When Monotheists Fail to Understand Morality

Morality is a term that comes to us from Latin. Cicero, during the first century BC, used the word 'moral' to translate the Greek word 'ethikos', from which we get our 'ethics'. (The etymology of 'moral' and 'morality' is given here.) Morality is not a theological concept. It is simply the set of principles and beliefs by which we decide what conduct is right or wrong, regardless of what might be the basis of those principles and beliefs, and regardless of whether or not they involve religion or supernatural beings.

A moral code might or might not be derived from divine command. The codes Cicero considered were not. He approved of Stoicism and disapproved of Epicureanism, both of which were atheistic, and therefore of necessity, secular, systems. Even for someone who believes that a God exists who has issued commands that we should conduct our selves in a particular manner, it is not automatically the case that it is moral to to follow those commands. The notion that it is moral to obey God, and immoral to disobey God is one that is open to challenge. God might have issued a command on a whim, and obedience to that command might be harmful or neutral in its consequences to everyone. It certainly possible to reasonably doubt that it is right to obey that command, or that it is wrong to disobey it. The possibility of such doubt implies that morality as such may issue from something other than the command itself.

If it is the case that God threatens those who disobey him with terrible punishments, and offers great rewards to those who do certain things that God's commands, and it is certain that those punishments and rewards will indeed be dished out as promised, then it can be argued that it is moral to obey God because obedience brings happiness and disobedience brings suffering. Such is a consequentialist morality, not strikingly different from any other consequentialist morality. It even conforms, potentially, to utilitarianism, a modern ethical system commonly associated with atheism. Another way to argue that it is right to obey God is to say that God loves us paternalistically, and it is natural and proper that we should reciprocate by loving him filially. This can be understood as a tacit appeal to natural law theory. In a monotheist world, God might be the ultimate source of morality without his commands being the highest rules, by virtue of being the source of nature, from which both natural law and consequences emerge.

These considerations do not always seem to be borne in mind by monotheist apologists. Rather, it is all too common for them to make the assumption that morality equates with God's commands. That assumption defies usage, since most believers as well as unbelievers rest at least some of their decisions about what conduct is moral on secular grounds (discussions of insider dealing, energy policy, and television advertising are all often discussed in terms of morality, for instance, without reference to divine pronouncements on those topics), yet, astonishingly, it is an assumption that rests on nothing.

When you use a word in a manner that defies ordinary usage, you need to have good reasons to do so, and to make those reasons clear. Convincing attempts to explain why morality is equated with God's law are seriously lacking. The nearest thing to such efforts generally boils down the the following argument, which is conspicuous for being short by at least one premise: God is good (even when he seems bad), therefore what God commands is good. Where is the reason for supposing that God is good? It seems to have been omitted. (We find this flawed assumption both in the essay upon which I was commenting in my "Is Morality Above God?" and the reply to my comments, by the same author.)

It is all very well for monotheists to say that their particular conception of morality is "whatever the most powerful being happens to command", but that conception is not, never has been, and cannot be the general definition of morality.