Download Picture - Easy-Peasy Religion

To do as one would be done by, and to love
one’s neighbour as oneself, constitute the
ideal perfection of utilitarian morality
Is it me or does what Mill is saying sound familiar?
And so I say, in all
things do to others
as you would have
them do to you...
...and, love your
neighbour as you
love yourself.
Just because Mill wasn’t
religious doesn’t mean
he was ignorant to
religious teaching or
devalued its worth.
Let’s go back a little.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle
(384-322 BCE) said;
In order to reason why anything exists at all, you
must first discern what its very essence is.
By ‘essence’ Aristotle meant what are the very things or
properties that make something what it is.
He concluded that there were four causes for the existence of something.
• The Material Cause: what it is made of and its potential for change.
• The Efficient Cause: how it came about.
• The Formal Cause: what are its characteristics.
• The Final Cause*: what is it for. (*most important)
Task: Try to apply Aristotle’s causes to a pen, a shop, a PC.
For the Christian philosopher, Thomas Aquinas (12241274 CE), Aristotle’s ‘Theory of Causes’ raises two
essential points.
The Efficient Cause, how something came to be; and
the Final Cause, what is its purpose.
Aquinas was not so concerned with the essence of inanimate objects (pens,
shops etc) but with humanity. The efficient cause of a human being is
simple, their parents (Aquinas would later trace this back to a first cause God), but what of the final cause?
Aristotle said it was to seek the general all round well being and happiness
which enables us to thrive. The Stoics believed the universe has a basic
design and purpose which human morality should work in harmony with
in order to achieve this final cause. The idea of a morality that follows the
natural purpose of life is known as Natural Law.
Not surprisingly, Aquinas, found God to be the first, efficient cause of the
universe and therefore the ultimate efficient cause of humanity.
As for the final cause...
...Meaning...
If humanity is made in the
image of God it has been so in
order to have some form of
union with Him. Aquinas said
that this is the final cause,
and is perfection, but it cannot
be attained until the afterlife
(heaven).
...and here’s the warning...
Some things are so
produced by God that,
being intelligent, they
bear a resemblance to
Him and reflect His
image.
Humanity are not only directed, but
direct themselves to their appointed
end by their own actions.
To have unity with God means we need
to be one with God and do what God
would want and intend us to do.
Aquinas believed there is a basic, divinely inspired, moral law (duty) which is
is the foundation for all laws and is there to guide us in what we do and why
we do it...
Good is to be done and pursued and evil is to be avoided
‘Moral laws and duties’ ‘divinely inspired foundations’, on the surface, Aquinas
seems to be advocating a deontological form of ethical decision making.
However, we know from his ‘Just War Theory’ that Aquinas was ultimately a
consequentialist, with a bias towards a rule utilitarianism.
Q. What do you think this picture shows about
where Aquinas gains his inspiration when
making ethical decisions?
Christians set out to follow the will of God. This
comes from a desire, not just a duty, to be one with
God in spirit, in word and in deed.
But, where do Xians find their source of authority?
So, is Mill right? Does the Golden Rule advocate a utilitarian approach to
ethical decision making? Discuss reasons for your answer.
Look at each of the sources of Xian authority again. What kind of ethical
approach does each one advocate? Can any of them be taken just on their
own? What skills would a Christian need to use in deciding what’s right?
Look up the following passages. What approach to ethics did Jesus take?
Matthew 5:17-20
Luke 14:1-6
Matthew 5:27-30
John 8:2-11
Matthew 22:35-40
Morality & Religion
• Ethical Obligations:
• To suggest an obligation is to suggest an expectation
from some other. To suggest an ethical obligation
suggests that this other has some authority, be it the
government, society or God.
For the religious believer there is an expected obedience to God’s
laws and his will (see Matthew 6). There is direct link between
ones obedience in
To be religious and to make religious claims is to be
what you should and
committed to a set of moral values, for example a
should not do and to
religious conversion requires a reorientation of the will. ones commitment to
God.
R.B. Braithwaite
For most religious believers their obedience to God’s ethical will
hold eschatological consequences (Matthew 25).
For the existentialist, if there is no god demanding obedience to a
moral law, then there is no threat of punishment or promise of
reward and thus morality is meaningless.
Morality is dependent on
religious belief. Its rules
are taken from religious
teachings and practice.
The belief that morality
exists independently of
religion. Ideas are shaped
by reason alone
The view that morals
stem from religion
states that our moral
codes comes from
religious teachings.
However, the emphasis
on which sources of
authority is the most authoritative, differ.
Secular society recognises the relationship
between religion and morality, governments
consult religious leaders, who are in turn
held to a higher moral code by society and
expected to speak out when necessary.
The Euthyphro Dilemma
‘Then tell me, what do you say the holy is? And what is the
unholy? For consider, is the holy loved by the gods because it is
holy? Or is it holy because it is loved by the gods?’ (Plato, Phaedo 4thC BCE)
Task: In pairs, break down this statement into its two parts.
Decide which, in your opinion, is right, Which gives God
more supreme power? Show reasoning for your answer.
What problems does this dilemma raise for the theist?
The dilemma for the theist:
On the one hand the argument is saying whatever God commands
is good in itself by the very fact that God has commanded it,
including what we may normally consider to be wrong,
On the other hand, it suggests that there are a set of absolute rules
that exist independently of God, that he did not create, but is aware
of and commands humans to follow.
Divine command ethics:
The divine command theory states that something is good simply
because God command’s it and for no other reason, Human
reasoning plays no part in legitimising God’s moral commands.
Task: Look at the following passages and discuss the moral validity of
God’s judgement.
• Abraham’s sacrifice of his son. Genesis 22:1-19 (Surah 37:99-107)
• God’s destruction of Sodom. Genesis 19:1-26
• Lord Krishna encourages Arjuna to go to war. Bhagavad Gita I.1III.1
Q: Can a normally abhorrent act be justified because God wills it?
Q: If God does will it, who are humanity to judge?
Q: If God is considered the most reliable source of moral guidance
to the religious believer, what problems may arise from this?
Q: What is the problem for divine command ethicists if there is no
God?
The Patriarchal religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have a
strong history of portraying God’s commands as absolute.
A. G. Grayling suggests that punishment, or rather the fear of it, is
the main reason that divine command ethicists . However this in
itself causes problems. Q: what problems can you identify?
Firstly, if God id only followed out of fear then there is not the
heart response required by the Shema, Jesus’ teaching and Islamic
teaching. Secondly, the fear of punishment or hope of reward is a
selfish attitude and is thus morally wrong.
“Morality
must not lower herself. Her own
nature must be her recommendation. All else,
even divine reward, is nothing else beside her”
Immanuel Kant, Lectures on Ethics
A belief in the divine command theory can result in what Basil
Mitchell calls ‘vacuous statements’ such as ‘It must be God’s will’
or ‘Who am I to question God?’ leading to poor or lazy apologetics.
Q. Can morality exist separately from religion?
“Moral
Humanists believe
morality should not be
linked to religion at all
values are not dependent on religion and
it is untrue, unfair to non-religious people and
a damaging idea in an increasingly secular
society to assert otherwise”
“If
human civilisation were to develop all
over again, it is highly unlikely that
exactly the same religions would develop.
But it is very likely that our basic moral
principles would be the same.”
A. J. Ayer, God Talk is Evidently Nonsense.
Aquinas & Kant
Task
• As a class, try to agree on a list of twenty good actions (these should
range from the mundane to the extraordinary).
• Create a column ordering these actions into their higher and lower
levels of goodness (the best at the top).
Goodness Scale
Perfect
Exceptional
Great
Fine
OK
Among beings there are some more and some less
good, true, noble and the like. But more and less
are predicted of different things according as they
resemble in their different ways something which is
the maximum. So that there is something which is
truest, something best, something noblest.
Thus there must also be something
which is to all beings the cause of their
being, goodness and every other
perfection, and this we call God.
Aquinas is writing
about what he called
the Fourth Way in his Summa Theologica.
Archetypes, contingent realities and the greater unseen reality.
OK, pay attention at the back... Here it is in a nutshell...
Plato wrote an analogy on life using the idea of people living in a cave all
their life, never having seen outside of it. In his ‘Allegory of the Cave’ as it
is known, the people in the cave only ever see shadows of those outside of
the cave reflected onto the back wall of the cave as those outside pass
in front of a giant fire. For the cave dwellers the images they see on the
wall are the ‘reality’ of what is outside the cave, whilst in fact they are
just poor reflections of the reality that actually exists.
In a similar way, Aquinas states that the
goodness we see in humans in this contingent
world are just contingent realities, as they
are merely pale reflection of their source
which is the supreme goodness of God (the
Eternal Form, or archetype).
F. C. Copleston said to Bertrand Russell
“ I do think that all goodness reflects God in some
way and proceeds from him, so that in a sense
the man who loves what is truly good, loves God,
even if he doesn’t advert to God”
However, Russell was not convinced.
“I love the things that I think are good, and I hate
the things that I think are bad... I don’t say these
things are good because they participate in the
divine goodness”
Can goodness(or morality) only be measured, as Aquinas posed,
with reference to the divine? Or, was Russell right to suggest his
morality comes about with no reference to God whatsoever?
• Kant’s Categorical Imperatives:
Immanuel Kant in The Critique of Practical Reason, offers an
argument for the existence of God using the existence of
morality. Kant believed that there is a universal understanding
that some actions are right and some are wrong (murder/rape).
Kant believed humans are able to discern these by the use of
reason. Not only can we discern them but we have a duty, or
categorical imperative, to seek the highest form of the good,
which Kant called the summum bonum (the state of pure
virtue topped with perfect happiness).
However, Kant recognised that the moral law would never be
satisfied in this life (reward or punishment) and so God must
exist, as the architect of the perfect good, in order to
accomplish Summum bonum., after life.
In other words...
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason
“Hence, there is in us not merely the
warrant but also the necessity, as a need
connected with duty, to presuppose the
possibility of this highest good, which,
since it is possible only under the
conditions of the existence of God,
connects the presupposition of the
existence of God with that of duty; that is,
it is morally necessary to assume the
existence of God.”
People can
work out
perfect
virtue by
use of
reason
It is logical
for perfect
virtue to be
rewarded
by perfect
happiness
(SB)
Humans
cannot
achieve this
without
God in an
afterlife
God must
exist to
provided
summum
bonum