'Some religious ethics are too rigid for moral decision making. Discuss

by tiffowong (student)

AS and A Level Religious Studies & Philosophy

(b) ‘Some religious ethics are too rigid for moral decision making.’ Discuss
Divine command theory can be seen as too rigid for moral decision as morals depend on God’s wills. An act is morally right if it has been commanded by God and morally wrong if God has forbidden it. Right and wrong are therefore solely decided by God’s will or commands. Moral standards hence decisions became an objective matter because it is based on God. It only right if God the law-giver, the supreme moral governor commands it and wrong if it is not. It is rigid because it is not merely a matter of custom or personal feelings but relates to what God requires and commands. Norman Geisler put forward the five principle features of Christian Ethics – Based on God’s will “be holy because I am holy (lev.11:45), “ be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect”(Mtt 5:48); absolute as commands are from God, they are binding on everyone, everywhere and always; Based on God’s revelation , his will revealed in both nature, scriptures, and the bible; Prescriptive; and deontological, where no matter what the consequences are, things are right and wrong regardless. One must make the right decision by following God’s will always. This promoted unreflective mass conformism rather than responsible and intelligent individual decisions.

This is a preview of the whole essay

However, the rigidness of the divine command theory can be doubted when the rules, e.g. those in the bible, can be broken on rare occasions. The idea that Christian ethics is founded on the love between God and humanity and for all humans for each other. The rules generally uphold love, but on the occasions the principle of love requires going against the rules e.g. Jesus himself implied that human need can overrule the normal order of things by justifying the breaking of the Sabbath law “the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath”. Moreover, the Church of England will argue the at the fundamental principle of agape means that on occasions we need to do things that in less extreme circumstances would be regarded as wrong. For example in the case of abortion the absolute prohibition of killing (exodus 20) is put in the context of the Christian principle of live, charity and compassion hence in some rare cases when the mother’s mental or physical health is threatened, the rule can be broken. Traditional Christian ethics are therefore not too rigid for moral decisions making because the foundation of agape allows for the necessary flexibility in situations.

Situation Ethics being a type of Christian ethics further developed self-sacrificing love based on Jesus’ teachings as the basic moral principle. The moral value of an action is judged according to the consequences which it produces. One has to choose the course of action that most exemplifies self-sacrificing love. Situation Ethics is not at all rigid as it encourages rational calculation of likely consequences hence opens up different possibility of choices. Situation Ethics rejects the authoritative or absolute status of all prescriptive principles which legislate irrespective of particular situation. It rejects absolutes such as ‘never’ or ‘always’ hence all other principles are negotiable in terms of how far they produce love.It is a flexible ethical system where we choose love as our guiding moral principle and decide our values.