Page 1 of 7

Morality and Religion

(Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, Ch. 4) I. The Divine Command Theory: a view often times supported by each of the major theistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam); God is seem as the lawgiver who publishes his decrees and we have the choice of living in obedience or defiance of those decrees. A. Divine Command Theory defines good/right as that which is ordered or commanded by God; bad/wrong is identified with what is forbidden by God or by failing to do what God commands. B. One advantage of this theory is that the issue of objectivity is resolved Gods commands represent an independent, objective standard of morality. A second advantage is that because of the added notion of eternal reward/retribution (as is common to the major theistic faiths), there is a powerful reason to seriously address the question of morality. II. Problems for Divine Command Theory: The lingering question that is troubling to this ethical theory was formulated by Plato (Socrates) in the Euthyphro about 400 before the birth of Jesus. The question is this: Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right? A. Rachels asserts that this question poses a dilemma for the Divine Command Theory, and either option is troublesome. B. Take first the claim that right conduct is right because God commands it. This means that apart from Gods decrees and commands truth telling would not be right and murder would not be wrong. What follows, according to Rachels? 1. This conception of morality is mysterious: what does it mean to make something right, as this claim asserts? Rachels says that this way of viewing morality defies human understanding. In other words, we are left totally in the dark about moral values. It seems the only value here is that of authority or power. 2. This conception of morality makes Gods commands arbitrary: going on from #1, if God could have declared lying to be right in virtue of his authority, then it seems that what God commands is purely arbitrary everything could have been valued other than it is.

Page 2 of 7

3. This conception of morality provides the wrong reasons for moral principles: this theory allows no room for reasons why an action is morally right or wrong except the reason of Gods command. Some things seem so bad child abuse, torture, genocide for a number of reasons, not just because God says they are bad. C. These three problems can be avoided is we take the other side of the dilemma: God commands certain things because they are right. But different problems arise in this case. 1. This alternative seems to eviscerate the theory there is no longer a theological basis for morality; there is now a standard of right and wrong independent of Gods commands. 2. A possible solution to some of this problem may come from an explanation of the character of God (beyond his authority and power). If there is a good/holy/moral character to God, then there is no reason to think his commands would be in conflict with that character. The question of the source of rightness is dismissed. Gods character is good and his commands reflect that character. The question then becomes one of theology how to do we know the character of God and what it entails? III. Another (more influential) theory of ethics associated with Christian thought is the Theory of Natural Law. A. The Theory of Natural Law is based a certain view of the world. It views the world as having a rational order, with values and purposes built into its very nature. Interestingly, this view of the world or this theory of ethics is not original to the Christian faith. The ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, laid out many of the basic ideas associated with what would become the Theory of Natural Law in his ethical writings from around 350 B.C. B. Later Christian thinkers added to Aristotles thought the notion of a God whose intentions and purposes are the explanation for the rational order of the world. Conceived in this way, the laws of nature not only describe how things are, but specify how things ought to be. (p. 54) The basis of moral rules, then, is that which is natural and what is unnatural is said to be morally wrong. Christian thinkers, like St. Thomas Aquinas, also argued that the human mind has the capacity for discerning and understanding the moral order that God weaves into the nature of the world. This means that one does not necessarily need to be a spiritual person or religious believer in order to have access to the moral knowledge expressed by the worlds rational order.

Page 3 of 7

C. Rachels states that the Theory of Natural Law is often rejected on the basis of the three following reasons: 1. The notion that whats natural is good is open to obvious counterexamples. The list of so-called natural phenomena that are not good is seemingly unending. For example, disease, natural disasters, harmful human tendencies, etc. are but a few examples of natural things that are often considered bad. 2. The confusion of Is and Ought: the 18th century philosopher, David Hume, noted that what is the case and what ought to be the case are logically distinct matters, and what is the case does not lead to any conclusion about what ought to be the case. He argued that one cannot derive and ought (a moral rule or principle) from an is (some naturally occurring event). 3. The Theory of Natural Law is said to conflict with the modern scientific view of the world. Whereas Natural Law sees purpose and intention in the way the world is, science is seemingly able to describe and explain the nature of the world without any appeal to values or facts about right and wrong.

Social Contract
(Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, Ch. 6) I. Thomas Hobbes, British philosopher of the 17th century, is an early advocate for what we call Social Contract moral theory. A. Hobbes tried to show that morality does not depend on God, moral facts or natural altruism. He began by asking: What would it be like if there were no social rules and no commonly accepted mechanism for enforcing them? (p. 80) In other words, Hobbes wondered where the idea of morality might arise from if there were none of these presupposed starting points. 1. 2. Hobbes called this situation where there are no rules, no authorities and no means of sanction for behavior the state of nature. Life in this pre-socialized state of nature would have been dangerous, even deadly. Hobbes describes four basic aspects of this existence that made it such a dangerous situation:

Page 4 of 7

There is equality of need among all people in the state of nature. Each one has the same basics needs for survival food, clothing, shelter, etc.
a)

There is a scarcity or resources to meet these basic needs. There are not enough goods to provide for everyones basic needs and providing for such needs requires hard effort.
b)

Since the resources that provide for common needs are sparse, the only explanation for who gets those resources is individual human power. But even here, Hobbes thinks there is an essential quality of human power no one is superior to everyone else in order to guarantee satisfaction of needs indefinitely. Another, stronger person is always likely to come along and interfere with ones acquisition of resources.
c)

Apart from our own limited power, there is no hope of relying on anything else for meeting our needs. Even if people are not wholly selfish, there is limited altruism, so other care very little whether our needs are met.
d)

B. The end result in this circumstance is, Hobbes maintains, a constant state of war, of one with all. This war is unwinnable for any particular individual. C. The only hope of escape from this dire state of nature is for those involved to find some way to cooperate. Two things are required if such cooperation is to be achieved and result in a more stable, supportive society: 1. First, there must be some guarantee that people will not harm one another; they must be free to work together without fear of harm. 2. Second, people must be able to confidently trust that others will honor agreements made. D. The way for these two conditions to be met, for Hobbes, is that a government should be established. In this way rules of governance over people and their agreements can exist and the state can become that agency to enforce such rules. Hobbes believes that an agreement such as this is real and makes it possible for people to live in a socially beneficial environment. That agreement he calls the social contract.

Page 5 of 7

E. According to Rachels, Social Contract theory closely links the purpose of the state and the nature of morality: The moral rules make social living possible, and the state exists to enforce the most important of those rules. (p. 83) The social contract view of morality can be summarized as follows: Morality consists in the set or rules, governing behavior, that rational people will accept, on the condition that others accept them as well. II. A second route for arriving at the Social Contract: the Prisoners Dilemma A. The prisoners dilemma was first formulated by social scientists Merrill M. Flood and Melvin Dresher in the early 1950s. It is often stated in the form of a puzzle, one example of which is supplied by Rachels on pp. 83-85. B. The goal of the prisoner is spend as little time in jail as possible. The question, then, is what strategy will best result in the shortest jail time. Since one can never know what the other prisoner will decide to do, it may seem there is no solution to the puzzle. But this is misleading, as Rachels points out: No matter what [the other prisoner] does, you should confess. (See p. 84 for his explanation of this action) C. The Prisoners Dilemma and Morality: According to Rachels this type of situation occurs whenever two general strategies for living are possible options: (1) you could pursue your own self-interests exclusively (i.e. acting selfishly), and (2) you could be concerned for other peoples welfare as well as your own (i.e. acting benevolently). (See Rachels explanation of how these strategies might work out in an actual moral situation on pp. 86-87) D. To avoid the dilemma created by pursuit of self-interest by all parties involved, what is needed is an enforceable agreement (i.e. the social contract) that will yield the best possible outcome for all involved. In other words, through the bargaining of the social contract we can do better than if only each ones self-interest is primary. In this way if we respect other peoples interests, they will respect ours as well. (p. 87)

Page 6 of 7

III.

Some Advantages of the Social Contract Theory A. The focus on this moral theory is on the rules accepted by all parties concerned. Rachels claims that the strength of the theory rests in how it answers some difficult questions: 1. What moral rules are we bound to follow, and how are those rules justified? Answer: the ones that facilitate harmonious social living. [Be sure to take note of Rachels discussion of what kinds of rules would and would not be acceptable based on the social contract theory. (p. 87)] 2. Why is it rational for us to follow the moral rules? Answer: because the rules will be enforced and it is rational for us to avoid punishment. [See Rachels discussion of The Problem with Civil Disobedience for more on this issue, pp. 90-92.] 3. Under what circumstances is it rational to break the rules? Answer: when someone else breaks the rules, it releases us from any obligation toward him. 4. How much can morality depend on us? Answer: by asking what will others agree to? social contract theory places a limit on the demands of morality because rational people will not agree to rules so demanding that other wont follow them. (p. 89)

IV.

Difficulties for Social Contract Theory A. Rachels considers Social Contract Theory to be one among the major options in current moral philosophy (the others are Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Virtue Ethics). B. He lists two major objections to the theory: 1. Social Contract Theory is based on an historical fiction. The scenario used to explain the need for and origin of the social contract never occurred. (This objection was raised against Hobbes when he first argued for a kind of social contract moral theory.) In addition, it is not clear that there is any real choice on the part of participants in the contract. 2. Some individuals cannot benefit us (i.e. the severely impaired physically or mentally, the aged, the very young, etc.). According to the Social Contract Theory, we can ignore the interests [of these people]; they have no claim on us. [See Rachels illustrations of this objection on pp. 95-96.]

Page 7 of 7

C. Rachels concludes his discussion of Social Contract Theory with this statement: The Social Contract Theory is grounded on self-interest and reciprocity; thus, it seems unable to recognize the moral duties we have to individuals who cannot benefit us. This is a major failing of the theory.