A2 Philosophy and Ethics: Critiques of religion and morality

Critiques of religion and morality.

Key philosophers

Religion and Morality

Religion:

Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this.

Morality:

Behaviour conforming to moral law or accepted moral standards, esp. in relation to sexual matters; personal qualities judged to be good

Questions that philosophers have to answer.

• Is it possible to be religious but not moral?• Is it possible to be moral but not religious?• What is the relationship between God and goodness?• Does the existence of a moral law presuppose the existence of a supreme moral lawgiver?•If God does not exist, then is everything permissible?• How far does the moral teaching of religions accurately reflect what may be thought to be the moral will and intentions of God?

Different types of morality

Autonomous:

Theonomous:

Individual

Heteronomous

Stating the problem

From God

From someone else

It has often been claimed that there is a link between religion and morality. If we think of religion as the source of morals, then it seems difficult to live without religion. However, if the link between religion and morality is criticised, then there may be good grounds for secularism and atheism. Perhaps we don't need God to be good.

The view that there is a link

Divine command theory is the view that actions are right or wrong simply because God commands or prohibits them. Unless God told us not to steal, stealing would be acceptable. Only direct revelation such as Scripture can give us fixed and firm moral instruction.

As far as Immanuel Kant is concerned, the very possibility of moral actions requires the existence of God. In the 'moral argument' for God, we acknowledge that the greatest good (summum bonum) occurs when the greatest virtue meets with the greatest happiness. To believe that such is possible, we have to accept the existence of a benevolent and powerful God. Without the existence of God, supreme goodness would be an unreasonable dream.

Aquinas - 4th way

The fourth way is taken from the graduation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble, in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and consequently, something which is the uttermost being; for those thing that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii.

The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness and every other perfection; and we call this thing God. This argument sees the existence of judgement and the very categories against which we judge things as evidence for the reality of God as the Good, the ultimate form against which all things are appraised.

F.C. Copleston vs

BErtrand Russell

"I do think that all goodness reflects God in some way and proceeds to form him, and that in as sense the man who loves what is truly good, loves God even if he doesn't advert to God."

"I love the things that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don't say that these things are good because they participate in the divine goodness."

Lots of traditional values originate from the bible

Ten commandments include the prohibition of idolatry, murder and jealousy.Jesus commands that others should "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"."Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5)

With the decline of religion in the 19th century, some began to wonder whether moral values should also decline. Perhaps people would start doing whatever they wanted. The famous Russian author Dostoevsky considered that this might happen. Through one of his characters he makes the following statement: "If God is dead, everything is permitted." It could be argued that even after the decline of religion our moral values have not declined.

What do we suggest when we say ethics are theonomous?

When we say that ethics are theonomous (from God) we are suggesting that God is the source of moral goodness and moral knowledge and that He is the motivation to do good.

FIRST CRITIQUE: The Euthyphro dilemma.

The crux of the dilemma.

Does God command X because it is good?

Is X good because God commands it?

Socrates' question

In Plato's dialogue, the Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro about piety and the gods. Which follows on from which? Do the gods make piety, or fit in with it?"Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved?" This can be rephrased as: "Does God command what is good because it is good, or is the good good because God has commanded it?"We could give a 'God-centered' answer and say that God is responsible for all morality. The trouble is, we can think of things which intuitively seem to be wrong (murder, rape), yet if God were to command them then they would have to be right. Surely 'good' has a value beyond 'whatever God says it is'.Not even the Bible can justify what is wrong. In Deuteronomy 7, the Israelites are commanded to murder thousands and 'show no mercy'. That cannot be right, can it? A purely God centered answer is flawed.

Socrates' answer

Socrates gives an ethics-centered answer to his dilemma. He argues that morality is something independent of the divine and in no way reliant upon God, "What is morally right is not necessarily always pious", as Greek gods have set a bad example in stories of their rivalry. This makes his friend Euthyphro uncomfortable, so he makes his excuses and leaves. The view is controversial, because it seems to make little room for religion. Morality, studied by philosophers, is now superior to the teachings of religion. Basically, his argument is that we are able to think of morality without any reference to God.

Responses to Plato and Socrates.

Whilst Socrates' argument seems pretty good there are several arguments against it (and therefore for a link between religion and morality).• If we ignore the immorality of the Greek gods, could we not believe in a perfectly good God? The story is based off of wrong doing which we need not accept.• Robert Adams has given a modified divine command theory which seeks to deal with Socrates' arguments. He states that "it is logically possible that God should command cruelty for its own sake... but unthinkable that God should do so." When believers say that "God is good" they mean that "God is kind". Therefore, cruel actions would conflict with what believers assume about God and so for those of faith are not a genuine possibility for God.

SECOND CRITIQUE: Richard Dawkins

Dawkins' first argument

Dawkins' first argument is that religion is immoral or less moral than it is often claimed to be. He illustrates this point by highlighting the more "obnoxious" teachings of the Bible, describing God as "a petty unjust, unforgiving control-freak". The Bible gives outdated morality.Most of all, Dawkins finds the indoctrination of children to be the worst aspect of religion. Children are told what to believe and forced to accept dubious religious moralities without choosing for themselves. He gives a key example in the Colorado Hell House - an institution which aims to scare children into fearing hell

Dawkins' second argument

Dawkins' second argument is that moral behavior need not be based on religion. Dawkins claims that being moral because God exists amounts to "sucking up" and argues that, on the contrary, being good without God would be really good: "morality in the absence of policing is more truly moral". In place of religious absolutism, Dawkins would like to see secular, relativist and consequentialist ethics.However, Dawkins' main argument is that moral choices are motivated by evolution. Selfless activity and working with others happens because it has helped organisms to survive. We are moral because it allows us to be successful, survive and reproduce. In short: we can understand morality without God.

Critiques of Dawkins' first argument

• Dawkins picks on examples of religious extremists like the 9/11 terrorists or the Colorado Hell House to illustrate his criticisms. However, are these really representative of religious morality? What about religious charity or peace activism? Is this any less 'religious' than terrorism? • Dawkins suggests that religious morality is flawed because the Bible and other traditional religious texts are out-dated. However, why cannot religious believers have morals which develop over time? Why cannot they be allowed to gradually re-evaluate existing ethics in light of new knowledge or understanding? Religious morality is not necessarily stuck in the past it only is if we make it so.• Melvin Tinker: "each religion, denomination and faction needs to be judged on its own terms."

Critiques of Dawkins' Second argument

• Dawkins' claim that religious morality amount to 'sucking up' can be contested. Many believers are obedient to God because of love and respect, not just because they want to go to Heaven. • Also, evolution arguably explains human morality but it does not thereby justify it. Although evolution may tells us why we are moral, it does not demonstrate the necessity of making moral choices. Religious morality can tell people why they should not murder, but evolution only explains why people tend not to murder. Arguably, concrete moral instruction is desirable. • As Dawkins himself has acknowledged in The God Delusion his previous work on The Selfish Gene has sometimes - against his intentions - inspired personal selfishness rather than rational morality.

THIRD CRITIQUE: Friedrich Neitzsche - slave revolt in morals

Friedrich Neitzsche

F.W. Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a famous German philosopher, scholar and critic of religion. He was an expert on the classical world, and thought that the Greek and Roman civilizations were in many ways better than the Christian religion which replaced them. Nietzsche would even describe himself as an 'immoralist' since he was so opposed to established moral values.He developed his key arguments regarding ethics in The Genealogy of Morals. His later life was dominated by a mental breakdown, leading to an early death.

Master Morality

Nietzsche regarded genuine or acceptable morality to be a 'master morality' - one which is given by brave and strong-willed men. The noble man is conscious of determining what is right and wrong. He realizes what is harmful and what is valuable, and creates values according to this awareness. Because this is a self-autonomous, relativist view of ethics, Nietzsche saw the moral individual as the master, rather than the slave. This is drawn by an analogy with the classical world; we could be like the heroes of old. Since ethical people are self-autonomous, there is no place for God in this approach to ethics.

Slave Morality

Thanks to religion, Nietzsche thought that there had been a 'slave revolt in morals' - a terrible event which turned human values upside down. Nietzsche defined the ideas of this revolt as a 'slave morality': a series of beliefs which originates among the weak of society. Slave morality does not exert strength, but questions the values of the masters and seeks to enslave them too. Nietzsche rejected the idea of the majority finding the common good, because 'what is common is of little value'. Christians and their successors have supported slavish values like humility, mercy and forgiveness. All of these things seeks to topple the rule of the strong. Nietzsche hopes for an end to established religious values, with a return to the heroism of the classical world.

'The Romans were the strong and noble men, stronger and nobler than they had ever been on Earth, or even dreamed themselves to be.'