How to "check religion at the door" for Ethics class?

[kimbaichan]

I’m taking an Ethics class at the local community college and our instructor advised us to “check your religious beliefs at the door.” I’m also supposed to write a term paper where I pick a divisive topic and strongly defend my ethical viewpoint. Any advise on how I can do both?

 

[bingbang]

I’m taking an Ethics class at the local community college and our instructor advised us to “check your religious beliefs at the door.” I’m also supposed to write a term paper where I pick a divisive topic and strongly defend my ethical viewpoint. Any advise on how I can do both?

Quite simply. Just don’t use arguments that involve religion or God. Argue your points through logic and reason. Something like birth control or homosexuality would probably not be easy to argue against without religion, but something like abortion could be argued against quite easily without resorting to religious arguments.

 

[edward_george]

The “referee” part of me says you need to inform your professor that since that’s a public school, committing egregious civil rights violations such as that would likely not be in his best interest.

The philosophy major in me (which I tend to listen to a bit more, especially on such things) would say that perhaps it’s a good exercise in thinking the way the other side would. I had a professor who shot down any mention of any philosophers other than the one we were reading in his Metaphysics class (and he even admitted the guy was wrong on some things and that the text was terrible), but we learned how to think. So you can either go complain that your professor offended your sensibilities, or (the more fun route), you can see it as a challenge and a lesson in thinking the way the other side does. Who knows? You might learn something you never really appreciated about people’s reasoning behind their positions–doesn’t mean you have to adopt them. A sign of maturity is when you can fully entertain a position that is completely opposite yours without adopting it.

-ACEGC

 

[edward_george]

Quite simply. Just don’t use arguments that involve religion or God. Argue your points through logic and reason. Something like birth control or homosexuality would probably not be easy to argue against without religion, but something like abortion could be argued against quite easily without resorting to religious arguments.

Actually, each of those things has good arguments that don’t involve religion (and since a religious argument is going to amount to an appeal to authority in most cases, which is ineffective in debate unless you and your interlocutor share the same authority), and which instead come from natural law–if not just plain common sense.

-ACEGC

 

[PAboy57]

I’m taking an Ethics class at the local community college and our instructor advised us to “check your religious beliefs at the door.” I’m also supposed to write a term paper where I pick a divisive topic and strongly defend my ethical viewpoint. Any advise on how I can do both?

I have an mba and have enjoyed debating a professor or two on certain subjects. Some are pure academia and have no relevant work experience so they are in left field.

Ethics is very much in line with our faith. Let’s say the topic is sexual advances by a supervisor. That is not permitted in the workplace. Our faith doesn’t permit it either. You should have no problem defending your position that it is wrong and should be punished in some manner.

Ethics is all about good vs bad in your environment. Sound familiar???

Hope that is what you were looking for. Even if it is a questionable topic you still have to fall back on your ethics and prove it is wrong. So come up with the reasons it is wrong.

Take care.

 

[bingbang]

The “referee” part of me says you need to inform your professor that since that’s a public school, committing egregious civil rights violations such as that would likely not be in his best interest.

The philosophy major in me (which I tend to listen to a bit more, especially on such things) would say that perhaps it’s a good exercise in thinking the way the other side would. I had a professor who shot down any mention of any philosophers other than the one we were reading in his Metaphysics class (and he even admitted the guy was wrong on some things and that the text was terrible), but we learned how to think. So you can either go complain that your professor offended your sensibilities, or (the more fun route), you can see it as a challenge and a lesson in thinking the way the other side does. Who knows? You might learn something you never really appreciated about people’s reasoning behind their positions–doesn’t mean you have to adopt them. A sign of maturity is when you can fully entertain a position that is completely opposite yours without adopting it.

-ACEGC

You think its a civil rights violation to say “check your religion at the door?” Really?? All he is saying is that he doesn’t want arguments based on religious beliefs. To be honest I totally agree. Religion doesn’t have a place in college ethics courses unless it is a seminary or something.

Using the Bible or God in your ethics arguments in College is like basing a scientific paper on a theory that can’t be proven. It just doesn’t work.

 

[GratefulFred]

Stick with the basic definition:

**ethics **n.
**1. **the study of standards of conduct and moral judgment; moral philosophy
**2. **a treatise on this study
**3. **with sing. or pl. v.] the system or code of morals of a particular person, religion, group, profession, etc.

Syn. rules of conduct, morality, mores, morals, moral code, decency, integrity, moral conduct, social values, moral practice, principles, values, standards, code of right and wrong, natural law, honesty, goodness, honor, social laws, categorical imperative, the Golden Rule, bushido (Japanese).

Research the published ethical standards of a particular profession and articles and books on how they actually comply, or not, with their ethical standards.

Should be an interesting exploration. Compare and contrast the ideal and reality.

You might consider the professions you might want to build your career in.

 

[Lutheranteach]

The “referee” part of me says you need to inform your professor that since that’s a public school, committing egregious civil rights violations such as that would likely not be in his best interest.

The philosophy major in me (which I tend to listen to a bit more, especially on such things) would say that perhaps it’s a good exercise in thinking the way the other side would. I had a professor who shot down any mention of any philosophers other than the one we were reading in his Metaphysics class (and he even admitted the guy was wrong on some things and that the text was terrible), but we learned how to think. So you can either go complain that your professor offended your sensibilities, or (the more fun route), you can see it as a challenge and a lesson in thinking the way the other side does. Who knows? You might learn something you never really appreciated about people’s reasoning behind their positions–doesn’t mean you have to adopt them. A sign of maturity is when you can fully entertain a position that is completely opposite yours without adopting it.

-ACEGC

 

[bingbang]

Actually, each of those things has good arguments that don’t involve religion (and since a religious argument is going to amount to an appeal to authority in most cases, which is ineffective in debate unless you and your interlocutor share the same authority), and which instead come from natural law–if not just plain common sense.

-ACEGC

Natural law, as talked about by people on this forum, is certainly based on religion. Homosexuality and birth control aren’t natural so they are not moral? What a horrible argument.

 

[edward_george]

You think its a civil rights violation to say “check your religion at the door?” Really?? All he is saying is that he doesn’t want arguments based on religious beliefs. To be honest I totally agree. Religion doesn’t have a place in college ethics courses unless it is a seminary or something.

Using the Bible or God in your ethics arguments in College is like basing a scientific paper on a theory that can’t be proven. It just doesn’t work.

“Religion doesn’t have a place in college ethics courses…”

Except for the fact that if you’re going to be intellectually honest, you need to examine various forms of ethical thought, and to say that we need to purposefully exclude religious thought is at best somewhat dishonest and at worst problematic. Tell me, now, how is “using the Bible or God in your ethics arguments in College…like basing a scientific paper on a theory that can’t be proven?” Perhaps certain kinds of ethical arguments can be made on the basis that there is a God, or moreover, what has been revealed by God.

Besides, if religion is just a load of baloney, why would you have to fear it having even a small place in a college course? Let it live or die on its own merits, eh? Would you be offended if a Catholic professor said “check your atheism at the door” at a Catholic institution? As a Catholic, I definitely would–because that is intellectually dishonest.

-ACEGC

 

[kamaan]

I took an Ethics class in college last year. There are many ways you can argue a Catholic viewpoint without using the Divine Command Theory.

For homosexuality, you could try using something like the Categorical Imperative… it isn’t airtight by any means, but professors appreciate creativity.

 

[edward_george]

Natural law, as talked about by people on this forum, is certainly based on religion. Homosexuality and birth control aren’t natural so they are not moral? What a horrible argument.

Then you obviously don’t understand natural law. Just because people on this forum misuse the term doesn’t mean you can dismiss the whole concept. Check out J. Budziszewski’s “What We Can’t Not Know.” Natural law does not necessarily equal religious argument.

“Homosexuality and birth control aren’t natural so they are not moral? What a horrible argument.”

No, my friend, your argument is horrible. It’s reductionism to the extreme. The natural law argument against those things would be far more nuanced than you are letting on.

-ACEGC

 

[bingbang]

“Religion doesn’t have a place in college ethics courses…”

Except for the fact that if you’re going to be intellectually honest, you need to examine various forms of ethical thought, and to say that we need to purposefully exclude religious thought is at best somewhat dishonest and at worst problematic. Tell me, now, how is “using the Bible or God in your ethics arguments in College…like basing a scientific paper on a theory that can’t be proven?” Perhaps certain kinds of ethical arguments can be made on the basis that there is a God, or moreover, what has been revealed by God.

Besides, if religion is just a load of baloney, why would you have to fear it having even a small place in a college course? Let it live or die on its own merits, eh? Would you be offended if a Catholic professor said “check your atheism at the door” at a Catholic institution? As a Catholic, I definitely would–because that is intellectually dishonest.

-ACEGC

I am sure the prof is just tired of hearing HORRIBLE arguments based on religion. People have probably written papers saying that homosexuality was bad because it says so in the Bible. That isn’t a solid argument. I think that in a paper on ethics, religious arguments could be used to support your theory, but they shouldn’t be the thrust of your argument.

 

[Crumpy]

Under the first amendment in the US constitution, you have the right to free speech and the exercise of religious belief.

If your instructor says that, then he/she is so much as saying that there is no objective basis for morality (ethics) and that it is all relative - do whatever you feel is right.

I’m more concerned why you are in this class, in the first place?

An ethics class is probably a philosophy class, more than anything else. Sounds like you need to pay careful attention to the bases of this subject and make sure you understand where they are coming from.

Marxist “ethics” if you want to dignify them with such a misleading term are based on the idea of what people are supposedly worth to the state or collective good. that is in marked contrast to Judeo/Christian belief in the intrinsic worth of the individual as being made in the image of God.

The third popular system of ethics is going to revolve around modern secular humanism or some form of rationalism. Hedonism is an ultimate form of selfishness where the goal is simply constant pursuit of selfish pleasure – the basis for its “ethics” is doing whatever it takes to satisfy oneself. In the extreme of drug addiction, addicts steal anything from anybody to raise money to feed their habit.

The discussion of ethics can be reduced to any of these systems, in an artificial way of course. That’s what you want to watch for, is to what is the instructor reducing the rules of behavior, i.e. what is right or wrong? You might also throw natural selection into the hopper of ethical systems, where people are thought to do “whatever it takes” to survive.

What we actually encounter are mixtures of these different systems. When you go to work, you only say and do what is permitted and expected (like in this class), so the ethical rules are made up for the context. And one of the rules of this present context, apparently, is to suspend your sense of religious ethics (of what is right and wrong).

So, there’s the dilemma of ethics – nobody agrees on what is right and wrong and somebody (like your instructor) is trying to impose a new, foreign, contrived ethics over the whole class. Your instructor is also laying on you the notion that there is no free will to decide for yourself what is right and wrong.

When someone denies your free will, you see the ugly underbelly of their ethics system, it’s inherent contradiction. That’s a good thing to challenge, why they propose a system where there is no free will, they have free will but you don’t. Theirs is a system of “might making right.” or people today quip that “he who has the gold rules.”

 

[kamaan]

I’m more concerned why you are in this class, in the first place?

Ethics is a required class for most students looking to enter the medical field (not sure if that is the OP’s case, though).

 

[Crumpy]

A good contemporary topic of ethics and public policy is whether there should be an Islamic mosque built two blocks from the site of the former world trade center in New York. There’s a lot of arguments on both sides about this right now. You could examine the bases of the different arguments for and against.

Or, another divisive topic right now has to do with immigration reform. you know? whether we should just have an open door policy towards all immigrants.

 

[kimbaichan]

A big problem for me is that Im a convert to Catholicism and I was an atheist/humanist before. (Bertrand Russell was my hero.) The ethical arguments I’m most familiar with would put me in direct opposition to the Church. Can I defend a position that goes against my religious beliefs b/c it’s easier?
facetiously Is that ethical?

 

[bingbang]

No, my friend, your argument is horrible. It’s reductionism to the extreme. The natural law argument against those things would be far more nuanced than you are letting on.

-ACEGC

To be honest as much as I have read about how natural law goes against birth control and homosexuality on this board, I have yet to read a solid argument supporting it. I still haven’t read a proper definition of natural law on these boards, though many people cite it. I have a feeling the most people that cite natural law on these forums don’t actually know what they are talking about and are just repeating things they have heard. But I am sure you are right because I am still confused as the nature of natural law.

 

[edward_george]

I am sure the prof is just tired of hearing HORRIBLE arguments based on religion. People have probably written papers saying that homosexuality was bad because it says so in the Bible. That isn’t a solid argument. I think that in a paper on ethics, religious arguments could be used to support your theory, but they shouldn’t be the thrust of your argument.

I’m sure he is, but just because people have made horrible arguments doesn’t mean no argument can be made. I’ve heard exceptionally horrible arguments for atheism, and I’ve heard them for religion. Abusus non tollit usum, my friend. Just because a bunch of religious people don’t know what they’re talking about doesn’t mean that religious arguments are not worth hearing out. I know plenty of atheists who don’t know what they’re talking about either, but I don’t say that they invalidate atheism. I examine the claims it makes and go from there.

-ACEGC

 

[bingbang]

A big problem for me is that Im a convert to Catholicism and I was an atheist/humanist before. (Bertrand Russell was my hero.) The ethical arguments I’m most familiar with would put me in direct opposition to the Church. Can I defend a position that goes against my religious beliefs b/c it’s easier?
facetiously Is that ethical?

The ethical arguments you are most familiar with go against the Church? Like what? Honestly, there is a LOT of things you could write about how abortion is wrong. That is something that would be extremely easy to write about without using religion.