Religion and ethics
If there is no God, then everything is permitted.
—Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-81)
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
—Voltaire (1694-1778)
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it
from religious conviction.
—Blaise Pascal (1623-62)
Give a man a fish, and you’ll feed him for a day. Give him a religion,
and he’ll starve to death while praying for a fish.
—Timothy Jones
§I. INTRODUCTION
1) Background: religion and ethics
a) Religious people, especially extremists and fundamentalists, seem to be
causing a lot of conflicts in the modern world. This fact alone is a matter of
concern to ethics because human suffering is involved.
b) It is a fairly common belief that morality and ethics have a lot to do with
religion.
c) Some philosophical/ethical schools of thought (such as Buddhism and
Confucianism) are closely related to religion.
2) Our focuses
a) From a philosophical point of view, what is the relationship between religion
and ethics?
b) Can there be morality without religion?
c) What can ethical thinking learn from religion?
d) [What is the role of imagination in ethical thinking?]
3) Our approach
a) We are going to look at some arguments concerning the relationship between
religion and ethics. These are philosophical arguments which are relevant to
religions in general.
b) The truth of specific claims (e.g., ‘Who was Mary Magdalene?’) within
particular religions is not our concern here.
c) It is believed that we can actually show respect to religion when religious
claims are put under rational scrutiny.
§II. CAN THERE BE MORALITY WITH RELIGION?
1) The relationship between morality and religion
a) The questions:
i) Can we have morality without religion?
ii) Can we find out what is morally right or wrong by appealing to religion
alone? Or, is religion the authority on morality?
b) The implications:
i) If we can have morality without religion, then religion is not necessary for
us to have morality.
ii) If religion is not the authority on morality, we cannot rely on religious
criteria alone to judge whether something is morally right or not. Instead,
there may be independent reasons that can show whether something is
morally right or not.
2) A philosophical argument (based on Socrates’ argument in Plato’s Euthyphro)
a) Two possibilities:
i) A religion (or ‘God’ or a god/goddess) says X is morally right because
there are independent reasons for us to believe that X is morally right.
ii) Because a religion (or ‘God’ or a god/goddess) says X is morally right,
therefore X is morally right.
b) The argument:
i) If something (e.g., X) is morally right because there are independent
reasons, then religion (or ‘God’ or a god/goddess) is not the authority on
morality. (In other words, the religion (or ‘God’ or god/goddess) in
question has to find the right reasons otherwise it could be mistaken.)
ii) If it is the case that simply because a religion (or ‘God’ or a god/goddess)
claims that something (e.g., X) is morally right then it is right, what is
morally right or wrong may become something arbitrary. (Remember,
there are different religions and there can be disagreements within one
religion. Moreover, what is regarded to be morally right for one religion
can change over time.)
c) The conclusion: religion (or ‘God’ or the god/goddess) is not the authority on
morality.
3) Should we follow the conclusion? Weighing the two alternatives.
a) Alternative one: Morality as totally determined by religion
i) If there is nothing more about morality than what religion claims it to be,
(religious) morality will become something untouched by reason.
ii) What can people do when different religions hold contradictory views
concerning the morality of a certain act? Nothing can be done except to
accept that all the religions in question are equally right. (This is not very
different from saying that they are equally wrong.)
b) Alternative two: The autonomy of morality (morality as independent from
religion)
i) Religious forms of life (i.e., living one’s life according to religious
doctrines) can be rationally assessed from the perspective of morality or
human flourishing. Religious cults that advocate harmful practices such as
mass suicide can therefore be criticised.
2
ii) Particular religious views which can enhance human well-being can be
kept or even promoted.
§III. ETHICAL CRITICISMS ON SOME RELIGIOUS MORALITIES
1) Background:
a) The above argument concerning whether religion is the authority on morality
is a general argument which touches upon all religions and all religious
beliefs.
b) Apart from looking at the relationship between religion and morality from a
general perspective, it is also possible to look at individual cases of religious
moral thinking from an ethical point of view.
2) The morality of divine punishment (or reward)
a) Some religious moralities are based on the premise that wrong-doing will be
punished by God eventually.1 Therefore, human beings should act morally.
b) The criticism: This outlook makes morality a matter of prudence. The
wrongness of doing something immoral seems not to lie in the wrongness of
the act itself. Instead, it seems to suggest that we should be good in order to
avoid divine punishment.
3) The question of motives2
a) There seems to be a kind of motivation which is distinctively ethical or moral:
i) Deontological: I should do action x because it is my duty to do so (or
because x accords with the moral law).
ii) Virtue ethicist: I should do action x because a compassionate or
courageous person would perform action x.
b) To act morally from religious motives leads to the following scenarios:
i) If the religious motives are essentially the same as other moral motives
(such as considerations in terms of duty, respect or the virtues), the
religious motives become redundant.
ii) If the religious motives are different from other moral motives, their moral
legitimacy becomes a question: it is no longer clear whether a person
acting from religious motives is acting morally at all.
4) Some important questions
a) Is it possible to for a religious person to harmonise moral and religious
demands?
b) Is it necessary to understand notions such as divine punishment literally? Or it
is possible to understand religious beliefs metaphorically?
c) What kind of message or guidance can religions provide us with regard to
moral thinking?
1
A comparable view is held by the philosopher Peter Geach and his view is discussed in D. Z. Phillips
(1970), Death and Immortality, London and Basingstoke: Macmillian, chapter 2, ‘Survival after Death
and the Vindication of Belief’, pp. 21-39.
2
See R. A. Sharpe (1997), The Moral Case Against Religious Belief, London: SCM Press, chapter 1,
‘Religion and Morality’, pp. 1-21.
3
§IV. UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEX NATURE OF RELIGIOUS PHENOMENA
1) Background: religion under attack
a) The religious worldview seems unable to provide us with accurate
explanations of empirical phenomena. It appears inadequate when compared
with science.
b) Religion seems not to be the authority on morality.
c) What is the point of religion then?
2) The expressive dimension of religion
a) It is a mistake to think that all religious claims must be seen as empirical
claims and judged accordingly. (An empirical claim aims at the correct
description of reality so it can turn out to be true or false.)
b) A lot of religious claims are not descriptive in character. Instead, they are
expressive of certain mentalities or values.
c) From this perspective, religious claims or practices such as prayers are not a
means to control or manipulate future events: they are expressions of wishes
or deeply held beliefs.
d) It is therefore not necessary to rule out the validity of all religious claims from
the empirical perspective. We may instead try to appreciate and understand
the point of particular religious beliefs rationally according to their individual
merits.
3) The ethical dimension: religion as a way of life
a) Although religion may not be the authority on morality, it is still possible to
see an important part of religion as responding to the moral reality. In other
words, religion is relevant to how we should live.
b) As moral or ethical thinking involves rational thinking, studying religion from
the ethical perspective entails a critical stance. Through this process,
particular religious views may be rationally justified or undermined due to the
possibility of finding both affirming and disaffirming reasons.
§V. IMAGINATION, ETHICS AND RELIGION
1) The importance of imagination in ethics
a) Although a significant part of ethical thinking consists in the grasping of
concepts and the construction of arguments, we should also recognise the role
of imagination in ethics.
b) To thinking from the ethical/moral perspective implies having in mind an ideal
or the way things ought to be. However, if we cannot imagine what this ideal
is like, our ethical thinking will be seriously crippled. Examples:
i) What is it like to achieve gender equality?
ii) Is it possible for human beings to place moral goodness above material
well-being?
iii) What qualities would the perfect Chief Executive possess?
c) A mature moral imagination allows people to see and realistically consider
different alternatives in life.
d) The use of narrative works such as stories and films in ethics teaching
indicates the awareness of the importance of imagination in ethics.
4
e) A good and illuminating narrative work can help us to engage fully and
imaginatively with a particular sequence of events which have moral
significance. Our grasp of moral concepts can be tested in this way. In
addition, the narrative work can provide us with vivid examples (such as the
compassion and selflessness of King Yudisthira).
2) Religion can expand our moral imagination
a) Some religions (or religious texts such as the Christian Bible) provide us with
numerous stories or parables which can help us to develop our moral
imagination.
b) Examples:
i) The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37)
ii) Jesus on immortality
iii) ‘King Yudisthira and the Dog’ from the Mahabharata
iv) Propaganda for vegetarianism from vulgarised versions of Buddhism
c) Some religious parables or stories are valuable in the sense that they are
critical of common prejudices and they explore new possibilities in human life.
However, it is also possible that some religious parables or stories have the
undesirable effect of producing a distorted picture of morality and human life.
Conclusion
- Some philosophers argue that it is possible to have morality without religion.
- To believe that a religious morality does not need independent reasons to justify
itself risks making all religious moralities arbitrary.
- To subject moral claims which are based on religion to critical reason, it is
possible for them to be further strengthened or weakened in a rational manner.
- Not all religious claims are descriptive or empirical in nature. It is possible to
understand a lot of religious claims in an expressive manner.
- Religion can provide us with materials which can aid us to cultivate our moral
imagination.
References
Brenner, William H. (1999), Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations, SUNY Press.
Phillips, D. Z. (1970), Death and Immortality, London and Basingstoke: Macmillian.
Sharpe, R. A. (1997), The Moral Case Against Religious Belief, London: SCM Press,
chapter 1, ‘Religion and Morality’, pp. 1-21.
Tilghman, B. R. (1994), An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Trigg, Roger (1998), Rationality and Religion: Does Faith need Reason?, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Winch, Christopher (1998), The Philosophy of Human Learning, London and New
York: Routledge, chapter 13, ‘Learning about Religion’, pp. 148-57.
Winch, Peter (1987), ‘Who is my Neighbour?’, in Trying to Make Sense, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1966), Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology
and Religious Belief, Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1967), Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough, reprinted in
Klagge, James C. and Nordmann, Alfred (eds.) (1993), Philosophical Occasions
1912-1951, Indianapolis: Hackett, pp. 115-55.
5
Further reading
Tilghman, B. R. (1994), An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, Oxford:
Blackwell. [A well-argued and clearly written introductory text, chapters 4, 5 and 6
are particularly relevant.]
Trigg, Roger (1998), Rationality and Religion: Does Faith need Reason?, Oxford:
Blackwell. [A sophisticated book from a philosophical perspective, more suitable for
advanced readers.]
(Hektor K. T. YAN)
6