Ethics and Religion

For many students, this unit proves to be the most controversial and challenging of the semester. Many people consider their religious beliefs to be of the utmost importance and so subjecting these matters to philosophical scrutiny can be problematic. It might be easier just to avoid this discussion, but as the instructor of this class, I can't make this choice in good conscience. Whether you are an ardent theist, an agnostic, or an atheist, there is no denying the importance of investigating the connection between religion and morality. As you read and consider this material, keep in mind the basic question at hand -- does religion offer a way to ground moral judgments in objectivity? We will not focus on how one's personal moral beliefs are connected to their religious beliefs but instead on the question of how such beliefs are relevant to moral arguments ? to justifying moral judgments to others. As always, you should not feel pressured to examine you own cherished beliefs on our public discussion topics or in assignments I'll read. But, you should expect that what you do post to the discussion topics is fair game for critique and philosophical scrutiny. Let's also remember to focus our critiques on the arguments presented and to avoid personal attacks on the person making the arguments.

Religiously Based Ethics

On the one hand, the connection between ethics and religion is an obvious one. One of the main focuses of many religions is to lead its adherents to live a moral life. Further, many religions have certain moral precepts as their most fundamental tenets (the Decalogue (10 Commandments) from the Old Testament and Jesus' Sermon on the Mount from the New Testament are two clear examples). When we look a bit deeper, however, we'll see that this obvious and necessary connection between Ethics and Religion is much more complicated and problematic.

The connection between Ethics and Religion is something philosophers and theologians have been thinking about for at least 2500 years in the West. Interestingly, the same arguments raised by Socrates (350 B.C.), Aristotle (300 B.C.), and St. Thomas Aquinas (1200 A.D), are still being discussed today. At face value, the connection between Ethics and Religion is clear. What is much more difficult, however, is the analysis of exactly what this connection is. How does a person extract ethical truths from their religion? Two possible answers to this question have received much attention from philosophers.

The Divine Command Theory

This theory appears to be very straightforward. The rightness or wrongness of something depends on whether God forbids it or commands it. What God likes or wants is morally good and what God dislikes or doesn't want is morally bad. For instance, Moses brought stone tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments down from the mountain. These Commandments were moral laws; they prescribed what was morally good (for instance, to honor thy father) and what was morally bad (for instance, murder).

Of course, the Divine Command theory does not only concern Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Probably the first significant mention of this theory is from Socrates (as described in Plato's The Euthyphro). In this dialog, Socrates is talking with the priest Euthyphro about the nature of piety and holiness. Responding to a question from Socrates, Euthyphro defines piety as "what the gods love" and impiety as "what the gods hate." Socrates is not satisfied with this definition and following the standard Socratic method, he proceeds to find a glaring problem with what seems like such a clear and easy to understand definition. While Socrates and Euthyphro are talking about the traditional Greek Gods, Socrates' criticism applies equally well to the Ten Commandments.

Socrates asks Euthyphro to consider the two following claims and to tell him which is the correct one.

(1) Murder is immoral because the gods disapprove of it.

(2) The gods disapprove of murder because it is immoral.

Look at these two claims carefully. They are similar but not identical. Can you see the difference?

Upon consideration, you will note that the fist option suggests that moral rules are simply the subjective wishes of the gods; they are in this way arbitrary and, thus, could have been different. In this analysis, moral rules would change along with the wishes of the gods. Option two suggests that moral rules are not arbitrary or subjective at all; instead they are based on some factor that is external to the wishes of the gods. This seems to limit the power of the gods. According to this view, the gods can't simply decide that murder is morally good because they want it to be that way.

Consider this from the standpoint of our Western religious heritage. Why is there a Commandment against murder? Why is murder immoral? Is it wrong simply because that is what God wills? Or, does God will it because it is immoral? Many philosophers and theologians argue against the first of these options because they conceive of morality (good and evil) as fundamental characteristics of the religious universe. Thus, God's moral commandments are not arbitrary not subjective. In this analysis God could not have decided differently! He could not have commanded that murder was morally good, because it is not good. The idea of an all-good, loving God seems to demand that goodness has some external force even on God.

The Natural Law Theory

The problem with the Divine Command Theory was apparent long ago. Saint Thomas Aquinas, one of the most respected Christian thinkers, rejected the Divine Command Theory in favor of the Natural Law Theory. Basically, Aquinas thought that it was possible to determine how things should be by investigating how things are. We can study the natural order of the universe to see how nature (God) intends things to be. Thus, any human being can discover fundamental truths about the universe by carefully applying their innate reasoning abilities to a study of nature. Aquinas, of course, believed that God had intended it this way. God provided humans with their reasoning ability so that they could use it to understand things.

Aquinas believed that the moral dictates of Catholicism (Christianity) were identical to the moral dictates of reason. This is a very powerful statement so take a moment to consider the implications. Aquinas believed that God had created a complex and perfect universe that functioned according to precise rules. God also endowed human beings with the power of reason and the ability to understand all of creation. This understanding was not automatic or easily attained, but it was possible if people devoted themselves to careful study of the natural world. From this view you can see why early scientists thought they were doing holy work, uncovering God's handiwork. What better task for a religious person than to devote his or her life to trying to gain knowledge about God?

Thus, even a person who had never had any contact with the Bible, or with the Catholic notion of the Truth about God, could arrive at the same ethical rules as a theist who understood the Bible and the Ten Commandments. God may have given these Commandments to Moses written in stone, but they are also 'written' within the natural order of the universe. We use our eyes and to read the Ten Commandments written in the Bible and our reason to read the truths written within the natural order of things. Aquinas was not suggesting that people did not need the Church! After all he was doing his philosophy at the time (the 13th century) that the Church was the most powerful force in the Western world. He felt that reason and faith were intended to compliment each other. However, you can see how Aquinas's position can be used to suggest that ethics is not directly tied to religion, at least specific religious beliefs or practice. Even an atheist, as long as she is devoted to reason, can understand right from wrong and will realize the need to act morally in a way that would be identical to a theist following the dictates of the Bible.

Are There Religious Stances on Ethical Issues?

It might seem obvious that there are particular stances on ethical issues that are directly related to religions. For instance someone might say that Christianity demands that one conclude that abortion is morally wrong. What is the basis for this claim? The two most common ways to justify religious stances on ethical issues are making reference to scripture and tradition. However, neither of these justifications is as clear as it might seem.

Scripture

Scripture certainly contains information on proper ethical behavior. The problem comes in figuring out how to use scripture:

* Scripture is often ambiguous or vague. "Thou shall not Murder" may seem like a straightforward claim, but it is leaves open the question of just what "Murder" is. We might say that "Murder" means "unjustified" killing, but now we have a similar problem with defining what is "justified" and what isn't.
* Scripture written many thousands of years ago simply does not include specific references to many contemporary ethical issues. Today, for instance, we are very interested in the ethical implications of cloning. There are no references to cloning in any religious scripture. Of course, we can infer what scripture intends in these cases, but then we are back to the problem stated in the first bullet.
* Scripture may be inconsistent. That is, it is possible to find passages in scripture that condemn a particular action as being immoral and other passages that offer a different moral analysis of the same action.
* And, following from the last bullet, it is difficult (impossible?) to know with certainty which aspects of scripture take precedence when trying to analyze a particular ethical question. If two or more passages offer different analyses of one moral situation, how do we know which is most important?

Do you disagree with one or more of the problems with scripture presented here? Perhaps you think the Bible (or other scripture) is totally consistent and not vague at all. In any case, it may be worthwhile to explore these issues a bit deeper. Please note that I make no claims about being a Biblical scholar or an expert on any particular religious tradition. The discussion offered in this next section is intentionally provocative. That is, I have set out to find possible examples of inconsistencies in scripture for the sake of discussion. Finally, please keep in mind the real point of this exercise. When considering scripture, is there one proper interpretation to be found? My reasoned opinion on this matter is that there is not one proper interpretation -- that interpreting scripture is subjective or contextual but not objective. If there is one proper interpretation (an objectively true interpretation) I see no evidence that humans have the capacity to find such certainty in scripture.

Lying?

Is the Bible consistent in condemning lying as morally wrong? Most sources I can find say that, in general, the Bible tends to say that lying is wrong. Many people look, in the first place, to the Ten Commandments, which condemns "bearing false witness." But, there are also some who argue that scripture is not consistent in this moral judgment.

* Righteous Lying? This website offers several examples where the Bible seems to say that lying is morally acceptable in some circumstances. Of course, like all scripture, people may argue with the interpretations presented here, but take a look at a well-written essay. (http://www.fortifyingthefamily.com/Righteous_Lying.html)
* Is it OK to lie? This page shows examples of scripture that suggest lying is morally wrong and examples that suggest it is not morally wrong. A nice one-page comparison with links to the actual text. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/lie.html)
* Does God lie? An interesting page illustrating scriptural passages concerning the whether or not God can lie. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/god_lie.html)

Abortion?

Certainly there is scripture that can be read as condemning abortion and all other killing. But here are there exceptions:

* Exodus 21:22-23 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/21.html#22)

This Exodus passages can be interpreted as saying that killing a fetus is wrong (the person causing the fetus to die is subject to punishment), but not the moral equivalent of murdering an adult human, which requires the death penalty.

* Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/hos/13.html#16)

This Hosea passage seems to suggest that killing fetuses intentionally is morally right (commanded by God) in some cases. Of course, there are alternative interpretations of these passages as well. But, can anyone prove that his or her particular interpretation is the right one? If so, then doesn't this mean that only one particular Christian sect can have the right answer and all the others are wrong?

Religious Tradition

Relying on religious tradition to define morality is also fraught with problems. Let's consider the claim: A fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. If you assume that this has been a fundamental tenet of Christianity for 2000 years, you are quite mistaken. It is probably true that most Christians today believe this claim but this has not always been the case. Christian tradition has shifted on this matter over time and (at various time) different sects of Christianity had different beliefs on this matter at the same time. Consider that St. Augustine (354-430 CE) argued for the concept of "delayed ensoulment." Augustine argued that:

a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). He wrote extensively on sexual matters, teaching that the original sin of Adam and Eve are passed to each successive generation through the pleasure generated during sexual intercourse. This passed into the church's canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed "fetus animatus" (animated fetus) was punished as murder

In the 13th Century, Pope Innocent III stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After "ensoulment," abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life. St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the most respected Christian thinkers of all time also argued that an early-term fetus had no soul. He agreed with St. Augustine that the soul enters the body when the body takes on a recognizable human form, not until several weeks into a pregnancy.

In the 16th Century there were differing views on this matter.

Pope Sixtus V issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty. Pope Gregory XIV revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he said happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).

In the 17th Century tradition changed again to our modern notion that the soul enters the body at conception. One reason for this change was a mistake of science and technology. At this time, early microscopes were invented and scientists used them to look very early-term fetuses. They saw perfectly formed (but very very tiny) humans. We now know that this was an illusion caused by poorly ground microscope lenses -- early term fetuses do not look like fully formed humans.

* I took the two quotes here from a website worth looking at that has more details on the shifting Christian traditions on the matter of abortion. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm).

But what does this discussion imply? Not that Church tradition is wrong, but only that it is formulated by real people making their own decisions based on their particular interpretation of scripture and facts.

Is Religious Tradition Infallible?

There are two other related problems with relying solely on religious tradition to solve ethical issues. First of all, it seems clear that religious tradition is a human product. Throughout history, religious leaders have interpreted scripture in different ways. There are two possible explanations for this.

* The first option is that religious tradition is entirely subjective or contextual and consequently, that there is no Objective truth about religion. Thus, the various religious traditions, doctrines, and dogma that have existed over time were all correct since they only reflected the subjective views of their times.
* The second option is that there is objective truth about God and religion. If this is the case, then it is clear that most or all of the religious traditions, doctrines, and dogma that have existed over time have been mistaken. After all, if there is objective truth in religion then religious tradition should not change over time, tradition should reflect this unchanging and unchangeable objective truth. So, regardless of how the situation is analyzed it seems clear that relying on any particular religious tradition to ground a non-relativistic system of ethics is problematic.

The Need For Reason in Ethics

Beyond the issues just considered, which suggest that Ethics and Religion may not be tied inexorably together, there are some other things to consider. What are the consequences, for each of us and for our society, of thinking that ethics rests necessarily on some particular religious system? There are many different religions practiced around the world and within the United States. With freedom of religion such an important and foundational aspect of America, this plurality of religion is something we simply need to accept. If we insist that ethics rests only on religion, we severely limit our ability to come to a consensus on ethical issues that are of great importance to our society. Tying ethics to religion means that ethical arguments are necessarily religious arguments. Arguing about ethical conclusions would mean arguing about religious conclusions.

The separation of Church and State entails that our government not promote any one particular religion, nor condemn any particular religion. If ethics is tied to religion then it follows that our government cannot promote nor condemn any particular ethical or moral claims either. On the one hand this might seem like a fine state of affairs. After all, we often say that a government shouldn't legislate morality. Of course, with only a bit of reflection, it is clear that this is simply absurd. We legislate morality all the time and we must do so. Many of the most important issues facing our country are ethical ones: Abortion, Euthanasia, the Death Penalty, Cloning, Gun Control, Drug Laws, the list goes on and on. Since we obviously do legislate morality we need to be able to argue effectively about ethical issues and this is unlikely to happen if ethics is tied too closely to religion.

People are sometimes uncomfortable talking about their religious beliefs. Since we consider tolerance a virtue, even the most religious of us are very likely to believe that there is something wrong (improper, rude, intolerant) about challenging another person's religious beliefs. Because we have historically tied religion to ethics, we are for the same reasons, unlikely to engage in public discourse about ethical concerns. By default we assume that ethics, like religion, must be a topic outside of the realm of rational, objective debate. While this may be the case, it is too bad for all of us that we simply accept this 'fact' uncritically.

While a person's religious beliefs may indeed be only their own concern and not something that anyone else has any business being involved in, ethics seems to be something else. Since a person's ethics prescribes their actions and attitudes toward other people and the world around them, a person's ethics certainly do affect other people. Living in a society where it is impossible to discuss or argue about ethics in a rational forum is fraught with problems.

Ethics and Religion in America

The United States is a very religious nation. The vast majority of Americans, more than 90% according to recent polls, say they believe in God. Compare this with 70% of Canadians and 61% of people from England for instance. The United States also has a higher level of regular church attendance than any of our peers (countries with similar levels of development) except for Ireland. Further, more than 50% of Americans say that religion is very important in their lives. Compare this with 16% of people from England, 14% of the French and 13% of Germans. For more details on this check this site. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm)

If it is the case that being religious (believing in God, considering religion to be very important in one's life, or attending church regularly) is a necessary condition for a person to be moral, then it would seem that Americans should be significantly more moral than people from Canada, England, France and most all other countries. Is this the case? Some might offer evidence that shows the opposite. After-all, the United States has murder rates many times higher than countries like Canada, England and France and we put something like 6 times as many of our citizens in prison than these other nations.