LESSON 2

The Authority of the Law

It is supposed that law is one's guide to ethical behavior. In the Philippines, Filipinos are
constrained to obey the laws of the land as stated in the country's criminal and civil codes.
Making this even more particular, in Cebu, residents are constrained to follow any provincial
laws or city ordinances. One can easily imagine this becoming even more localized to
the barangay or village level, where local or municipal layers of obligation are there for residents
to follow. The term positive law refers to the different rules and regulations that are posited or
put forward by an authority figure that require compliance.

At first glance, this seems to make a lot of sense. We recognize that there are many acts that
we immediately consider unethical (e.g., murder or theft), which we also know are forbidden by
law. Furthermore, the law is enforced by way of a system of sanctions administered through
persons and institutions, which all help in compelling us to obey. Taking the law to be the basis
of ethics has the benefits of providing us with an objective standard that is obligatory and
applicable to all. So, we would not be surprised if we were to hear someone say, "Ethics? It is
simple. Just follow whatever the law says."

Can One Simply Identify Ethics With The Law?

From the previous page, it was said that the ethics is simple as it is nothing more than what the
law says. But, is this correct? Of course, we do maintain that, generally speaking, one should
obey the law. However, the idea that we are examining here is a more controversial one: the
more radical claim that one can look to the law itself in order to determine what is right
or wrong. But the question is: can one simply identify ethics with the law?

One point to be raised is the prohibitive nature of law. The law does not tell us what we
should do, it works by constraining us from performing act that we should not do. To put it
slightly differently, the law cannot tell us what to pursue, only what to avoid. Would we be
satisfied thinking about ethics solely from the negative perspective of that which we may not do,
disregarding the important aspect of a good which we could and maybe even should do, even if
it were not required of us by the law?

In line with this, we might find that there are certain ways of acting which are not forbidden by
the law, but are ethically questionable to us. For instance, a company that pads its profits by
refusing to give its employees benefits may do so within the parameters of the law. The
company can do so by refusing to hire people on a permanent basis, but offering them six-
month contracts. Constrained to work under this contractual system, the employees are thus
deprived not only of benefits, but also of job security. Here, no law is violated, yet one can
wonder whether there is something ethically questionable to this business practice. The fact that
one can make such a negative value judgment of the practice where there is no violation of the
law is already a hint that one can look to something beyond the law when making our ethical
valuations.

To make this point concrete, recall the story of a toddler who had been run over by a couple of
vehicles. While there were many passers-by who witnesses what had happened, for quite a
long while, no one did anything to help. The child later died in the hospital.* The law does not
oblige people to help others in need, so none of these passers-by were guilty of breaking any
law. However, many people reacting to this sad news report share a sense those passers-by
were somewhat ethically culpable in their negligence. In view of all this, perhaps one should
think of ethics in a way that does not simply identify it with obedience to the law. Later in module
4, we shall see how the concept of law is creatively utilized in the Deontology of Immanuel
Kant in a more ethically significant way. 

The Authority of One's Religion

"Love the Lord, Your God, therefore, and always heed his charge: his statutes, decrees, and
commandments." (New American Bible)

The verse is the first line of Chapter 11 of the book Deuteronomy. It expresses a claim that
many people of a religious sensibility find appealing and immediately valid: the idea that one is
obliged to obey her God in all things. As a foundation for ethical values, this is referred to as
the divine command theory. The divinity called God, Allah, or Supreme Being commands and
one is obliged to obey her creator. There are persons and texts that one believes are linked to
the Divine. By listening to these figures and reading these writings, an individual discovers how
the Divine wants her to act. Further, someone maintaining a more radical form of this theory
might go beyond these instruments of divine revelation and claim that God "spoke" to her
directly to instruct her what to do. 

At first glance, this seems to make a lot of sense. Many of us had been brought up with one
form of religious upbringing or another, so it is very possible that there is a strong inclination in
us to refer to our religious background to back up our moral valuations. We are presented with a
more-or-less clear code of prohibitions and many of these prohibitions given by religion--"Thou
shall not kill," "Thou shall not steal," and "Thou shall not commit adultery"-- seem to intuitively
coincide with our sense of what ethics should rightly demand. In addition, there is an advance
here over the law because religion is not simply prohibitive, but it also provides ideals to pursue.
For instance, one may be called to forgive those who sinned against him or be charitable to
those who have less. Further, taking religion as basis of ethics has the advantage of providing
us with not only a set of commands but also a Supreme Authority that can inspire and compel
our obedience in a way that nothing else can. The Divine can command absolute obedience on
one's part as the implications of her actions involve her ultimate destiny. Thus, we would not be
surprised if we were to hear someone say, "Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever your
religion says."

Problem 1: Difference
However, there are some problems with this. First, on the practical level, we realize the
presence of a multiplicity of religions. Each faith demands differently from its adherents,
which would apparently result in conflicting ethical standards. For instance, certain religions
have prohibitions concerning what food may be consumed, while others do not share the same
constraints. Are we then compelled to judge others negatively given their different morality? Are
we called upon to convert them toward our own faith? How about the problem of realizing that
not everyone is devout or maintains a religious faith? Would we be compelled to admit then that
if religion is the basis of morality, some people would simply have no moral code? Differences,
however, are not confined to being problematic of varying religious traditions.
Experience teaches us that sometimes even within one and the same faith, difference
can be a real problem. For instance, we can easily imagine a number of Christians agreeing
that they should read and find inspiration from the bible; but we could also easily imagine them
disagreeing on which particular lines they need to focus on. Which of the passages from the
sacred Scriptures are they supposed to follow? All of them or only some? If so, which ones?
Which pastor am I supposed to obey if I find them debating over how to interpret the scriptures,
not to mention ethical issues? The problem of difference thus remains.

Problem 2: The Euthyphro Dilemma

Second, on what may be called a more conceptual level, we can see a further problem where
one requires the believer to clarify her understanding of the connection between ethics
and the Divine. The problem was first elucidated in the history of thought by Plato in his
dialogue titled Euthyphro.

In the exchange between Socrates and Euthyphro, the question is raised as to how one is
supposed to define "holiness." Euthyphro puts forward the idea that what is holy is loved by
the gods. Socrates calls this into question by asking for the following clarification: Is it holy only
because it is loved by the gods, or is it holy in itself and that is why it is loved by the gods? The
relevance of these questions to our discussion becomes clear if rephrased this way: is it the
case that something is right only because God commanded it, or is it the case that something is
right in itself and that is why God commanded it?

If we presume that taking another's life is wrong, we can ask the question: Is it the case that this
is so only because God commanded it, or that killing is in itself wrong, and that is the reason
why God commanded it? If we were to accept that it is wrong to take another's life because God
commanded it, we are left with the difficult conclusion that there is nothing inherently wrong with
killing. It is only because God said so--"Thou shall not kill"--that we consider such an act wrong.
It would seem then that there is something arbitrary about it all, in the sense that God could will
whatever He wants. On that basis and nothing further, we have the distinction between right
from wrong. As a further disturbing thought, we may find an occasion wherein we could believe
that God is suddenly commanding us to do otherwise--that killing might now become
acceptable. History reveals many sad instances of people believing that God so wills it, allowing
them to kill their fellow human beings in His name. The Crusades of the Middle Ages are a
tragic case in point. Can we be satisfied with this idea that the divine will could be arbitrary?

If, on the other hand, we were to accept that killing is in itself wrong, then we acknowledge that
perhaps there are standards of right and wrong that we can refer to independently of God. But if
this is the case, then we actually do not obey a command because God commanded it, but are
looking for those objective standards of right and wrong, to which God simply concurs. One
would not even have to think in terms of obeying God--or even believing in Him--in order to
abide by such ethical standards.

Having said this, we maintain that, generally speaking, it is a good thing for a person of faith to
abide by the teachings of her particular religion. But the divine command theory demands more
than this as it requires us to identify the entire sense of right and wrong with what religion
dictates. The conceptual problem we have seen and the practical difficulties of simply basin
ethics on the divine command are reasons enough for us to wonder whether we have to set this
way of thinking aside. Now, let us clarify this point. Our calling into question of the divine
command theory is not a calling into question of one's belief in God; it is not intended to be a
challenge to one's faith. Instead, it is an invitation to consider whether there may be more
creative and less problematic ways of seeing the connection between faith and ethics,
rather than simply equating what is ethical with whatever one takes to be commanded by God.

In module 3, we shall see one way that we can have a more subtle and yet powerful
presentation of how one's faith may contribute to ethical thought when we look at the Natural
Law theory of Thomas Aquinas.