correct and sets the living of western ways. Socrates is, therefore, on wrong to argue that God gave commandments to prophets like Moses and Elijah.

Conclusion

Engelhardt concludes that morality and humanitarian are two compatible practices that will ever remain whether on western culture on the religious view. Philosophers Fiala and Barbra are in support of the work done by Engelhardtas, evident in the conclusion example of moral pluralism described. In the case of Philosopher Ross, who argues that basic goodness is realized at any norm of life and duties meant for humanity will remain primary, human interaction is inevitable. Although western culture is fading the projection of God away, all beings will remain equally in the purity of morals and the implementation of duties (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg.39).

Work cited

Cherry, M., 2018. Bioethics After the Death of God. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 43(6), pp.615-630.

MacKinon, B. and Fiala, A., 2020. Ethics: Theory And Contemporary Issues. [online] Google Books. Available at: <https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=Us65DQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false> [Accessed 10 July 2020].