Does Morality Depend on Religion Faith and Reason

Does Morality Depend on Religion? Faith and Reason in the study of ethics

Ethics in Religion The connection between ethics and religious beliefs should be obvious; both address the question how ought human beings to live? Often times, secular and religious philosophers arrive at similar conclusions. For example: -Humans ought not to murder one another (Thou shalt not kill) -Human beings have a duty to value the needs of others (love thy neighbor as thyself) -Truthfulness is usually best (Thou shalt not bear false witness However: Some religious people insist that moral truths are exclusively religious truths- that is they are true only with reference to the will of God. For example….

Divine Command Theory �Advocates of Divine Command Theory assert that which is morally right is right because God commands it, and that which is wrong because God forbids it. �Pleasing features of this theory: � It seems clear and straight foreword �-Moral truth is objective -Differences of opinion regarding morality can be clearly 2 settled and explained. However, this view has significant problems, even for deeply religious believers…

Plato’s objection to Divine Command Theory- (From Euthypro) �In Plato’s Euthypro, Socrates asks: �“Is conduct right because the gods command it? Or do the gods command it because it is right? ” �If X is right because God commands it, then God’s commands have no moral reasoning behind them and are arbitrary. In which case, how can God be good? �Godfrietd Leibniz articulated Plato’s objection eloquently in his 1686 Discourse on Metaphysics: In saying that things are not good by any rule of goodness, but sheerly by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing exactly the contrary?

The alternative… �Because God is good, God only wills what is right. �If this is true, however, then something independent of the will of God determines what is right. (That is God forbids murder BECAUSE murder is wrong. ) In which case, we must answer “what is it about murder that makes it morally wrong? ” without reference to the will of God. �If this true then God’s commands are not arbitrary, but Divine Command Theory is incomplete as a moral theory. Because of this, many religious thinkers, including St. Thomas Aquinas, have rejected Divine Command Theory.

To sum up so far… (Rachels) � (1) Suppose God commands us to do what is right. Then either (a) the right actions are right because he commands them, or (b) he commands them because they are right. � (2) If (a) is true, then God’s commands are, from a moral point of view, arbitrary; moreover, the doctrine of the goodness of God is rendered meaningless. � (3) If (b) is true, then we must embrace the idea that there is a standard of right and wrong independent of God’s will. � (4) Therefore, we must either regard God’s commands as arbitrary and give up the doctrine of the goodness of God, or admit that there is a standard of right and wrong independent of His will, and give up theological definitions of right and wrong. � (5) From a religious point of view, it is undesirable to regard God’s commands as arbitrary or give up the doctrine that he is good. � (6) Therefore, even from a religious point of view, a standard of right and wrong that is independent of his will must be accepted. � Can anyone think of a way out of this dilemma for theologian?

Natural Law Theory, (An alternative) � Natural Law theory is based on the idea that God created nature and that which is evil is that which is unnatural. This idea was adopted by Christian Theologians from the work of Aristotle. � The world, according to this theory, is a rational ordered system in which everything has a purpose and man has a special place. � For example: � Eyes are for seeing, so they ought to be used for seeing. Plants are a food source for some animals, so they ought to eat them, and so on. Murder is “unnatural” and therefore evil, because humans are naturally social creatures. Some theologians have concluded that any non-reproductive sex is unnatural because the purpose of sex is reproduction and, therefore, masturbation and homosexual acts are evil. � There are some significant problems with this view…

The “is/ought” objection � Just because a particular organ, animal, object or plant IS playing an important role in natural processes, it does not follow that it OUGHT to or that any other role it might perform is somehow evil. For example: -Eyes are “for” seeing, so is it evil to use them to give nonverbal cues? -Incisors are “for” tearing meat, so is it evil not to eat meat? Would it be evil to use one’s teeth to open a package? -Feet are “for” walking, is it evil to use them to kick a ball? These powerful objections to Divine Command Theory and Natural Law Theory have lead even many theologians to seek ethical theories founded in human reason rather than appeals to divine authority.

From St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica…. � Its moral nature is stamped on a human act by its object taken with reference to the principles of moral activity, that is according to the pattern of life as it should be lived in accordance to the reason. If the object as such implies what is in accord with the reasonable order of conduct, then it will be a good kind of action; for instance, to assist somebody in need. If, on the other hand, it implies what is repugnant to reason, the it will be a bad kind of action; for instance, to appropriate to oneself what belongs to another. But it may happen that the object does not immediately involve the reasonable plan of life one way or the other, and then it is an action morally indifferent of its kind; for instance, to go for a walk or to pick up a straw. ? -1265 -1274 AD