Notes in GE 5 – Ethics

Conclusion
ETHICS THROUGH THICK AND THIN,
AND ETHICS AND RELIGION

Lesson 3
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. For some, the religious
response is what is really needed concerning the challenges posed by globalization and
other contemporary issues.

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. 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. From the religion’s
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.
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.
From a strictly humanistic perspective, ethics, on the other hand, is based on the
tenets of reason. This definition of ethics, however, does not necessarily exclude religion
or a belief in God. It is also 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.

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 Philosophy professor Glenn C. Graber calls this apologetic
claim the cut-flower thesis which consists of a hypothetical judgement that, “Morality
cannot survive, in the long run, if its ties to religion are cut.”
In 1894, Russian writer Leo Tolstoy made an early statement of the cut-flower
thesis when he wrote: “Without religion there can be no real, sincere morality, just as
without roots there can be no real flower.”
The cut-flower thesis 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. Support for the claim that the decline of morality in this
globalized era can be identified with the exorbitant secularization of many things can be
found both among religionists and secularists.
Basil Wiley, a religionist, calls for urgent action to re-unite religion and ethics. 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.” The well-known agnostic historians Will and Ariel

Page 1 of 3
Notes in GE 5 – Ethics
Durant explain that religion promoted morality in history though immorality has
flourished even in ages of religious domination.
Some words of caution are needed about the cut-flower thesis. The cut-flower
thesis does not say that a consequence of abandoning religion leads immediately to
immorality. Nor does it say that 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.

THEISTIC ETHICS
Religions fundamentally endorse theism (belief in God) and theistic ethics (God-
based morality). Theistic ethics believes that a supernatural being called God is 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. 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). This 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.
Theistic ethics, also called moral supernaturalism can satisfactorily explain the
existence of objective ethical values and the moral law.

Theistic Ethics Can Justify Moral Values

While other ethical views can just postulate good moral principles, only a theistic
view can justify them.
a. Unless morality is grounded on the unchangeable nature of a moral perfect being
(God), there is no basis for believing in moral absolutes.
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 immorality.
c. Only in theism are all persons held morally accountable for their actions in the
real sense.
d. Only the ethics rooted in a Moral Law-Giver can be truly prescriptive in any
objective sense of the word. Descriptive ethics is no ethics at all because it merely
tells us what people are doing, not what they ought to do.

Theistic Ethics Can Explain Moral Accountability

Theists have a 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.
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 that
press down on everyone which express God’s will and nature.
Theists explain that when we admit a moral law, 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.
It is that Someone, who Himself created the law, who appears in us, urging us to
do right, and making us feel accountable and uncomfortable when we 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. Thus, the moral choices that we make in this life are infused with an
eternal significance.

Page 2 of 3
Notes in GE 5 – Ethics
Non-theist Professor Taylor 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.

There is No Real Accountability in Non-Theism

In non-theistic ideologies like naturalism and 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 a worldview where the real sense of moral liability is absent, there is no
legitimate sanction for the moral and immoral. There would be no essential difference
between following and transgressing moral rules. It makes no difference whether one
has lived as a villain or as a saint.
There are situations in which morality is dispensed with in the face of self-
interest. Clearly, the absence of moral accountability in the philosophy of secularism
reduces virtues like those of compassion and self-sacrifice, to hollow abstractions.

The Euthyphro Dilemma

The most common attack against moral theism is the famous philosophical
argument called the 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 view 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.

Main Reference:
ETHICS: Principles of Ethical Behavior in Modern Society
by Jens Micah De Guzman et al.
The Role of Religion in Ethics, pages 182 – 192

Prepared by:
MICHAEL ANGELO F. EMPIZO
Saint Louis College, City of San Fernando, La Union
Feast of Saint Andrew, Apostle
November 30, 2020

Page 3 of 3