Theonomous ethics abandons the equality act

he view that morality is derived from religion is obscenely twisted, particularly for standards of 21st century ethics. The moral advice given by religion has harmful roots in misogyny and homophobia - far from the morality we are familiar with. The foundations of religion are so deeply buried in patriarchy that modern society cannot rationally claim that morality is derived from religion without also abandoning the principles of equality. Furthermore, the argument for theonomous ethics breaks the premises of a classical theist God and is self contradictory. Therefore, this essay aims to act as an exposé on the myth of theonomous ethics.

Firstly, the essay draws the focus onto the Divine Command Theory, a line of belief which holds that what God commands is what is moral. It can be seen that God does not ordain morality, instead He prescribes it. This makes Divine Command Theory incompatible with classical theist ideas of God as it leads to the dissolution of God’s omnipotence. If it is held that what is morally wrong is what God has forbidden for a reason, then it is that reason which makes the action moral. God becomes a prescriber of what is moral not what creates morality. The consequence of this is that God is not all-powerful because there exists a master code that even He conforms to. Therefore, the notion that morality is derived from religion is inherently flawed as it circles back to an unknown master code which religion relays to humanity and illustrates that a classical theist God is incompatible with Divine Command Theory.

From the debate propelled to the foreground, is what God wills moral because He commanded it? Or, is what He wills moral because He has the foresight that the consequences are moral? Religion seems to hone in on the consequence rather than intent which gives an imbalanced view of morality rather than a holistic one. The morality that could be derived from religion is consequentialist and neglects intent because religion commands us to do certain actions for moral outcomes. Religion does not recognise Kantian good-will as something intrinsically moral which means that X could have moral intentions ( to follow the commands given by religion) but for some extenuating reason must disobey those commands in order to do what intuitively seems right to a situation. For this reason it does not seem tangible that morality can be derived from religion because Divine Command Theory singularly focuses on consequence and that suggests that religion's commands are about controlling the masses with the fear of Divine punishment, as Marxist theory expands on, rather than about genuinely giving moral guidance.

The epitome of the debate about the morality’s origin is Plato’s Euthyphro. In these pages Plato details Socrates’ Socratic method to come to the conclusion that the belief morality is derived from religion is inherently flawed. Firstly, Euthyphro defines ‘piety’ as ‘that which is dear to the gods, and impiety [as] that which is not dear to them.’( Porch of The King of Archon, Euthyphro) From Euthyphro’s claim Socrates begins to question and practice his Socratic irony to pull out the illogicalities in the axiom. It is exposed that in a polytheistic religion Euthyphro’s claim is false because the Gods disagree and if Euthyphro’s statement was true then all the Gods opinions would equally be moral, as Gods have stated them. However, this leads to a problem because ‘It would seem that what is loved by the Gods is also hated by them [...] agreeable to Zeus but disagreeable to Cronos.’( Porch of The King of Archon, Euthyphro ) This shows that in a polytheistic religion what is commanded by Gods can be conflicting. Zeus may command us to murder a thief as punishment, whereas, Aphrodite might say it is immoral to do so; both of these commands would be moral, if what Euthyphro has stated is true or equally if Divine Command Theory is true, and since this is logically impossible it brings under question the view that the origin of morality is religion. This conflict can also be observed in monotheistic religions. If Muslims believe that drinking alcohol is immoral but Christians encourage it through the Eucharist. The problem then is that, if the logic of Divine Command Theory is followed, both actions are moral. However, this is logically impossible. How can drinking alcohol be both moral and immoral ? It seems that the view morality is derived from religion can never be sound because religion is too internally contradictory in its moral commands. If religion is not relaying morality and is effectively writing the opinion’s of the authors, then we must question whether adopting a moral anti-realist perspective or a heteronomous view of the origin of morality would be a more accurate belief.

Furthering this, Professor Richard Dawkins calls God a ‘petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist. An ethnic cleanser urging his people on to acts of genocide,’ ( Youtube, Richard Dawkins The Root of All Evil 2 - The Virus of Faith) after reading religious scriptures. Subsequently, the question must be posited: how can morality come from religion when God himself is accused of such immoralities ? The horrors of religion which Dawkins can be seen lamenting about in his BBC documentary ‘The Virus of Faith’ can be found in the old testament: ‘you must kill him, [...] you must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God.’ (Deuteronomy - Chapter 13 - Bible) Following the Divine Command Theory’s argument we are brought to a conflict between our individual moral intuitions and the instruction of religion. Intuitively it is felt by the majority of people that killing is wrong, particularly killing someone because of their beliefs. This is not only due to the pain and suffering murder causes but also because accepting murder in the name of different beliefs would show an odium theologicum towards people in the minority. By following though with the murder of people who believe in different religions society’s smooth functioning falls apart. The religious group in the majority would prosecute people who believe in minority religions, exposing that the view morality is derived from religion is inherently flawed. The morality prescribed by religion is caustic in opposition to what civilisation intuitively holds moral. Another example of how religion is incompatible with morality is the story of Abraham. Abraham was ordered by God to kill his son in order to prove his devotion and love for God. If what God says and therefore religion commands is what is moral then Abraham in killing his son would be moral and in not killing his son would be immoral. This action seems barbaric to intuitive senses of right or wrong. It cannot be fathomed by anyone who is a parent that murdering your own child could ever be moral. If morality did come from religion there wouldn’t be disharmony in religious commands and intuitive morality and reason.

The scripture’s deep roots in misogyny and its cruel punishments inhibit us from viewing morally as derived from religion. Religion’s gross commands ( ‘But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves’ [Numbers 31:18] ) in the story of Mosses can be seen as morally undistinguishable from Hitler’s rape of Poland according to Professor Richard Dawkins. If religion is so merciless, the view morality is derived from religion is incompatible with reason because something which is immoral cannot give us advice on how to be moral. In the same way you wouldn’t go to a person who can’t speak French to teach you to become fluent in the language. If we had to follow what religion commanded to be moral, as Divine Command Theory argues, then we would likely live in an unpleasant world which would see women stripped of their rights and vote. Religion’s commands for women are shrouded in patriarchal attitudes, such as the appraisal of virginity until marriage. Here it can be seen that the morality derived from religion is a source of control and suppression of women in order to be sure of the legitimacy of offspring, rather than being a sources of genuine moral guidance. Intrinsically there is nothing wrong with the act of intercourse and as attitudes to sex have changed this has become more apparent. Therefore, the view morality is derived from religion is fallacious and religion is more about control than morality.

It is a bleak conclusion, moral rules relayed to humanity in religious texts are the relative to the sociopolitical preferences of the time when they were written in order to control the masses, rather than being based on a genuine moral laws. The view that morality is derived from religion is not only inherently flawed but anyone who holds this belief must abandon the equality act, condone racism, and exercise misogyny. Divine command theory is weak and controversial because it is ambiguous and unclear whether God’s commands are moral because he states them or whether they are intrinsically moral. Hence, it cannot be discerned that morals come from religion or an external master moral code. Secondly, the commands given are highly questionable and it is intangible how murder and rape can be seen as moral, even if condoned and commanded by religion. What further brings the view that morality is derived from religion under suspicion is the fact that religious commands are internally contradictory whether that be the Greek Gods disagreeing or religious text disagreeing on moral actions such as the Qur’an and the Bible.

By Tissa Sabeti