Our response to the presentation was different because we split off the sections. I was in charge of responding whether ethical questions were not relevant in the AOK of religion. I had two thoughts on this matter; one being that every individual has their own interpretation of the teachings of the Bible and God, and there wouldn’t be any need for shared ethical code, as one would create his/her own ethical code by reading the Bible. Therefore, there needs to be no shared ethical code, as there are many interpretation of a religious text. For example there are many interpretation of jihad. Some Muslims interpret it as an internal struggle, but some Muslims interpret it as a holy war. The lack of consistency in interpretation creates a sense of the lack of shared ethical code among all believers of one faith.
My other thought that as that ethical decisions might not be completely relevant in religion being that religion is just a set of rules made up by higher being that we are forced to believe is ultimately fool proof and can certainly be deemed morally right or wrong. But in fact, in many cases the teachings of the Bible do not adhere to the current moral rights and wrongs of society. For example, gay marriage is becoming more and more of something that is not deemed morally wrong, but morally acceptable. This is a flaw in the ethical arguments, decisions that are set out by religion, as they lack adherence to societal morals. But how can an ethical decision change over time when a moral argument is supposed to be consistent? Are ethical decisions set out in religion eternal?
My impression from the other AOK’s my group members have thought about is that there are flaws in every AOK. But I do believe it is hard to omit ethics from religion even though there are arguments against the presence of ethics in religion.