Dogmatism and Absolutism - Essay Example

Ethics Question Dogmatism is a of having a certain belief in something and asserting that that belief cannot be changed. This belief is unfounded and determines the direction an individual will take in making significant decisions (Gurvitch 132). On the other hand, absolutism is the belief that the truth is universal and unchanging and that it unites all the people (Gurvitch 132). It cannot be avoided, and nothing can be done to change it. Each person has the freedom to embrace it without fear. Absolutism leads to a state in which something is accepted as authority without any questions (Gurvitch 133). Dogmatism is common in all religious settings where the scriptures are accepted and acknowledged as the truth without any questions. Once an individual is a dogma and invites these believes and let them control their whole being, he or she automatically become an absolutist and decides to take the belief as the only existing truth and let nothing interfere with what they have come to know as the only reality (Gurvitch 135). Dogmatism is usually followed by absolutism because once people have faith in something and recognize it as the only existing truth, then they absolutely encircles it without having any doubts about it. Dogmatism and absolutism are basically two sides of the same coin. Once an individual believes in the perfection of a certain belief, they are inevitably forced to accept it as it is. The human mind is narrow, and it is easier to accept than to take further steps to confirm the laid down opinion (Gurvitch 134). The mind likes simplified things; no wonder it does not go the distance to prove or confirm the truth. Dogmatic absolutism results to the formation of rigid individuals who only believe in what they know, and are not willing to accommodate further change. For instance, an individual may have a certain perspective about a family member who has been accused of a crime. The opinion of this person will not change even if the evidence uncovered suggests that he is guilty. Dogmatic absolutism is evident, in this case, as the rigidity is still manifested even after evidence contrary to the belief is uncovered (Gurvitch 141). Another point of view has no use because the mind of this individual is made up and nothing can alter this belief or opinion. In religious institutions, dogmatism always leads to absolutism. This is because once a person has accepted a certain faith as the only one and the true one, then it become hard to change their opinion. They are only dedicated to that particular faith and any side attempts to show them otherwise always fail. The many opinions are often contradicting and having cemented your faith in one single opinion makes it easier to maneuver through the different truths that are available. Dogmatism also leads to absolutism due to its nature of limiting the creativity of an individual. Once an individual has formed a firm unchangeable opinion about something, it is hard for this particular person to venture further and try to expand their knowledge on the subject. The unfounded belief, therefore, limits their creativity, and they absolutely find no need to question what they already know (Gurvitch 137). In conclusion, it can be summed up that, dogmatism always leads to absolutism. Once an individual has made up his or her mind about a specific opinion, no matter how vague and unproven it might be, then he or she automatically anchor their all attention in it, and refuse to accept any kind of change that might be antagonistic to what they believe. Decision making in most cases is affected, and people lose their creativity and imaginative natures. Question # 3 Professor George I. Mavrodes, in his works “Religion and the Queerness of Morality,” questions the free man’s worship and declares it impossible for morality to exist in this free man’s worship (Meister & Copan 431). According to Mavrodes, a free man’s worship cannot find room for morality because each person acts in their own self-interest (Meister & Copan 431). This is because nobody is willing to act philanthropically, but will always do something where they are assured of reward. This kind of worship promises freedom and autonomy. It means having no superior creature that is always watching over you and directing one’s behavior. Free worship implies no God to demand only the moral behavior. Therefore, in Russellian world, immorality would be rampant and chaos will exert their supremacy. In this case, Russellian world would be highly strange to morality (Meister & Copan 432). According to Mavrodes, religion is the pillar on which morality stands, and if religion were to fail, then it would imply that there is no God hence, free man’s worship (Meister & Copan 433). Morality cannot survive without religion; therefore, it would also fail. In a free man’s worship, everything is permitted. People will not be obligated to do certain things, and there will be no governing authority to stop them from doing other things leading to all sorts of immorality. Religion has for a long time directed people’s behaviors and its failure would leave a vacuum that will be spontaneously occupied by immorality (Meister & Copan 433). For morality to prevail, religion has to be kept strong and allowed to play its role of guiding people’s actions. Mavredos also states that, “in a Rusellian world, human life comes to an end at physical death” (Meister & Copan 436). The people do not, therefore, believe in life after death. This will result to immoral activities, as they have no fear of the judgment that waits them in the afterlife. Lack of anxiety about what will be the result of the wickedness, which they engage in, will result to more sin. In this free man’s worship, people will abscond their obligations because they do not have that presumption that God will make it up to them later. Nobody will pay back a debt, risk their life for another or keep a simple promise (Meister & Copan 436). Everything will be done only for self-benefit and gratification without any care for the neighbor who really needs that help. Good would be unheard of, and immorality would reign. In conclusion, Mavrodes attempt to show that a Russelian world would be strange to morality only reveals that people act morally because of the fear they have for the judgment that awaits them. If they were not conscious of God’s existence, they would only act in self-interest. Works Cited Top of Form Gurvitch, Georges. Sociology of Law. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers, 2000. Print. Meister, Chad and Copan, Paul. Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print. Bottom of Form Read More