ETHICS punishable or rather there’s no rightness

embedded in that act.

Does Morality depend on Religion?
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
When viewed from a nonreligious perspective, the
universe seems to be a cold, meaningless place, devoid  there is no crime if there’s no law punishing it.
of value and purpose. In Bertrand Russell’s essay “A
Free Man’s Worship” (1903), he expresses what he Under the Divine Command Theory
calls the “scientific” view of the world:
 If you believe in other religions, you’re already
That Man is the product of causes which had no committing an immoral act.
prevision of the end they were achieving; that his  Why you should not kill? Because God said so.
origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves, and  It is based on the 10 Commandments
his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental
Pros
collocations of atoms.
Objectivity in Ethics. Morality is not dependent on
Nihilistic is the denial of all religions, moral rules, and
feelings or social customs.
authority figures based on the belief that life is
meaningless. Doing whatever you want without regard  Culture Relativism – there is no universal
for the consequences or without regard for whether standard for morality. Wherein the
your actions are morally proper is an example of foundation of morality is culture. Culture
nihilism. comes from the folkways, practices,
traditions from our ancestors.
Divine Command Theory
 If you abide to the 10 Commandments, our
Ten Commandments actions are justified. We need to follow the
commandments that God gave us so that our
1. You shall have no other gods before Me. soul is ensured once our body deteriorates
2. You shall not make idols. and that we become one with God in the
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your afterlife.
God in vain.  Without religion, our life would seem
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. meaningless. But with religion, there’s a
5. Honor your father and your mother. purpose.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery. Necessity for morality is justified. - God’s judgement
8. You shall not steal.
 The purpose of doing good deeds has
9. You shall not bear false witness against your
already been justified. We need to do good
neighbor.
deeds because of God’s judgement
10. You shall not covet.
Morality is dependent on God through his 10
10 Commandments were created with the idea that
Commandments.
there’s only one true religion.
Natural Law Theory
God decrees what is right and wrong:
 Another version of Divine Command Theory
 Command actions are morally required
 Law of Nature = how things are and how
- these are the actions that you should do
things ought to be
because it is indicated in the 10
 God provided reason within humans to
commandments.
determine morality according to this natural
 Forbidden acts are morally wrong.
law
- If it is indicated in the 10 commandments
that you should not do it that implies that
these forbidden acts are immoral
 The rest is neutral
-any act that is not mentioned in the 10
commandments means it is neutral that is
neither moral nor immoral. If it not indicated
in the 10 commandments, then it’s not
Hierarchy of Beings
The world has rational order, with purpose and values
built into its very nature.
 There is a hierarchy
 (Aristotle, Ancient Period) “Nature,” he said,
“belongs to the class of causes which act for
the sake of something.
- Aristotle is known for this one book,
“Nicomachean Ethics” this book is dedicated
to his son Nicomachus. It is about him trying
to ask what is the purpose of man? It
contains discussions on whether happiness is
the purpose of our lives. And started with the
premise that everything has a purpose.
 (Christianity) The only thing missing is God
-it tells that by substituting substance with
God, the whole hierarchy changes. It tells us
now that there is direction, there’s a purpose
with how everything is created. There’s a
reason why we humans have reason.
Plato
 Theory of Forms
 Tripartite Soul
Aristotle
 Types of Soul = Porphyrian Tree
 Happiness and Virtue
Porphyrian Tree
Substance – it is a thing that is the origin of everything
yet at the same time is not the product of something
else. It is substantial. It is not caused by other things. It
is causing itself. It is self-sustaining. It produces other
things
Accident – means they are dependent on something
else.
The Natural Law Theory is less clear, it is said that our
understanding of right and wrong is already in nature.
All we must do is use our thinking, the reason to
excavate the goodness.
Example:
Climate Change is real. We noticed that typhoons is
getting stronger and stronger. This is an effect of hotter
waters because of the hotter climate and the hotter
climate is because of the thickening of the ozone layer.
All that because of the continuous gas emissions. We
humans we try to be better and to be more efficient
and progressive. Gas emissions are unnatural.
According to the natural law theory, this is immoral. Its
immoral because these are unnatural. If something is
unnatural, that is immoral. If its natural, we need to
maintain its natural quality.
Under the natural law theory, we are based on the fact
that God gave us a reason and we need to use this
reason.
The Natural Law Theory
In the history of Christian thought, the dominant theory
of ethics is not the Divine Command Theory. That
honor instead goes to the Theory of Natural Law. This
theory has three main parts:
1. Everything in the world is created in the hierarchy,
and there is an order in things.
The Theory of Natural Law rests on a particular view of
the world. On this view, the world has a rational order,
with values and purposes built into its very nature. This
idea comes from the Greeks, whose worldview
dominated Western thinking for over 1,700 years. The
Greeks believed that everything in nature has a
purpose.
Aristotle built this idea into his system of thought.
1. What is it?
2. What is it made of?
3. How did it come to be?
4. And what is it for?
But what about natural objects that we do not make?
Aristotle believed that they have purposes. One of his
examples was that we have teeth so that we can chew.
Aristotle’s claim was not limited to organic beings.
According to him, everything has a purpose.
Aristotle thought, is an orderly, rational system in
which each thing has a proper place and serves its own
special purpose.
Aristotle says, “If then we are right in believing that
nature makes nothing without some end in view,
nothing to no purpose, it must be that nature has made
all things specifically for the sake of man.”
The Christian thinkers who came later found this
worldview appealing. Only one thing was missing:
God.
St. Thomas Aquinas
3. The third part concerns moral knowledge. How can
we tell right from wrong? In the Divine Command
Theory, we must consult God’s commandments. In the
Theory of Natural Law, however, the “natural laws” of
morality are just laws of reason; so, what’s right is what
is supported by the best arguments. God has given us
the ability to reason. God has given this ability to
everyone, putting the believer and nonbeliever in the
same position
- Aristotle taught us logic, or the correct way of
thinking or the structure with would we start our
arguments.
Under the Natural Law Theory, the foundation of
morality depends on us having reason created by God
which would mean both believers and nonbelievers
apply here. It’s only a matter of looking into natural
things and deriving goodness from this state of nature.
Natural law theory depends on us having reason and
because we have reason the argument follows that we
should collectively try and sharpen our reason to
unravel the goodness that is embedded within the
state of nature. It is objective because we must
maintain the order of hierarchy.
Divine Command Theory:
Morality is dependent on God through his 10
Commandments
Natural Law Theory:
Morality comes naturally from the things that God
created.

 known for having the 5 proofs of God’s

Existence, for example, the uncaused cause,
and the other one is about how everything is
so intelligently created. This everything is not
accidental with how everything is cleverly
made there has to be a God.

2. “laws of nature” describe not only how things are

but also how things ought to be.

Moral rules are now viewed as deriving from the laws

of nature. Some ways of behaving are said to be
“natural” while others are regarded as “unnatural;” and
“unnatural” acts are seen as morally wrong.

Example:

Being hungry and sleepy is an example of natural things

that means it is not immoral. It is a good feeling rather
the act of eating is good because it’s natural.

The Euthyphro Dilemma
“Is the conduct right because the God commands it?”
“Do the Gods command it because it is right?”
There are, however, serious problems with the theory.
Of course, atheists would not accept it, because they
do not believe that God exists. But there are difficulties
even for believers. The main problem was identified by
Plato, a Greek philosopher who lived 400 years before
Jesus of Nazareth. Plato’s books were written as
conversations, or dialogues, in which Plato’s teacher
Socrates is always the main speaker. In one of them,
the Euthyphro, there is a discussion of whether “right”
can be defined as “what the gods command.” Socrates
is skeptical and asks: Is conduct right because the gods
command it, or do the gods command it because it is
right? This is one of the most famous questions in the
history of philosophy.
Socrates’s question is about whether God makes moral
truths true or whether he merely recognizes their
truth. There’s a big difference between these options. I
know that the Burj Khalifa building in the United Arab
Emirates is the tallest building in the world; I recognize
that fact. However, I did not make it true. Rather, it
was made true by the designers and builders in the city
of Dubai. Is God’s relation to ethics like my relation to
the Burj Khalifa building or like the relation of the
builders? This question poses a dilemma, and each
option leads to trouble.
First, we might say that right conduct is right because
God commands it. For example, according to Exodus
20:16, God commands us to be truthful. Thus, we
should be truthful simply because God requires it.
God’s command makes truthfulness right, just as the
builders of a skyscraper make the building tall. This is
the Divine Command Theory. It is almost the theory of
Shakespeare’s character Hamlet. Hamlet said that
nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so.
According to the Divine Command Theory, nothing is
good or bad, except when God’s thinking makes it so.
This idea encounters several difficulties.
1. This conception of morality is mysterious. What
does it mean to say that God “makes” truthfulness
right? It is easy enough to understand how physical
objects are made, at least in principle. We have all
made something if only a sandcastle or a peanut-
butter-and-jelly sandwich. But making truthfulness
right is not like that; it could not be done by
rearranging things in the physical environment. How,
then, could it be done? No one knows. To see the
problem, consider some wretched cases of child abuse.
On the Divine Command Theory, God could make that
instance of child abuse right—not by turning a slap into
a friendly pinch of the cheek, but by commanding that
the slap is right. This proposal defies human
understanding. How could merely saying, or
commanding, that the slap is right to make it right? If
true, this conception of morality would be a mystery.
2. This conception of morality makes God’s
commands arbitrary. Suppose a parent forbids a
teenager from doing something, and when the
teenager asks why, the parent responds, “Because I
said so!” In such a case, the parent is imposing his will
on the child arbitrarily. Yet the Divine Command Theory
sees God as being like such a parent. Rather than
offering a reason for his commands, God merely says,
“Because I said so.”
3. This conception of morality provides the wrong
reasons for moral principles. There are many things
wrong with child abuse: It is malicious; it involves the
unnecessary infliction of pain; it can have unwanted
long-term psychological effects; and so on. However,
the Divine Command Theory does not care about any
of those things; it sees the maliciousness, pain, and
long-term effects of child abuse as being morally
irrelevant. All it cares about, in the end, is whether
child abuse runs counter to God’s commands.
There are two ways of confirming that something is
wrong here. First, notice something that the theory
implies: If God didn’t exist, then child abuse wouldn’t
be wrong. After all, if God didn’t exist, then God
wouldn’t have been around to make child abuse
wrong. However, child abuse would still be malicious,
so it would still be wrong. Thus, the Divine Command
Theory fails. Second, bear in mind that even a religious
person might be genuinely in doubt as to what God
has commanded. After all, religious texts disagree with
each other, and sometimes there seem to be
inconsistencies even within a single text. So, a person
might be in doubt as to what God’s will really is.
However, a person need not be in doubt as to whether
child abuse is wrong. What God has commanded is
one thing; whether hitting children is wrong is another.
There is a way to avoid these troublesome
consequences. We can take the second of Socrates’s
options. We need not say that right conduct is right
because God commands it. Instead, we may say that
God commands us to do certain things because they
are right. God, who is infinitely wise, recognizes that
truthfulness is better than deceitfulness, just as he
recognizes in Genesis that the light he sees is good. For
this reason, God commands us to be truthful.

If we take this option, then we avoid the consequences

that spoiled the first alternative. We needn’t worry
about how God makes it wrong to lie, because he
doesn’t. God’s commands are not arbitrary; they are
the result of his wisdom in knowing what is best. Also,
we are not saddled with the wrong explanations for
our moral principles; instead, we are free to appeal to
whatever justifications of them seem appropriate.

Unfortunately, this second option has a different

drawback. In taking it, we abandon the theological
conception of right and wrong. When we say that God
commands us to be truthful because truthfulness is
right, we acknowledge a standard that is independent
of God’s will. The rightness exists prior to God’s
command and is the reason for it. Thus, if we want to
know why we should be truthful, the reply “because
God commands it” does not really tell us. We may still
ask, “Why does God command it?” and the answer to
that question will provide the ultimate reason.

Many religious people believe that they must accept a

theological conception of right and wrong because it
would be sacrilegious not to do so. They feel,
somehow, that if they believe in God, then right and
wrong must be understood in terms of God’s wishes.
Our arguments, however, suggest that the Divine
Command Theory is not only untenable but impious.
And, in fact, some of the greatest theologians have
rejected the theory for just these reasons.