You are on page 1of 17

INDIAN PHILOSOPHY

AND ETHICS
Ethics Assignment

SWAPNIL NARAYAN
17JE003386
Serial Number-64
Adi Shankara and his
Advaita philosophy

According to the Advaita tradition the supreme Lord, Sri Narayana or Sadashiva
himself revealed the wisdom of Advaita to Brahma, the creator, who in turn
imparted it to sage Vasishtha. This wisdom was handed down first as vamsha-
parampara, i.e. as line of succession from father to son; from Vasishtha to his son
Shakti, from Shakti to his son Parashara, from Parashara to his son Veda Vyasa and
from Veda Vyasa to his son Shuka. From Shuka commenced the sishya-parampara,
i.e. the line of succession from preceptor to disciple; from Shuka to his disciple
Gaudapada and from Gaudapada to his disciple to Govinda Bhagavatpada and from
Govinda Bhagavatpada to Sri Adi Shankaracharya.

Sri Adi-Shankaracharya was born at Kalati in Kerala in 788 A.D. to Shivaguru and
Aryamba. He became an ascetic at a young age and on the banks of river Narmada
met his guru, Govinda Bhagavatpada under whom he studied for four years.
Govinda Bhagavatpada taught Shankara the profound philosophy of Advaita and
directed him to write a philosophical commentary on the Vedanta Sutras, also
known as Brahma Sutras, then interpreted in diverse theological ways. Later
Shankara went to Varanasi and wrote commentaries on the Brahma
Sutras, Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita. Then he travelled throughout India on foot
three times from Nepal to Rameshwaram preaching the universal philosophy of
Advaita in important centers of learning, places of pilgrimage and in capitals of
kings. He also defeated many opponents in debates of whom the Mimamsa scholar
Mandana Misra of Mahishmati and his wife Bharathi and the Sakta commentator
Abhinava Gupta were famous.

Shankara’s works
Shankara wrote commentaries on the eleven principal Upanishads like the
Chandogya, the Brihadaranyaka, the Taittiriya, the Aitareya, the Svetasvatara, the
Kena, the Katha, the Isa, the Prasna, the Mandukya and Mundaka. He also wrote
commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutra. His other important
works Atmabodha, Aptavajrasuchi, Dasasloki, Aparoksanubhuti, Upadesasahasri, P
rabuddha Sudhakara and Viveka Chudamani. His religious hymns are contained in
works like Dakshinamurthy Stotra, Ananda Lahari and Soundaraya Lahari.
Socio-religious reforms
Shankara’s aim was to revive the Vedic dharma based on the philosophy of
Advaita. He saw to it that morally reprehensible modes of worship followed by the
Kapalikas, Saktas and followers of Ganapati were abolished. For the benefit of
theists Shankara instituted the Panchayatana puja or worship of the five aspect of
the deity – Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Aditya and Ganesha. He also composed hymns on
them and either founded or renovated temples dedicated to them. He united
various religious sects by popularizing the collective worship of Shiva, Vishnu,
Surya, Ganesha, Kumara and Shakti; for which he came to be known as Shanmata
Sthapanacharya. Shankara established four monasteries, at Dwaraka (Kalikapeeta
with Padmapada in charge) in the east, Badri (Jyotirmatha with Totaka in charge)
in the north, Puri (Govardhanapeeta with Hastamalaka in charge) in the east and
Sringeri (Sri Sharadhapeeta with Sureshvara in charge) in the south. He is said to
have brought five Lingas from Kailasa and consecrated them at Kedara, Nilakanta
Kshetra in Nepal, Chidambaram, Sringeri and Kanchi. Shankara organized the
numerous wandering monks all over the country into ten definite orders of
sanyasis under the name Dasnamis. The Dasnamis add at the end of their names
any one of the following suffixes, namely Saraswathi, Bharathi, Puri, Giri, Tirtha,
Vana, Sagara, Aranya, Parvata and Asrama.

Advaita in practice
Shankara wanted his followers not just to theorize his Advaita philosophy but put
it into practice. This message he gave in the form of an episode in which he himself
was involved. Once when Shankara was on his way to have his bath at river Ganga
at Kashi his pupils asked a Chandala coming in the opposite direction to make way
for their guru. The Chandala asked Shankara how he might consistently teach
Advaitism and practice such differentiating observances. This thought provoking
question struck Shankara who composed Manisha Panchaka, containing five
philosophical verses expressing the Advaita sentiments and where he (Shankara)
acknowledge the Chandala as his guru. The message of Shankara was that for a
follower of Advaita it is absurdity to practice discrimination between humans and
that one should view all as One and the same.

Shankara’s Advaita philosophy


Reality or Brahman

According to Shankara nothing really exists but the Supreme Spirit known as
Brahman. Brahman is pure Existence, Consciousness and Bliss (Sat-cit-aananda).
He is Absolute, impersonal, changeless, eternal and all-pervading. What is
commonly called Nature (animate and inanimate) is but an illusion (Maya) and a
dream caused by the ignorance (avidya) which surrounds the Supreme Spirit and
hides it. This has been summed up in the words ‘Brahma Sathya, Jagan Mithya’.
Phenomena appear real for the same reason that things seen in a dream are real
so long as the dream lasts. The aim of life is therefore to cast of the gross sheaths
that surround the Spirit within us and to realize its identity with the Supreme
Spirit.
Orders of Reality
Shankara distinguishes four kinds of reality.

 Paramarthikasatta– The ultimate metaphysical reality (of Brahman).


 Vyavaharikasatta– The pragmatic or empirical reality which is experienced
by humanity as a whole for all time.
 Pratibhasikasatta– The apparent reality which belongs to the objects of
illusions, hallucinations and dreams. This is privately experienced and is of
short duration. For example, mistaking a rope for a snake.
 Tuccasatta– The reality which is inexperienceable, imaginary objects, some
of which may be self-contradictory or impossible. For example, one may
speak of ‘the son of a barren woman’. A barren woman cannot have any
sons, so the existence of the son of a barren woman is impossible and self-
contradictory.

Soul or Atman
The Atman is the individual human soul clothed in the upaadhis or limiting
adjuncts and is called Jiva. The Jiva or individual soul is essentially the same
Brahman and is therefore self-luminous, unlimited and free. Its limitedness and all
its consequent effects are due to certain conditions (upaadhis), which again appear
through nescience (avidhya) and as such are unreal. Thus an elimination of the
upaadhis amounts to an elimination of the apparently dual natural of the jiva.

States of experiences
Advaita Vedanta identifies four state of experience for a jiva. They are

 The waking state (Jagrat avastha)


 The dream state (Svapna avastha)
 The deep sleep state (Sushupti avastha)
 The pure consciousness state (Turiya)

The world of duality is available for our experience only in the waking and dream
state. But in deep sleep state we are not aware of any objects or any world of
plurality. It is a state wherein we experience only the knowledge of ignorance; we
neither know the truth or falsehood. In the Turiya state the entire pluralistic world
rolls away and the experience of the non-dual reality alone remaining as eternally
true; for Turiya is Brahman, indivisible and immanent. Hence attaining this state
of experience which is the highest upasana (worship) is instructed upon ascetics.

The Universe or Jagat


Brahman as a sole Reality appears as the objective universe and it an illusory
manifestation of Brahman. Reality or Brahman has the power of taking an
existential form, namely the universe without undergoing any modification. The
existence of the universe is relative and is not original, separate or independent of
Brahman. How Brahman manifest itself is beyond human comprehension and can
be answered only by some theory such as that of Maya.
Maya and Avidya
Maya is the cosmic illusion and the potency of Brahman which makes the jiva
experience duality. It is the medium for the reflection of Brahman (as jivas) and
for the projection of this world. Maya presents to the human mind Reality broken
up into subject and object. This division, splitting up is unreal; but as the mind
works only as an organ of differentiation, it cannot disclose truth which is ever one
and undivided. Maya has no real entity and has only an apparent existence and the
moment truth is known it is dissolved. Maya, which is also called, avidya, (or
nescience in English) has two powers, called, avarana sakti and vikshepa sakti.
Avarana sakti covers Brahman, as it were, as a cloud covers the sun and makes us,
the jivatmas, forget that, in our true nature, we are Brahman. At the macrocosmic
level, vikshepa Sakti is the force that projects the differentiated nama roopa, i.e.,
the world of objects and bodies and minds and superimposes them on the sub-
stratum, i. e., Brahman. At the microcosmic level, vikahepa sakti makes Jivatmas
make the mistake of looking upon themselves as limited individuals and the
universe of nama roopas as real. As a result, we, the ordinary human beings,
identify ourselves with our body mind complex and regard ourselves as separate
individuals, limited in space, time and entity, subject to all the vicissitudes,
changes, joys and sorrows of life and go through the cycle of births and deaths.
When we understand that we are not different from the infinite Brahman, we are
freed from this cycle. Until this happens, one goes through the cycle of births and
deaths.

Theology in Advaita Vedanta


While maintaining that on the paramarthika plane (i.e. as absolute reality), there
is only the non-dual attribute less Brahman (nirguna Brahman) Advaita Vedanta
accommodates, on the vyavaharika plane, (as a lower order of reality), Brahman
with qualities (saguna Brahman) called Ishwara. As Ishwara, Brahman has all the
characteristics of what is called a personal God; the creator, preserver and
destroyer of the world and a friend and savior of finite souls. The purpose of
accommodating Ishwara is to enable a spiritual aspirant (jiva) go through the
ritual of devotion and worship and gradually acquire knowledge of the Self
through meditation. The specialty of Advaita Vedanta is it does not make any
distinction between gods of one religion and another. An aspirant can accept Jesus,
Allah, Buddha, Rama, Krishna or Durga as manifestation of saguna Brahman and
worship in a church, mosque or a temple. The worship in this plane is meant as a
preparatory and purificatory discipline and from this he has to move to the next
stage of identifying himself with the Supreme Spirit (Brahman). From
metaphysical standpoint, both jiva and Ishwara are Brahman, but on the
phenomenal level from the religious standpoint their relation is in terms of master
and servant. Ishwara the master knows his oneness with Brahman and therefore
enjoys eternal bliss whereas jiva the servant is ignorant of his higher, divine origin
and is therefore subject to the self-deceptive trials and tribulations of a mundane
existence.
Way to Moksha
Shankara prescribes Jnanamarga for self-realization. But a mere intellectual
apprehension of the advaitic truth is of no avail. Only through a systematic
approach can this is achieved through Shravana (formal study), Manana
(reflection) and Nididhyaasana (meditation), i.e. to transform into direct
experience the mediate knowledge of Ultimate Reality acquired by the study of
Upanishad and by reflection upon their teaching. In Advaita, moksha is not
something which has to be attained hereafter. The essential nature of every jiva is
already Brahman and only the wheel of ignorance has concealed its real nature
and therefore the jiva undergoes pains of samsara until it realizes its inherent
divinity. Therefore the jiva does not lose its individuality in moksha but the
limitations of that individuality are overcome by knowledge and immediately here
and now it attains universal Brahman.

Advaita- A Universal philosophy


Shankara’s system of Vedanta can stand on its own feet as pure metaphysics
without the help of any theology, unlike other theistic Vedanta systems like
Visishtadvaita of Sri Ramanuja and Dvaita of Sri Madhvacharya. Hence those
prefer a philosophy to a theology will have a natural leaning towards Shankara.
But at the same time Shankara’s system also provides theologies as provisional
stand-point- just a base camp for those attempting to climb the Mount Everest of
Advaita. And the beauty is that not one particular theology but any number of them
including foreign religions like Islam and Christianity can be fitted into the frame
work of Shankara’s metaphysics provisionally. This wonderfully accommodating
power of his doctrine is perhaps the most attractive feature of his philosophy to
many of its followers.

To Shankara goes the credit for reviving the Sanatana Dharma and rescuing the
Vedic culture from foundering. A brilliant thinker and vigorous debater he
reconciled the conflicting sects prevailing in his times. He was a realized soul, a
sage, philosopher, scholar, poet, socio-religious reformer and organizer; all rolled
into one. He passed away in 820 A.D. at Kedarnath.
The four purusHarthas
Millennia ago, Saints in ancient Eastern traditions articulated the blueprint for
the fulfilment human birth, as it was revealed to them in the highest states of
meditation and consciousness. The Supreme Self pervades and exists in all
dimensions and all beings, sentient and insentient. And it is that Supreme Self
which lives inside every person. Therefore, every person is none other than the
Supreme Self.

For an individual to realize their Supreme Self, they need to identify the reasons
and objectives for which they came into being on this earth plane and ultimately
fulfil those purposes. The ancient sages articulated the goals of humankind
as Purusharthas. Purusha means an individual or person, and Artha means
objective, meaning, or pursuit. The four Purusharthas are:

 Dharma: Righteousness, Duty


 Artha: Wealth
 Kama: Desire
 Moksha: Liberation

The four Purusharthas are indeed the qualities and objectives of the Supreme
Self and God. And since an individual is a reflection and manifestation of God, it is
the rightful pursuit of a person to fulfill these four Purusharthas. In fact, it is both
your individual and soul purpose.

An individual can realize him or herself by balancing and fulfilling these four
objectives. They are not independent or mutually exclusive of each other and
should not be viewed in a stand-alone manner. They define and refine the other
objectives and allow the other objectives to define and refine itself. The activity
of fulfilling one objective should also support the fulfillment of the others. By
maintaining a balance between the definition and realization of the four
Purusharthas, a symbiotic evolution of the individual self takes place. Exclusive
pursuit of one Purushartha creates an imbalance in a person’s life and prevents
the person from reaching the ultimate destination of their life.
Take Artha, for example. If an individual seeks only wealth but lacks in
righteousness, and the fulfillment of their duty, an emptiness and lack of full
spiritual evolution will take hold.

However, through a well-balanced pursuit of the four Purusharthas deep


fulfillment is within your grasp. As a person progresses through the evolution of
their soul, they find that some of the objectives eventually lose their place and
importance to other objectives. For example, the desire to earn wealth may
diminish and disappear, or a person may realize that there are no more material
desires that they need to pursue, and hence more room is created for the pursuit
of the ultimate objective, Moksha, which is liberation or self-realization.

Dharma
A person is born on this earth to fulfill certain duties. The soul houses itself into
the physical body which is most suited for performing these duties. The work
that a person needs to do, which may be tied to their body, family, or
commitments, among others, can be the Dharma of the person. Dharma is a
difficult word to translate into English but can roughly be explained as the
rightful duty of a person. This is the true calling of a person, what they are born
to do. Examples of a person’s Dharma may be their professional or familial roles
such as a doctor, teacher, writer, warrior, priest, parent, etc. Sometimes a
person’s Dharma is decided by their birth, but this is not necessarily
determinative. A person’s Dharma can be a combination of things, and as a
person progresses through life, different stages of life may call for
different Dharmas or rightful purposes.
For example, a professional may need to transition to the role of parent and then
later back professional. Tuning into the inner guide allows a person to identify
their Dharma, their true calling. You can do this by finding and aligning your life
purpose and soul purpose.

Artha
Artha is the pursuit of material wealth, which may bring material comfort to a
person. People sometimes believe that the path of spiritual growth and pursuit of
material wealth are mutually exclusive, or even that a spiritual seeker needs to
be in poverty. But that is not true. If we look at the Universe, it is a reflection of
abundance. Nature is abundant in everything. Poverty is nothing but a state of
consciousness. If abundance is a quality of the Divine, how is the pursuit of
abundance in contrast with the pursuit of the Divine?
If one is in poverty, in a state of continually worrying about how to support and
feed, how can one pursue spirituality? When one can move beyond daily worries,
they can focus their attention on the goal of union with the Divine. However, it is
essential to remain unattached to the possession or attainment of wealth. It can
be either transcended or sought with detachment, and with awareness. When
done in this state of mind, the pursuit of wealth is not different from the pursuit
of the Divine, because one sees abundance, or wealth as a form of the Divine. And
in this state of detachment, one recognizes when one has attained their financial
objectives. When that happens, the desire to pursue wealth automatically dies
away, paving the way for Moksha.

Kama
Kama is fulfilling one’s desires. Desires may come in various forms — to be
wealthy, powerful, sexual needs, for recognition, etc. The Kama Purushartha
advocates that one’s desires need to be fulfilled in their lifetime, albeit in a state
of awareness and without harming anyone in the process. For a person to evolve
spiritually and to reach the ultimate destination, the barrier of their desires
needs to be crossed. This can be done either by fulfilling the desires or by
sublimating or transcending them. Suppression of desires altogether is not
recommended because it is like a fully coiled spring that is held down by force.
These suppressed desires can erupt, sometimes unpredictably, causing
detrimental consequences. As one becomes aware of their desires and goes about
fulfilling them in awareness and without judgment, one soon reaches the stage of
being able to sublimate and eventually transcend them. The Divine, the Universe,
lends a big hand in the process.

Moksha
Moksha means liberation, the realization of the Self, and is the ultimate
destination of this human birth. It is the stage of inner realization that the
individual self is the same as the Supreme Self. Moksha is the experience of the
cosmos within one’s self. It is the experience of the flow and fusion of the Shiva
and Shakti energies in one’s self. The experience of union, Oneness
or Ekatvam with one’s Higher Self is Moksha.
As all the rivers eventually lead to the sea, there are many spiritual paths leading
to the same destination. Some paths are shorter than others, and some are more
arduous than others. The path can be difficult to navigate, and the it may not
always be visible. One path, the Pratyangira Sadhana is a direct road to Moksha,
guided by the Divine Mother Pratyangira Herself.
Morality with/without god ?
Can we be good without God? At first the answer to this question may seem so
obvious that even to pose it arouses indignation. For while those of us who are
Christian theists undoubtedly find in God a source of moral strength and resolve
which enables us to live lives that are better than those we should live without
Him, nevertheless it would seem arrogant and ignorant to claim that those who
do not share a belief in God do not often live good moral lives—indeed,
embarrassingly, lives that sometimes put our own to shame.
But wait! It would, indeed, be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot
be good without belief in God. But that was not the question. The question was:
can we be good without God? When we ask that question, we are posing in a
provocative way the meta-ethical question of the objectivity of moral values. Are
the values we hold dear and guide our lives by mere social conventions akin to
driving on the left versus right side of the road or mere expressions of personal
preference akin to having a taste for certain foods or not? Or are they valid
independently of our apprehension of them, and if so, what is their foundation?
Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act
morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest? Or are we in some way
held accountable for our moral decisions and actions?
Today I want to argue that if God exists, then the objectivity of moral values,
moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God,
that is, if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to
say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding. We might act in precisely the
same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of God, such actions would
no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral
values do not exist. Thus, we cannot truly be good without God. On the other
hand, if we do believe that moral values and duties are objective, that provides
moral grounds for believing in God.
Consider, then, the hypothesis that God exists. First, if God exists, objective moral
values exist. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something
is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to
say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the
Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still
be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in
exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.
On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. God’s own holy
and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all
actions and decisions are measured. God’s moral nature is what Plato called the
“Good.” He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving,
generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth.
Moreover, God’s moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine
commands which constitute our moral duties or obligations. Far from being
arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from His moral nature. In the Judaeo-
Christian tradition, the whole moral duty of man can be summed up in the two
great commandments: First, you shall love the Lord your God with all your
strength and with all your soul and with all your heart and with all your mind,
and, second, you shall love your neighbour as yourself. On this foundation we can
affirm the objective goodness and rightness of love, generosity, self-sacrifice, and
equality, and condemn as objectively evil and wrong selfishness, hatred, abuse,
discrimination, and oppression.
Finally, on the theistic hypothesis God holds all persons morally accountable for
their actions. Evil and wrong will be punished; righteousness will be vindicated.
Good ultimately triumphs over evil, and we shall finally see that we do live in a
moral universe after all. Despite the inequities of this life, in the end the scales of
God’s justice will be balanced. Thus, the moral choices we make in this life are
infused with an eternal significance. We can with consistency make moral
choices which run contrary to our self-interest and even undertake acts of
extreme self-sacrifice, knowing that such decisions are not empty and ultimately
meaningless gestures. Rather our moral lives have a paramount significance. So I
think it is evident that theism provides a sound foundation for morality.
Contrast this with the atheistic hypothesis. First, if atheism is true, objective
moral values do not exist. If God does not exist, then what is the foundation for
moral values? More particularly, what is the basis for the value of human beings?
If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human
beings are special or that their morality is objectively true. Moreover, why think
that we have any moral obligations to do anything? Who or what imposes any
moral duties upon us? Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science, writes,
The position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of
morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a
biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a
rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.
I appreciate that when somebody says, ‘Love they neighbour as thyself,’ they
think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, . . . such
reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and
reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.
As a result of socio-biological pressures, there has evolved among homo sapiens
a sort of “herd morality” which functions well in the perpetuation of our species
in the struggle for survival. But there does not seem to be anything about homo
sapiens that makes this morality objectively true.
Moreover, on the atheistic view there is no divine lawgiver. But then what source
is there for moral obligation? Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist, writes,
The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has
nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that,
in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness
for moral right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes
declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human
rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true
and significant. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions
such as these have never been answered outside of religion.
He concludes : Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon
moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion,
are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying
that they discourse without meaning.
Now it is important that we remain clear in understanding the issue before us.
The question is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives? There is
no reason to think that atheists and theists alike may not live what we normally
characterize as good and decent lives. Similarly, the question is not: Can we
formulate a system of ethics without reference to God? If the non-theist grants
that human beings do have objective value, then there is no reason to think that
he cannot work out a system of ethics with which the theist would also largely
agree. Or again, the question is not: Can we recognize the existence of objective
moral values without reference to God? The theist will typically maintain that a
person need not believe in God in order to recognize, say, that we should love our
children. Rather, as humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz puts it, “The central
question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation.
If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground,
are they purely ephemeral?”
If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by
homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is
so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature
which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost
somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish
individually and collectively in a relatively short time. Some action, say, incest,
may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human
evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really
wrong about committing incest. If, as Kurtz states, “The moral principles that
govern our behaviour are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,” [5]
then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing
more serious than acting unfashionably.
The objective worthlessness of human beings on a naturalistic world view is
underscored by two implications of that world view: materialism and
determinism. Naturalists are typically materialists or physicalists, who regard
man as a purely animal organism. But if man has no immaterial aspect to his
being (call it soul or mind or what have you), then he is not qualitatively different
from other animal species. For him to regard human morality as objective is to
fall into the trap of specie-ism. On a materialistic anthropology there is no reason
to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats.
Secondly, if there is no mind distinct from the brain, then everything we think
and do is determined by the input of our five senses and our genetic make-up.
There is no personal agent who freely decides to do something. But without
freedom, none of our choices is morally significant. They are like the jerks of a
puppet’s limbs, controlled by the strings of sensory input and physical
constitution. And what moral value does a puppet, or its movements have?
Thus, if naturalism is true, it becomes impossible to condemn war, oppression, or
crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, or love as good. It does
not matter what values you choose—for there is no right and wrong; good and
evil do not exist. That means that an atrocity like the Holocaust was really
morally indifferent. You may think that it was wrong, but your opinion has no
more validity than that of the Nazi war criminal who thought it was good. In his
book Morality after Auschwitz, Peter Haas asks how an entire society could have
willingly participated in a state-sponsored program of mass torture and genocide
for over a decade without any serious opposition. He argues that far from being
contemptuous of ethics, the perpetrators acted in strict conformity with an ethic
which held that, however difficult and unpleasant the task might have been, mass
extermination of the Jews and Gypsies was entirely justified. . . . the Holocaust as
a sustained effort was possible only because a new ethic was in place that did not
define the arrest and deportation of Jews as wrong and in fact defined it as
ethically tolerable and ever good.
Moreover, Haas points out, because of its coherence and internal consistency, the
Nazi ethic could not be discredited from within. Only from a transcendent
vantage point which stands above relativistic, socio-cultural mores could such a
critique be launched. But in the absence of God, it is precisely such a vantage
point that we lack. One Rabbi who was imprisoned at Auschwitz said that it was
as though all the Ten Commandments had been reversed: thou shalt kill, thou
shalt lie, thou shalt steal. Mankind has never seen such a hell. And yet, in a real
sense, if naturalism is true, our world is Auschwitz. There is no good and evil, no
right and wrong. Objective moral values do not exist.
Moreover, if atheism is true, there is no moral accountability for one’s actions.
Even if there were objective moral values and duties under naturalism, they are
irrelevant because there is no moral accountability. If life ends at the grave, it
makes no difference whether one lives as a Stalin or as a saint. As the Russian
writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky rightly said: “If there is no immortality, then all
things are permitted.”
The state torturers in Soviet prisons understood this all too well. Richard
Wurmbrand reports,
The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of
good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no
restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The Communist torturers often
said, ‘There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we
wish.’ I have heard one torturer even say, ‘I thank God, in whom I don’t believe,
that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.’ He
expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflected on prisoners.
Given the finality of death, it really does not matter how you live. So what do you
say to someone who concludes that we may as well just live as we please, out of
pure self-interest? This presents a pretty grim picture for an atheistic ethicist like
Kai Nielsen of the University of Calgary. He writes,
We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or
that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical
amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not
a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me. Pure practical reason, even with a
good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.
Somebody might say that it is in our best self-interest to adopt a moral life-style.
But clearly, that is not always true: we all know situations in which self-interest
runs smack in the face of morality. Moreover, if one is sufficiently powerful, like a
Ferdinand Marcos or a Papa Doc Duvalier or even a Donald Trump, then one can
pretty much ignore the dictates of conscience and safely live in self-indulgence.
Historian Stewart C. Easton sums it up well when he writes, “There is no
objective reason why man should be moral, unless morality ‘pays off’ in his social
life or makes him ‘feel good.’ There is no objective reason why man should do
anything save for the pleasure it affords him.”
Acts of self-sacrifice become particularly inept on a naturalistic world view. Why
should you sacrifice your self-interest and especially your life for the sake of
someone else? There can be no good reason for adopting such a self-negating
course of action on the naturalistic world view. Considered from the socio-
biological point of view, such altruistic behaviour is merely the result of
evolutionary conditioning which helps to perpetuate the species. A mother
rushing into a burning house to rescue her children or a soldier throwing his
body over a hand grenade to save his comrades does nothing more significant or
praiseworthy, morally speaking, than a fighter ant which sacrifices itself for the
sake of the ant hill. Common sense dictates that we should resist, if we can, the
socio-biological pressures to such self-destructive activity and choose instead to
act in our best self-interest. The philosopher of religion John Hick invites us to
imagine an ant suddenly endowed with the insights of socio-biology and the
freedom to make personal decisions. He writes:
Suppose him to be called upon to immolate himself for the sake of the ant-hill. He
feels the powerful pressure of instinct pushing him towards this self-destruction.
But he asks himself why he should voluntarily . . . carry out the suicidal
programme to which instinct prompts him? Why should he regard the future
existence of a million million other ants as more important to him than his own
continued existence? Since all that he is and has or ever can have is his own
present existence, surely in so far as he is free from the domination of the blind
force of instinct he will opt for life—his own life.
Now why should we choose any differently? Life is too short to jeopardize it by
acting out of anything but pure self-interest. Sacrifice for another person is just
stupid. Thus the absence of moral accountability from the philosophy of
naturalism makes an ethic of compassion and self-sacrifice a hollow abstraction.
R. Z. Friedman, a philosopher of the University of Toronto, concludes, “Without
religion the coherence of an ethic of compassion cannot be established. The
principle of respect for persons and the principle of the survival of the fittest are
mutually exclusive.”
We thus come to radically different perspectives on morality depending upon
whether or not God exists. If God exists, there is a sound foundation for morality.
If God does not exist, then, as Nietzsche saw, we are ultimately landed in nihilism.
But the choice between the two need not be arbitrarily made. On the contrary,
the very considerations we have been discussing can constitute moral
justification for the existence of God.
For example, if we do think that objective moral values exist, then we shall be led
logically to the conclusion that God exists. And could anything be more obvious
than that objective moral values do exist? There is no more reason to deny the
objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world.
The reasoning of Ruse is at worst a text-book example of the genetic fallacy and
at best only proves that our subjective perception of objective moral values has
evolved. But if moral values are gradually discovered, not invented, then such a
gradual and fallible apprehension of the moral realm no more undermines the
objective reality of that realm than our gradual, fallible perception of the physical
world undermines the objectivity of that realm. The fact is that we do apprehend
objective values, and we all know it. Actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and
brutality are not just socially unacceptable behaviour—they are moral
abominations. As Ruse himself states, “The man who says that it is morally
acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5.”
By the same token, love, generosity, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good.
People who fail to see this are just morally handicapped, and there is no reason
to allow their impaired vision to call into question what we see clearly. Thus, the
existence of objective moral values serves to demonstrate the existence of God.
Or consider the nature of moral obligation. What makes certain actions right or
wrong for us? What or who imposes moral duties upon us? Why is it that we
ought to do certain things and ought not to do other things? Where does this
‘ought’ come from? Traditionally, our moral obligations were thought to be laid
upon us by God’s moral commands. But if we deny God’s existence, then it is
difficult to make sense of moral duty or right and wrong, as Richard Taylor
explains,
A duty is something that is owed. But something can be owed only to some
person or persons. There can be no such thing as duty in isolation. The idea of
political or legal obligation is clear enough. Similarly, the idea of an obligation
higher than this, and referred to as moral obligation, is clear enough, provided
reference to some lawmaker higher than those of the state is understood. In
other words, our moral obligations can be understood as those that are imposed
by God. This does give a clear sense to the claim that our moral obligations are
more binding upon us than our political obligations. But what if this higher-than-
human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of a moral
obligation . . . still make sense? the concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible
apart form the idea of God. The words remain, but their meaning is gone.
It follows that moral obligations and right and wrong necessitate God’s existence.
And certainly, we do have such obligations. Speaking recently on a Canadian
University campus, I noticed a poster put up by the Sexual Assault & Information
Centre. It read: “Sexual Assault: No One Has the Right to Abuse a Child, Woman,
or Man.” Most of us recognize that that statement is evidently true. But the
atheist can make no sense of a person’s right not to be sexually abused by
another. The best answer to the question as to the source of moral obligation is
that moral rightness or wrongness consists in agreement or disagreement with
the will or commands of a holy, loving God.
Finally, take the problem of moral accountability. Here we find a powerful
practical argument for believing in God. According to William James, practical
arguments can only be used when theoretical arguments are insufficient to
decide a question of urgent and pragmatic importance. But it seems obvious that
a practical argument could also be used to back up or motivate acceptance of the
conclusion of a sound theoretical argument. To believe, then, that God does not
exist and that there is thus no moral accountability would be quite literally de-
moralizing, for then we should have to believe that our moral choices are
ultimately insignificant, since both our fate and that of the universe will be the
same regardless of what we do. By “de-moralization” I mean a deterioration of
moral motivation. It is hard to do the right thing when that means sacrificing
one’s own self-interest and to resist temptation to do wrong when desire is
strong, and the belief that ultimately it does not matter what you choose or do is
apt to sap one’s moral strength and so undermine one’s moral life. As Robert
Adams observes, “Having to regard it as very likely that the history of the
universe will not be good on the whole, no matter what one does, seems apt to
induce a cynical sense of futility about the moral life, undermining one’s moral
resolve and one’s interest in moral considerations.”
By contrast there is nothing so likely to strengthen the moral life as the beliefs
that one will be held accountable for one’s actions and that one’s choices do make
a difference in bringing about the good. Theism is thus a morally advantageous
belief, and this, in the absence of any theoretical argument establishing atheism
to be the case, provides practical grounds to believe in God and motivation to
accept the conclusions of the two theoretical arguments I just gave above.
Conclusion
What fascinates me most is not philosophy with all its theories, but primarily the
human mind which produces all these thoughts, in other words the question:
what makes it tick.Then it is exciting to see how minds, separated from each
other in space and time ponder about the same questions. Not just for a day or so
but for centuries.
In this assignment I got to know about the Sankaracharya’s philosophy, the four
Purusharthas , Indian materialism and possibility of morality without God.
Materialism is the name given to the metaphysical doctrine which holds that
matter is the only reaIity. In this respect it is opposed to spiritual interpretations
of the universe.
One of the chief topics of Indian philosophers was epistemology, that is the
question “How far can we know reality?” How does knowledge originate and
develop? This last question involves the problem: What are the different sources
of knowledge?
In short, the theological meta-ethical foundations do seem to be necessary for
morality. If God does not exist, then it is plausible to think that there are no
objective moral values, that we have no moral duties, and that there is no moral
accountability for how we live and act. The horror of such a morally neutral
world is obvious. If, on the other hand, we hold, as it seems rational to do, that
objective moral values and duties do exist, then we have good grounds for
believing in the existence of God. In addition, we have powerful practical reasons
for embracing theism in view of the morally bracing effects which belief in moral
accountability produces. We cannot, then, truly be good without God; but if we
can in some measure be good, then it follows that God exists.

You might also like