1.) In terms of ethical matters, what are the different sources of authority?

Elaborate on why
these are considered as sources of authority.

In ethics, there are three sources of authority. Law, Religion, and Culture. First, the law is
considered as one of the sources of authority because as citizens, we must be responsible and
abide by it in order to keep our community peaceful, Law reminds us what are the things that we
can do and what we can’t do by reading and viewing the constitutions which is part of the law.
To add, laws secure our rights as citizens and safeguard our general safety against violations
by other people, including individuals, groups, and the government itself. In religion, we could
see how this gives authority to people by reminding them what are the things that are morally
right and what are the things that are not. With the authority given in the religion, people have a
chance to practice what they preach, obey what the bible and God say, and also condemn
things that are forbidden by them.
Lastly, in culture, there are lots of things that we can consider for this to be a source of authority.
Many countries live in a culture where men are always stronger than women. In households,
men are the ones who control the family and this is passed from generation to generation this
patriarchal system overvalues the masculine and could harm oneself. In some other countries,
many believe that they are superior to others because they have an access to certain things that
other cultures cannot have and this is where cultural relativism and ethnocentrism enter. If we
start understanding the practices and norms of a certain culture, then we can be empathic in
almost everything. But in my take, some cultures must be stopped such as patriarchy because
this will do no good in society.

2.) Discuss the stances of James Rachels in “Does Morality Depend on Religion?

Rachel’s first stance is The Presumed Connection between Morality and Religion. Numerous
people believe that religion and morality are interconnected and morality can be understood in
the context of religion. Based on my understanding, Rachel believes that you don’t need to be a
religious person for you to be a moral person. As stated in these readings, Moore is justifying
his actions by making religion an excuse for his greediness, and most of the people in Alabama
believed in him, little did they know that he was manipulating them for self-gain. That’s why it’s
very important to separate religion from the law because this helps a country to function
democratically and prevent the domination of the majority of the religious groups and violations
of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, privacy, and equality.
His second stance is about the Divine Command Theory which explains that God is the one
who gives the rule to people and we are free to obey it or not. But if we choose to live as what it
should be, we must follow his laws. One’s action is right if he commands it and wrong if he
forbids it. The problem with this theory is that it makes god commands arbitrary, there cannot be
any justifications for them for example, truthfulness is right, so God can't be requiring
truthfulness since it's right. Second, God forbids certain behavior because it is right (already)
God is intelligent and understands that telling the truth is preferable, so he demands it. That’s
why James Rachel objectifies this conception of morality as bizarre.
Lastly are Religion and Moral issues. When people claim that their moral convictions are
derived from their religious beliefs, in reality, according to Rachels, they form their opinions on
moral matters first and then interpret the Bible and church tradition to support those opinions.