Examine the reasons for the view that morality is linked to religion. What reasons are there to argue that morality is independent of religion?

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

Thomas Taylor

In this essay I hope to explain the reasons why some people believe that morality is linked to religion and why others do not, and to explain my opinion on the matter. The first thing I need to do is to make clear you know what is meant when I say morality, morals are concerned with goodness or badness or the distinction between right or wrong. However a problem arises with this, as pointed out by Greek philosopher Socrates in Plato’s book ‘The Last Days of Socrates’, it is called The Euthyphro Dilemma: It concerns Socrates’ discussion with a young man Euthyphro. Socrates is on the way to the courthouse to face prosecution by a man named Meletus for apparently corrupting the youth of Athens with his ‘wisdom’ Outside the courthouse he meets a young man named Euthyphro who is there to prosecute his father for allowing a prisoner to die. Euthyphro believes that his actions are holy so Socrates challenges him to state what he thinks holiness is. Euthyphro’s answer is ‘what is agreeable to the God’s is holy, and what is not agreeable is unholy’ However, Socrates notes that disagreements arise amongst the Gods so there can be no universal definition of holiness amongst them. Euthyphro argues that although they disagree on many things all the Gods would agree that killing a man is wrong (unholy). But Socrates wants evidence for this claim. The Euthyphro dilemma is stated:

‘Euthyphro: Well, I should certainly say that what’s holy is whatever all the Gods approve of, and that its opposite, what all the Gods disapprove of, is unholy…

Socrates: We’ll soon be in a better position to judge, my good chap. Consider the following point: is the holy approved by the Gods because it’s holy, or is it holy because it’s approved?’ By this Socrates is saying either something is holy because it is approved by the Gods, or the holy is approved by the Gods because it is holy. If the latter is correct then there must be something above God whose morals God also lives by. By holy this means morally correct. The issue is whether divine commands determine what is right or wrong, good or bad or whether morality can judge Divine Commands.

This is a preview of the whole essay

St. Thomas Aquinas, was alive from 1224 to 1274, he argued that certain things in the world point unquestionably to the existence of God. His fourth way, “…Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection, and this we call God.” This is basically saying that because people are good, true, noble etc, then there must be someone who is to everyone the causing of there being, good, true and noble, and that this someone must be God, in Thomas Aquinas’ way of thinking this shows that morality is linked to religion because humans have goodness in them and that is just a reflection of the goodness of God. Some other people may disagree with this point of view and think that there is not only goodness in humans, but also evil and if the goodness in humans is a mere reflection of the goodness of God then the same would apply with evil, and if God is evil or at least part evil then what he says is good may actually be bad or wrong.

Another philosopher who thought that morality is linked to religion was Immanuel Kant, he created the categorical imperative. Kant argued that only one fact is indisputable and this is that a moral law exists which would be meaningless with out the existence of God. He also thought that everyone has a duty to seek the highest form of good, but no human will be able to do this the moral law will never be satisfied in this life, then the existence of God is necessary in the goal of morality to be realised. The Categorical Imperative is a deontological theory, meaning that the rightness or wrongness of an action is not only judged by the consequences of that action, for example by Gods command. His categorical imperative is basically a categorical ‘ought’ and we can do this because we have reason. As Kant is saying with this theory that the rightness or wrongness of an action is decided not by the consequences but by others means such as God’s command, then he is linking morality with religion. This theory can be proved by bringing lying into the equation, if a man is so poor that even if he borrowed money he knows he will be unable to repay that loan. However there are debt collectors that are becoming threatening toward him. The man has to ask himself whether he should borrow money from his friend to repay the tax collectors, knowing that he will not be able to repay his friend. If he did borrow money from his friend his maxim would be ‘Whenever you need a loan, promise to repay it, even though you know you cannot do so.’ This maxim could not become a universal law according to Kant. If it did then people would no longer believe one another and nobody would lend anyone any money. Therefore such a maxim would be self-defeating and would not work. Kant argued that lying was always wrong. We would not reasonably want lying to become a universal law because there would be chaos and people would quickly learn not to trust each other. If a lie is to be successful then others must believe that person to be telling the truth, which means that the success of a lie depends on there not being a ‘universal law’ permitting it. This proves Kant’s theory to be correct, and if Kant’s theory is saying that morality is linked to religion, then that must be the case.

John Henry Newman, who lived from 1801 to 1890, argued that there were objective moral laws which were created by a personal law-giver. He said “If, as in the case, we feel responsibility, are ashamed, are frightened at transgressing the voice of conscience, this implies that there is one to whom we are responsible, before whom we are ashamed, whose claim on us we fear.” Here Newman is making the connection between a moral law which makes certain demands on us and the existence of God who made this law. This is basically arguing that as there is a moral law then there must be someone who made that law and to that person we are obliged to keep to the law, and that that person is God. Which means that this theory is arguing that morality is linked to religion?

Another philosopher who agreed with Newman was H.P. Owen, he argued “It is impossible to think of a command without a commander…Either we take moral claims to be self-explanatory modes of impersonal existence, or we explain them in terms of a personal God.” This argument is very similar to that of Newman’s, in that it is also stating that is our morals are commands, then there has to be a commander, and that is God. This theory like Newman, Kant and Aquinas’ argues that morality is and must be linked to religion.

Teleological theories such as Utilitarianism understand the rightness or wrongness of actions by looking at the consequences of that action. In the case of Utilitarianism this is done by measuring the happiness or unhappiness it produces. One philosopher who wrote Utilitarian theories is John Stuart Mill, he wrote “The happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right conduct, is not the agent’s own happiness, but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, Utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator.” This theory is not linking morality and religion, because according to Utilitarianism actions are seen as right or wrong by the consequences to all concerned, not to what God says.

Scottish philosopher David Hume’s idea that morality is based on the concept of sympathy, which he views as the basis of interaction between people and the wellspring of human happiness. He then defines morality as the qualities that are approved in whomever they happen to appear and by virtually everybody else. Hume also held that the concept of right and wrong is not rational but arises from a regard for one’s own happiness, not from religious constraint or belief in God.

A philosopher called Thomas Hobbes argued that morality is not linked to religion. In his book Leviathan he explains that without agreements supported by force if needed the world would fall into chaos. He also thought that morality is based on emotion rather than reason, but could be expressed and sustained by a contract, drawn up between people for their mutual benefit. So Hobbes thought that morality is based on emotion, and is not established by an overall sense of design and purpose, but imposed by a mutual agreement In order to curb the selfishness of human emotions.

I conclude that the arguments for a link between morality and religion are stronger than those against a link between morality and religion. I am of the opinion that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is a much stronger argument than that of J.S Mill (Utilitarianism), I think this because there is no question that there is a moral law, and we have to live by that moral law, and the rightness or wrongness of actions is decided by God’s command not just by the consequences of that action, otherwise the existence of a moral law would be pointless. I personally think that there is a link between morality and religion, this is because when we have sinned we feel responsibility, fear and ashamed, and as we fell this way there must be someone that we feel responsible and ashamed to, and fearful of, and this person is God. Also I believe that moral claims are due to God being a personal God, instead of them being self-explanatory.