The most interesting chapter of James Rachels‘ The Elements of Moral Philosophy deals with the connection between morality and religion, specifically Christianity. He makes the most compelling case I’ve thus far heard which argues that morality exists independently of religion and divine command.
Rachels focuses first on the “Divine Command Theory,” which essentially “says that ‘morally right’ means ‘commanded by God,’ and ‘morally wrong’ means ‘forbidden by God'” (41). He references the words of Socrates in Plato’s Euthyphro, who asks, “Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?” In the first option, where conduct is right because God commands it, God’s commands can be seen as arbitrary, in that “God could have given different commands just as easily. He could have commanded us to be liars, and then lying, and not truthfulness, would be right” (42). Furthermore, the goodness of God can be reduced to nonsense: “if we accept the idea that good and bad are defined by reference to God’s will, this notion is deprived of any meaning” (42). Logically speaking, if “X is good” simply means “X is commanded by God,” then “God’s commands are good” would mean only “God’s commands are commanded by God.” And that is an empty tautology. Leibniz is quoted as saying, “For why praise [God] for what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing the contrary?” (43).
To cite something as being right because God commanded it is nonsensical. We cannot trust authority when dealing with moral actions. If we did, all laws would be morally right, and we know that is not the case, due not only to moral common sense but also due to the fact that laws across cultures differ and conflict, which is a logical contradiction.
In the second of Socrates’ options, where God commands behavior because the behavior is right, we avoid the troubles of the first option, but we must also admit that there is some standard of right and wrong that is independent of God‘s will. God seeing or recognizing that a behavior is “morally right” is quite different than him making it “morally right.” From this, we might ask ourselves why, if a behavior is right without the commandment of God, should God bother to command it? Thus, theological definitions of right and wrong are unnecessary. To adopt a theological definition under Divine Command Theory would mean accepting Socrates’ first option, but with the price of abandoning the goodness of God.
Checkmate, Divine Command Theory.
But there is another main theory besides Divine Command Theory, and it is much more widely accepted by theologians. Under the “Theory of Natural Law,” moral judgments are “dictates of reason.” In other words, “the best thing to do, in any circumstance, is whatever course of conduct has the best reasons on its side” (45). St. Thomas Aquinas, a figurehead of Natural Law, emphasized that acting reasonably is not to be contrasted with acting as a Christian: “To disparage the dictate of reason is equivalent to condemning the command of God” (46). Thus, because believers and nonbelievers both have equal access to reason, both have equal capacity to act morally.
Rachels explains that under Natural Law, morality and religion bear the same relationship as science and religion. Science is autonomous and has its own questions and standards of truth, but religious people still understand its findings in their own way, e.g. scientific findings in physics and astronomy may provide information about how God chose to arrange the universe. These interpretations are “after-the-fact additions” which exist independent of the scientific finding. If we understand the relationship between morality and religion in the same way, we can understand that the “religious interpretation of conscience as the voice of God is an after-the-fact addition– of vital interest to believers, but something that can be ignored by nonbelievers” (47).
From this, we can see that while we may disagree about religion and what exactly might be morally right or wrong, we all occupy the same moral space, because we all have access to reason. Thus, asking an atheist where he or she derives morality from is a naive question. An alternative to this type of question would be, “What’s stopping you from doing something morally wrong?”, to which a Christian could cite his or her fear of punishment in hell. To answer this question an atheist can turn to science, specifically studies in evolution dealing with reciprocal altruism and selfish gene theory which show not only how but why it is beneficial to be kind to one another. These are the types of ultimate causation questions that only the fusion of physics, biology, psychology, and sociology may truly answer, and this is why a scientific reevaluation of moral philosophy and ethics is necessary.
- James Rachels’ The Elements of Moral Philosophy may be purchased here from Amazon.com
Moral Musing 