In current times and throughout history there has been a tendency among many to believe that a religious approach to ethics already included a foundation, a basis, on which to base moral judgments, while a non religious approach would somehow have to “come up with something” that could make it out for the divine revelations of right and wrong.
Unfortunately this line of reasoning has been and is very dominant and in some cases it seems even more dominant today than in many other periods in world history. However that makes it even easier to show why the approach that a religious approach to ethics carries justification within takes reconsidering. The most extreme interpretations of this approach is found among religious extremists who simply seem to find that as long as God says or commands something, there is no discussion whatsoever and no other considerations are appropriate.
Why one would think the difference exists
Confronted with such an approach one would often be struck by the “clearness”. These people always seem to know what to do and what not to do. While professors in philosophy will take us through complicated lines of reasoning and pointing to theories that all seem to come to a limit at some point, religiously based ethics provide clear guidelines (at least that is the claim) and instead of “muddy” lines of reasoning about a foundation, one can point to a God who’s line of reasoning is way beyond ours and who’s commands we cannot discuss or vote about for that matter.
As already noted the religious extremist confront us with the extreme version of this. They are probably beyond the reach of any line of reasoning. However, others with a lighter approach but in the same category will usually allow themselves to make statements like “how can I claim that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, if the Bible says it is wrong?”, “how can I claim that the idea of eternal punishment in Hell is absurd, when God is the one who judges?” and so on…
The difference only exists between extremist and non-extremists
Having come this far, one would think there is a significant difference between the positions. However that is based on a simplified approach. The quite simple reason is that a believer must either be able to justify (at least to some extent) his claim that God is right in doing this or that or he must blindly follow. If he blindly follows, he is going for an extremist position in which we can only hope his reading does not convince him of way to many absurdities. If he starts to confront himself with the question as to why God’s commands are the right ones and why God is acting fairly when judging e.g. that babies who died at an early stage must go to Hell, he will find himself in a position in which he needs to establish a foundation on which to justify such lines of reasoning.
Leibniz’s points
A prominent Christian thinker, Leibniz, actually did point to some very interesting facts about this theme. Let’s hear the man himself:
"Furthermore, if you say - as Descartes did - that things are good not because they match up to objective standards of goodness, but only because God chose them, you will unthinkingly destroy all God’s love and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done, if he would be equally praiseworthy for doing just the opposite?"
The point is quite obvious that if there is no objective good to be known prior to God’s choices, then there is absolutely no good to be known afterwards. The praise is completely blind, as Leibniz points out. It is a praise of whatever. This is the praise we find among extremists. It should not be the kind of praise we expect to find among reflecting religious people. Thus, the challenge of finding ethical foundation is equally shared by all those who reflect, religious or not.
Leibniz goes on to say that:
"And another point: it seems that any act of the will presupposes some reason for it - a reason that naturally precedes the act so that God’s choices must come from his reasons for them, which involve his knowledge of what would be good; so they can’t be the sources of the goodness of things. That is why I find it weird when Descartes says that the eternal truths of metaphysics and geometry, and therefore also the rules of goodness, justice, and perfection, are brought about by God’s will."
Now, Leibniz was a Christian and I do not intend to use his words to put religion in a worse situation. Actually I think he is pointing to something that all reflecting people can agree on. Leibniz also makes the statement that God could not create a world in which 2 + 3 = 6. His point is the same about ethics.
What we are looking for is that which cannot be different, which could not, no matter how the world was created, be different. That kind of moral truths. If they do not exist, religious and secular people are equally worse of. Religious belief is no “stairway to heaven” when it comes to this specific challenge. It is shared.
Unfortunately this line of reasoning has been and is very dominant and in some cases it seems even more dominant today than in many other periods in world history. However that makes it even easier to show why the approach that a religious approach to ethics carries justification within takes reconsidering. The most extreme interpretations of this approach is found among religious extremists who simply seem to find that as long as God says or commands something, there is no discussion whatsoever and no other considerations are appropriate.
Why one would think the difference exists
Confronted with such an approach one would often be struck by the “clearness”. These people always seem to know what to do and what not to do. While professors in philosophy will take us through complicated lines of reasoning and pointing to theories that all seem to come to a limit at some point, religiously based ethics provide clear guidelines (at least that is the claim) and instead of “muddy” lines of reasoning about a foundation, one can point to a God who’s line of reasoning is way beyond ours and who’s commands we cannot discuss or vote about for that matter.
As already noted the religious extremist confront us with the extreme version of this. They are probably beyond the reach of any line of reasoning. However, others with a lighter approach but in the same category will usually allow themselves to make statements like “how can I claim that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, if the Bible says it is wrong?”, “how can I claim that the idea of eternal punishment in Hell is absurd, when God is the one who judges?” and so on…
The difference only exists between extremist and non-extremists
Having come this far, one would think there is a significant difference between the positions. However that is based on a simplified approach. The quite simple reason is that a believer must either be able to justify (at least to some extent) his claim that God is right in doing this or that or he must blindly follow. If he blindly follows, he is going for an extremist position in which we can only hope his reading does not convince him of way to many absurdities. If he starts to confront himself with the question as to why God’s commands are the right ones and why God is acting fairly when judging e.g. that babies who died at an early stage must go to Hell, he will find himself in a position in which he needs to establish a foundation on which to justify such lines of reasoning.
Leibniz’s points
A prominent Christian thinker, Leibniz, actually did point to some very interesting facts about this theme. Let’s hear the man himself:
"Furthermore, if you say - as Descartes did - that things are good not because they match up to objective standards of goodness, but only because God chose them, you will unthinkingly destroy all God’s love and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done, if he would be equally praiseworthy for doing just the opposite?"
The point is quite obvious that if there is no objective good to be known prior to God’s choices, then there is absolutely no good to be known afterwards. The praise is completely blind, as Leibniz points out. It is a praise of whatever. This is the praise we find among extremists. It should not be the kind of praise we expect to find among reflecting religious people. Thus, the challenge of finding ethical foundation is equally shared by all those who reflect, religious or not.
Leibniz goes on to say that:
"And another point: it seems that any act of the will presupposes some reason for it - a reason that naturally precedes the act so that God’s choices must come from his reasons for them, which involve his knowledge of what would be good; so they can’t be the sources of the goodness of things. That is why I find it weird when Descartes says that the eternal truths of metaphysics and geometry, and therefore also the rules of goodness, justice, and perfection, are brought about by God’s will."
Now, Leibniz was a Christian and I do not intend to use his words to put religion in a worse situation. Actually I think he is pointing to something that all reflecting people can agree on. Leibniz also makes the statement that God could not create a world in which 2 + 3 = 6. His point is the same about ethics.
What we are looking for is that which cannot be different, which could not, no matter how the world was created, be different. That kind of moral truths. If they do not exist, religious and secular people are equally worse of. Religious belief is no “stairway to heaven” when it comes to this specific challenge. It is shared.
Comment