Religion and Morality

According to DCT, God decides what is right and wrong since God is all powerful.  Human reason plays no part in legitimising moral rules – God has absolute authority.  All humans do is accept God’s revelation of what is right and wrong. So, morality is dependent upon religion.  William of Occam: “God cannot be obligated to any act.  With Him a thing becomes right solely because he wants it so.”  Christians who accept DCT look to scripture to provide our moral standards – the Decalogue (10 commandments) is an example of a set of moral rules.  So, religious ethics are ‘guaranteed’ by God – God says that something is right or wrong and that’s it!  A thing is good ONLY because God commands it and evil because he forbids it.  Emil Brunner (theologian) put it like this, “The Good consists in always doing what God wills at any particular moment.”

Philosophical definitions:

Absolutism – the view that there are certain types of action that are always right or wrong……it does not depend on the context or the outcome.

Deontological (from the Greek ‘deon’ meaning ‘duty’) – the view that there are certain acts that OUGHT to be carried out and some that OUGHT not.  This gives rise to rules, codes and laws.

Moral Absolutism is often identified as a deontological approach.

Attractions:

• Key attraction – without this ultimate foundation (that morality depends on the existence of God) of our values no other values have any justification.  Rashdall (1858-1924) argued that there must be an ultimate value if any other values are to exist – “to the man who regards all spiritual life as a mere inexplicable incident in the career of a world which is essentially material and as a whole essentially purposeless there can be no objective foundation to morality and, in the end, no morality at all.”  This sort of reasoning goes back to Plato who argued that our changing world cannot be the source of values but that there must be an ultimate unchanging reality which gives our world value.  Even some atheists seem to recognise the presupposition that moral behaviour and belief in God are linked: “If God is dead, everything is permitted.” Sartre
• So, the argument has intuitive appeal….morality must have a firmer foundation than human thoughts and wishes.  Some argue that a life lived with this sense of the existence of an ultimate value of goodness will be more likely to be a happy and worthwhile one.
• It appears to make sense; if the assumptions are true then the rest of the argument follows.
• It suggests that human beings are unable to work out right and wrong on their own…….this is the experience of many.
• Such a religious view gives us guidance in a complex world………if God is as Christians describe……we can trust his wisdom and therefore his moral rules.
• Believers would argue that a merely rational and secular approach to ethics leaves the individual stranded on a second-highest level of moral attainment because it lacks the dynamism and inspiration to motivate the individual.
• Many believers think that social problems (increased abortions, drugs, violence) can be linked to a society which has moved away from God.

Weaknesses:

• Is it sufficient to say that a thing is moral just because God has commanded it?  If God said murder was good then according to DCT……it would be so.  Many people find this unacceptable because it makes moral law arbitrary depending on God’s whims.  Kai Nielsen (atheist) argues that merely commanding something doesn’t make it moral.  Believers reply that it’s wrong to think of DCT as ‘blind obedience’ – we follow a person’s advice because they are trustworthy and we consider them wise.
• How can the individual be sure about knowing God’s will?
• DCT sets up God as a dictator…..do we have moral responsibility under such a system?
• What about situations where no express divine command has been given?
• Moral behaviour might be said to be motivated by fear of God’s punishment…..a questionable basis for morality?
• Critics of DCT see this as disallowing atheists from the outset – since atheists do not look to divine revelation for their knowledge of right and wrong.  Yet atheists can be moral.  The believer might reply that all moral knowledge comes through a society that was in the past influenced by religious beliefs.
• If humans are not free to decide their moral choices can their choices be called moral at all?  If an action is coerced is it a genuinely free action?  So, it’s objected that obedience to DCT undermines the individual’s moral autonomy/freedom to decide for himself.  It’s claimed that living in obedience to some external power such as God, robs us of our autonomy and dignity.   Basil Mitchell (believer) argues that autonomy is not undermined by accepting DCT – “Autonomy requires that the standards used shall be, in some sense, the judge’s own standards; not, however, in the sense that he must have invented them; only in the sense that he must have rationally accepted them.”  Believers are arguing that it far from immature to recognise that God is the Supreme Power.  Ordering one’s life in response is an exercise of maturity and autonomy.
• Human beings are capable of making their own moralities without any higher authority.  
• Can it be proved that such a higher authority (God) actually exists?
• DCT requires that humans are capable of finding out what God wants……..some find this problematic.  DCT assumes that the Bible is the word of God and that we can interpret the commands contained there.
• Can the moral rule always be applied?  Is it always wrong to lie or to kill?  Some think that a more flexible approach to morality is needed.  Some DC theorists might agree that there are ‘hard’ cases but generally rules such as the 10 commandments are applicable.
• Many have believed they were doing what God required……when in fact they carried out evil deeds.  Indeed, many atrocities have been carried out in the name of God.
• Even if it is accepted that God is the ‘decider’ of what is moral………is it right that people do good for personal gain or out of fear of punishment……compare Pascal’s wager.
• Don Cupitt (a modern radical ‘Christian’ thinker who rejects the old ‘realist’ notion of God) argues that dependence on a higher moral authority suffocates human creativity.
• The burden of proof is on the Divine Command theorist to show that here can be no morality without God.
• Richard Holloway (Bishop of Edinburgh) thinks that people want to retain absolute moral standards because they find it difficult to live with moral ambiguity.  Holloway thinks we should reject the power-relationship implicit in the DCT

Morality does not depend on Religion

The Euthyphro Dilemma (must be included in any discussion of the relationship between morality and religion) is one of Plato’s dialogues in which Socrates and Euthyphro discuss the nature of the good; Socrates asks “Do the gods love what is good because it is good, or is something good because the gods love it?”  Some philosophers think that the ED shows that it is impossible for God to be the foundation of morality because:

• If God loves what is good because it is good then there must be a standard of goodness independent of God.  
• If something is good because God loves it then why should we agree with God’s judgement?  If God decided that lying was a good thing would we have to accept this judgement?

The dilemma might also be put like this:

• Is a thing right because God commands it?

0r

• Does God command it because it is right?

THE DISCUSSION CENTRES ON WHETHER WHAT HUMANS ARE MORALLY OBLIGED TO DO RESTS ON WHAT GOD COMMANDS OR WHETHER GOD COMMANDS WHAT IS GOOD INDEPENDENT OF HIS COMMANDING IT.

Plato refutes the first and thought he was left with only the second as an alternative. Socrates argued God commands us to do good because it IS good……this assumes that good is independent of God and that God is not the source of standards of morality.  Kant also took this view and wrote “even the Holy One of the gospel must first be compared with our ideal of moral perfection before we can recognise him to be such.”  This is unacceptable to theists because it makes God conform to a law higher than him.  So, Kant and Plato rejected DCT.  Basil Mitchell (Christian) described Kant’s remark as ‘preposterous’.  He argues that Christ or God is not simply to be evaluated on a moral scale that is logically prior to the religious object that it measures.  T.S. Eliot agreed, claiming “a great artist creates the standards by which he is to be judged.”

Euthyphro’s position – he thinks that what is moral is what the gods command….so those commands are clearly absolute.  So, Euthyphro is arguing for a DCT of ethics.  A modern philosopher, Paul Helm, takes this view.  We have seen that the common criticism of this position is that the theory makes morality dependent upon God’s arbitrary will – just whatever he decides.  God might tomorrow order us to murder innocent children and this would make it right.  A believer would reply that God could not command this and be true to his nature i.e. remain God.  Wrongness is what is contrary to the commands of a loving God.  But isn’t ‘loving’ defined in terms of ‘doing good’ which takes us back to the problem we started with?

Socrates’ position (and Plato’s) – he thinks there is a standard of goodness independent of God.  God is therefore no longer supreme……there is a standard against which God can be measured.  A modern philosopher, Alasdair MacIntyre takes this view and argues for a sense of ‘right’ which is independent of God.

Aquinas – only an all wise God would be in the best position to determine right from wrong.  God’s essence IS goodness so there is no question of God laying down moral rules that are independent of his nature.  Aquinas thought that this then rules out the idea of God laying down mere arbitrary rules that go against reason.  So, the believer never loses his autonomy in having to sacrifice reason for faith – so for Aquinas the Euthyphro is a false dilemma.

So, how do theists answer the ‘dilemma’?  Theists would argue that goodness is intrinsic to God……he IS ‘loving-kindness’……..therefore there is no conflict – God IS good.  God’s will cannot be separated from his nature…..he wills what he does because he is the God he is.  What he wills relates to his justice and love and “it will therefore, in the final analysis, be the most just and loving thing we can do.” C S Evans.  But does this answer the problem?  Some think that it merely raises the discussion to a new level…..about the nature of love.  Believers might reply simply that God has made us like this – and this includes the moral scale by which we judge everything, including God.

The theist obviously draws the connection between God and morality.  But they do not say that people can never discover moral ‘goods’ unless they acknowledge God’s existence.  Obviously, they can.  Theists and atheists can know that friendship is a good thing and that cruelty is wrong.  The question at issue is this – which account of the way things really are best makes sense of the moral rules we all acknowledge – that of the theist or the atheist?  Theists claim that we are the products of a good and loving creator and this explains why we have a nature that discovers a value that is really there.  But how can the atheist explain this?  If the atheist is right then no objective moral values exist, “If God does not exist, everything is permissible” Dostoyevsky.  Atheists may know that some things are not permissible, but they do not know why.

Morality as Natural Law

The DCT is typically Protestant.  NL theory is typically Catholic.  The essence of NL theory is that what we ought to do depends on the sort of beings we are.  Our God-given nature has a purpose or end (telos) and this can be discovered by our unaided reason (no special revelation from God is required).  Various basic rules can be reasoned; these show us how to fulfil our human telos:

• do good, avoid evil
• preserve human life
• reproduce
• promote human society

The search for objective moral truth was seen by Aquinas as an important responsibility.  Natural Law for him is a rational principle of guidance built into nature.  St Paul had stated that non-believers had the law of God written on their hearts.  This meant that it is possible to arrive at a knowledge of right and wrong by looking at the way we are made and at the moral sense provided by our conscience and by taking into account the purpose for which we exist.  In this way, the laws of nature and reason are a correct pointer to the laws of the author of nature and reason – God.  So, behaviours that would offend against the list above are  as much against reason as against any explicit divine prohibitions that we might find in the Bible.

In one sense NL theory leaves morality independent of religion; for there is no need for God’s commands in seeking the right thing to do – we just follow our reason – and, of course, the atheist can do this as well as the believer.  Some Protestants argue that reason is insufficient – we cannot rely on our reason…..it is flawed, impaired, damaged by the Fall.  NL theorists argue that our reason is only weakened by the Fall and still functions well enough for the task.  

Other Sources of Morality

Certainly, atheists cannot link morality to God since there is no God!  What other possible sources of moral obligation are there?

• The ideals and desires created by me…..my morality…..my rules.  But would this not lead to moral anarchy……so many different opinions?
• My moral will itself….some read Kant this way.  I impose morality on myself.  But how can the one bound and the one who binds be the same?  The locksmith, if he locks himself in a room, is not really locked in, for he can also unlock himself.
• Other human beings may be thought to impose morality on me……my parents.  But if your father commands you to deal drugs your moral obligation is to disobey him.  No human being can have absolute authority over another.
• Society…….but what is society? - only more individuals.
• Evolution……the survival of the fittest principle doesn’t seem to sit well with the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount!

Conclusion

Clearly, the relationship between religion and morality is complex and potentially confusing.  Rowan Williams (Archbishop) accepts that believers do not automatically have more information about moral truth – but he sees the difference in the relationships believers are involved in.  Their relationship with God involves them with a larger reality.  This relationship should offer an inspiration for living the moral life rather than laying down a set of rules.  

So, the contribution of Christianity (religion) to ethical understanding has both a religious (God’s sovereign commands guaranteed by his goodness) and a rational (natural law) dimension.  In the perspective of faith, ethical obligation is a response to the personal relationship between God and man.

Kant and the Autonomy of Ethics

Ethics need not have any religious dimension – ethics is an autonomous sphere, self-governing and based on reason alone.  This stress on autonomy is notable in Kant.  He rejected the dependence of ethics on religion or on any other ulterior motive.  Ethics, for Kant, is a matter of reason alone, the faculty by which we come to know the moral law.  Our duty is to follow the moral law as a categorical imperative.  Kant saw religion as something that was required to make better sense of the moral law but he was not implying that ethics was dependent on religion.

Definitions:

Deontological Ethics – A D. theory is based on the idea that an act’s claim to being write or wrong is independent of the consequences of that action.

Teleological Ethics – a T. theory bases its judgements on the outcome of actions.

a priori – knowledge that comes before sense experience

synthetic – knowledge that requires external verification and may be true or false

Kant argued that ethical statements are a priori and synthetic – they are knowable before sense experience but require sense experience for verification.  For Kant, a moral statement is a priori synthetic because ethical knowledge comes from pure reason (rather than sense experience) but may also be either right or wrong.

• Kant noted that people are aware of a moral law at work within them.  He tried to find some sort of explanation for this moral obligation which we experience.  
• Humans know they are free because they experience moral choice – not the other way round!  It is our experience of moral law that leads to our awareness of freedom.  This sense of freedom comes when we make moral choices.
• He spoke of “the moral law within me.”  We follow a moral command because it is our duty.  He thought that this sense of duty results because the world has been designed in a way that it matters that I act in one way rather than another.  Also, there must be some sort of guarantee behind this sense of duty – a reward.  He believed the reward is happiness.  The reward does not appear accessible in this world so he concluded that we must look beyond this life.
• He concluded that the exploration of what is good and what is bad should begin with a good will.
• He rooted the moral choice in the will of the agent.  The exercise of the agent’s free-will in an action becomes the criterion on which that action is judged.
• Acting morally is an end in itself – moral choice is independent of any thought of consequence.  A categorical imperative is a command without conditions – ‘You must not tell lies’.  Being moral is a matter of the categorical imperative.  There is nothing moral about carrying out an action simply because of the intended outcome.