Lesson III: The Role of Religion in Ethics

Religious ethics concerns beliefs and practices of what is good or bad, right or wrong, virtuous or vicious,
from a religious point of view. A Christian ethic, for instance, may be based on the radical teachings of
the religious leader Jesus Christ about loving one's neighbor, being a good Samaritan, loving one's
enemies, being guided by the Father's will, and the like. For some, the religious response is what is really
needed concerning the challenges posed by globalization and other contemporary issues.
1. Religion and Ethics
Practically, ethics may be defined as a system of moral principles which affect how people make
decisions and lead their lives. Ethics is concerned with what is good and right for persons and society.
On the other hand, religion is defined as "people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature,
and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life" ("Religion,"
2009). Referring to the sacred engagement with that which is believed to be a spiritual reality, religion
denotes the belief in, or the worship of, a god (or gods) and the worship or service to God or the
supernatural. The term 'supernatural' means "whatever transcends the powers of nature or human agency"
("Religion," n.d.). The term 'religion' is sometimes used interchangeably with 'faith, "creed, "belief
system,' or 'conviction.
A religion is also viewed as an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and worldviews that
relate humanity to an order of existence" ("Religion," n.d.). Many religions possess holy scriptures,
narratives, or sacred accounts that aim to explain the origin and meaning of life and the universe. From
the religions' beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, adherents usually draw religious laws, an ideal
way of living, and detailed rules of ethical or moral conduct. (For a detailed discussion about religion,
you may consult the Appendix K: "Religion and Belief Systems" of this book.)
Some submit that the difference between religion and ethics is about the disparity between revelation and
reason. In some measure, religion is based on the idea that God (or some deity) reveals insights about life
and its meaning. These divine insights are compiled in texts (the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc.) and
introduced as 'revelation. From a strictly humanistic perspective, ethics, on the other hand, is based on the
tenets of reason. That is, anything that is not rationally provable cannot be deemed justifiable. This
definition of ethics, however, does not necessarily exclude religion or a belief in God, for it is also a
common belief that human reason, designed also for ethical discernment, is a gift from a supernatural
God. Indeed, many ethicists emphasize the relationship, not the difference between ethics and religion.
2. Religion's Role in Ethics
Many ethicists believe that religion is necessary for the continued survival of morality as an integral
part of human life
, especially in a globalized world. University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK) Philosophy professor Glenn
C. Graber calls this apologetic claim the 'cut-flowers thesis' (1972, pp. 1-5) which consists of a
hypothetical judgment that, "Morality cannot survive, in the long run, if its ties to religion are cut."
This proposition is a prediction of what would happen to morality if it were severed from religion. In
1894, Russian writer Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) made the following early statement of this thesis:
"The attempts to found a morality apart from religion are like the attempts of children who, wishing to
transplant a flower that pleases them, pluck it from the roots that seem to them unpleasing and
superfluous, and stick it rootless into the ground. Without religion there can be no real, sincere
morality, just as without roots there can be no real flower." (1964, pp. 31-32)
The cut-flower thesis thus implies that those who believe that morality is a valuable human institution,
and those who wish to avoid moral disaster, should therefore make every effort to preserve its connection
with the true religion and the sound religious belief that forms its roots. As morality is currently in a
withering stage in this globalized era, its decline can be identified with the exorbitant secularization of
many things. Support for this claim can be found both among those sympathetic to religion and
surprisingly enough, among those with little or no sympathy for religion. .
Basil Willey, a religionist, calls for urgent action to re-unite religion and ethics. He holds that there
has been a progressive de-Christianization during the last three or four centuries, the outcome of which is
what we see around us in the world today the moral and spiritual nihilism of the modern world,
particularly of the totalitarian creeds" (1964, p. 118) W.T. Stace, a secularist, surprisingly supports the
cut-flower thesis when he said, "the chaotic and bewildered state of the modern world is due to man's loss
of faith, his abandonment of God and religion. I agree with this statement... Along with the ruin of the
religious vision there went the ruin of moral principles and indeed all values" (1967, pp. 3, 9).
And for those who doubt that religion ever promoted morality in history (since
immorality has flourished even in ages of religious domination), not less than the
well-known agnostic historians Will and Ariel Durant explain, thus:
"Certainly sensuality, drunkenness, coarseness, greed, dishonesty, robbery and violence existed in the
Middle Ages, but probably the moral disorder born of half a millennium of barbarian invasion, war,
economic devastation, and political disorganization would have been much worse without the moderating
effect of the Christian ethic, priestly exhortations, saintly exemplars, and a calming, unifying ritual. ...
[The] Church labored to reduce slavery, family feuds, and national strife, to extend the intervals of truce
and peace, and to replace trial by combat or ordeal with the judgments of established courts. It softened
the penalties exacted by Roman or barbarian law, and vastly expanded the scope and organization of
charity.* (1968, p. 44)
All these statements call attention to the prediction of the cut-flowers thesis which, by way of summary,
suggests that morality cannot survive without religion, Some words of caution are needed here though:
The cut-flowers thesis does not say that a consequence of abandoning religion leads immediately to
murder, rape, robbery, drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, and the like. Nor does it say that the morality per
se will soon cease to exist if its ties to religion are cut. However, it does argue that to have a real ground
or reason for moral action, one must admit a religious or theological foundation
3. Theistic Ethics
Religions fundamentally endorse theism (the belief in God) and theistic ethics (God-based morality).
Thesis Ethics believes that a supernatural being called God is the foundation of morality. God is
viewed as the true source of all moral laws, and as the only plausible cause of moral obligations which
possess overriding and binding character The theory holds that the truth of moral judgments depends on
God's will. In theism, "X is moral" means "God wants us or a particular agent to do X." As to how we can
know God's will, proponents admit sources like revelation (Holy Scriptures), divinely guided human
reason, and God's laws written in man's heart (conscience). The theory views Ethics as necessarily
linked to true religion. Unlike other ethical theories, theism considers faith in and obedience to God as
necessary part of being truly moral.
Theists claim that unlike secularists' ethical theories, this moral system which is also called moral
supernaturalism can satisfactorily explain the existence of objective ethical values and the moral
law.
3.1 Can Justify Moral Values. While other ethical views can just postulate good moral principles, only a
theistic view can justify them. At least four reasons are usually given for this:
(a) Unless morality is grounded on the unchangeable nature of a morally perfect being (God), there is no
basis for believing in moral absolutes. Only an absolute -Giver is a sufficient foundation for absolute
moral laws;
(b) And, if everything is relative, then there is no good reason why anyone ought to abstain from doing
anything he wishes to do, including rape, murder, and unreasonable maltreatment. It is not denied that
those who refute moral absolutes can believe in general moral principles, many of which are agreeably
righteous. What they cannot do nevertheless is to justify this belief, since according to their system, there
is no real ground for such a conviction.
(c) Only in theism are all persons held morally accountable for their actions in the real sense. With
this theory, we can, with consistency, make moral choices which run contrary to our self-interest and even
carry out acts of extreme self sacrifice, knowing that such decisions are not just empty and meaningless
gestures, rather, our moral lives ultimately have a paramount significance.
Finally, (d) only the ethics rooted in a Moral Law-Giver can be truly prescriptive in any objective sense of
the word. A descriptive ethic is no ethics at all-it merely tells us what people are doing not what they
ought to do. An ethics that is merely descriptive is flawed since we see people doing all kinds of evil acts
which even relativists and non-theists do not approve. To prove it, just
try insulting, raping, or killing a relativist or non-theist. His reaction will betray his true belief that these
acts are wrong.

3.2 Can Explain Moral Accountability. Ethical supernaturalism, compared to its non-theist
counterparts, is said to be better as an ethical system in terms of explaining moral accountability.
Theists have simple explanation for the "binding force" and "overriding character of the moral obligation.
These are attributed to God or Supernatural Being who is believed to be man's creator and thus also the
cause of man's
moral dimension.
Theists believe that all people have this moral experience of feeling morally obligated and that this sense
of moral responsibility is connected to God. This idea is consistent with the meaning of religion itself-the
word "religion" being a compound of the Latin re and ligare meaning "to bind back". Thus, for the theists,
there is a bond that exists between the Creator and His human creatures. This bond involves the feeling of
being morally obligated to live up to some moral laws press down on everyone which express God's will
and nature.
Morality is believed to be "something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men's behavior, and
yet quite definitely real--a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us" (Lewis,
1943, p.17). Theists consider it absurd to think that this moral law just popped into existence or just
assembled itself. When we admit a moral law, theists explain, we also affirm a moral lawgiver, for
otherwise, it looks impossible to think of a moral law that has a moral force on our behavior.
Theists thus believe that Someone made the moral law so that moral rule is not just a disembodied
principle but a rule of Somebody. It accounts for the moral force of the moral law on our behavior. Since
Someone higher than us made the moral law, whenever we break ethical rules, we offend that Someone
who Himself created the law. It is that Someone who appears in us, urging us to do right, and making us
feel accountable and uncomfortable when do
wrong Furthermore, theistic ethics maintains that man's life does not end at the grave and that all persons
are truly held morally accountable for all their actions. Its belief in an afterlife entails that evil and wrong
will be expelled, righteousness and virtue will surely be vindicated,
Ultimately, good triumphs over evil, and we will see that we do live in a moral universe after all. Theism
expects that in the end, the scales of God's justice will be balanced. Thus, the moral choices that we make
in this life are infused with an eternal significance.
It is noteworthy that even non-theist Professor Taylor, in his writings, agrees that supernaturalism
provides a sound basis for morality in justifying moral obligation and accountability. In the book he
authored, he writes, thus: "The idea of moral ... obligation is clear enough, provided reference to some
lawmaker higher ... than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations .. can be
understood as those imposed by God. This does give a clear sense to the claim that our moral obligations
are more binding upon us than our political obligations" (1985, pp. 83-84)
Unfortunately, Professor Taylor does not believe in God, and so he denies a supernatural foundation for
morality. Nevertheless, he admits that if God exists, then the foundations for morality are secure. Thus,
even non-theists can agree to the reasons proving that supernaturalism provides a sound and better
foundation for morality.
3.3 No Real Accountability in Non-theism. With reference to theism, we can reasonably say that there is
no real moral accountability for one's actions in non-theistic ideologies. In naturalism or secularism,
human life just finds its end in grave. Absent in non-theism is the so-called 'life-after' of theism where the
final reward and punishment-that which accounts for the ultimate justice will be given. In this aspect,
theism is extensively plausible and better than its non-theistic counterparts.
Even if we grant that there were objective moral values under naturalism or secularism, they would be
ultimately immaterial and meaningless because there is no moral accountability. In a worldview where
the real sense of moral liability is absent, there is no legitimate sanction for the moral and immoral.
Hence, there would be no essential difference between following and transgressing moral rules. For if one
can simply evade state or federal penalties and the like, say because of power and influence, then, in non-
theism, there is no way his wicked deeds can be punished. So if life just ends at the grave as non-theism
suggests, then it makes no difference whether one has lived as a villain or as a saint. As the Russian writer
Dostoyevsky rightly said, "If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted." (1957, p. 8)
With theists, we wonder what non-theists would say to someone who contends that we may as well just
live for self-interest, live just as we please, and do whatever we deem pleasurable. Secularists may argue
that it is in our best self-interest, being theist or not, to adopt a moral lifestyle. True, but as we observe,
that is not always the case. We know of situations in which morality is dispensed with in the face of self-
interest. If one is sufficiently powerful, like a Hitler or a dictator, one can just snub the dictates of
conscience and live in pure self-indulgence. Acts of self-sacrifice are valueless in a secular-naturalistic
worldview and to deny oneself for others is plain stupidity. If this life is all there is, then it really does not
matter how one lives.
Some secularists argue that the idea of life ending at the grave still makes a difference whether you live as
a saint or as a devil. It makes a difference, they claim, to what kind of a person you are. They suggest that
you can say, "I want to look good as a human being," and that is not a bad ideal, so they say.
Well, indeed, it is not a bad ideal for a teacher, parent, husband, wife, or anybody to look good to
themselves as human beings. However, it does not make any real difference what kind of person you are
on the secularist worldview-for like animals in forests, our end is all the same, and we ultimately do not
contribute to the good of the universe or the ultimate betterment of morality. There simply is no moral
value in secular worldview as in the case of lesser beings. All will be ultimately extinguished in death
and in the 'heat death' of the universe. It simply makes no difference what kind of person we become. And
so, why adopt the moral point of view? We cannot see any basis for this in secularism, where there is no
moral accountability.
Clearly, the absence of moral accountability in the philosophy of secularism reduces virtues, like those of
compassion and self-sacrifice, to hollow abstractions. Secularism, therefore, fails to match theism in
supplying this necessary element for a sound moral foundation. 3.4 The Euthyphro Dilemma. The most
common attack against moral theism
is the famous philosophical argument called 'Euthyphro Dilemma. In Plato's
writing, the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates asked an insightful question:
"Is a good thing good because God desires it? Or does God desire it because it is
already good?" If theists go with the latter view, which says that God desires moral things because they
are already good, then good and bad are independent of God's will-and thus moral theism is incorrect. On
the other hand, if theists answer that moral acts are good just because God desires them, then cruelty,
torture, and maltreatment would be good if God desired them. (For proposed solutions for this dilemma,
look for the article, "Countering Euthyphro Dilemma" in the search engine of www.
OurHappySchool.com)