James Rachels 'God And Morality Are Incomcompatible'

Karly Houghton
Dr. Adam Gaffey
Philosophy 220
September 24, 2014
We The People What is morally good is defined in different ways throughout the world. Race, society, moral beliefs, God, an individual, and also many others can determine what is thought to be good or bad. God as well as the individual defines what the good is. James Rachels believes that being a child of God and also an autonomous moral agent is completely incompatible. His argument is that one cannot fully worship a God without giving up one’s own moral standards. Rachels declares that if one confirms that there is, indeed, a God, the thought in itself makes you a servant of god. Working in full service of God means, to Rachels, that one would be abandoning all of one’s own moral standings. He also believes that there is no being who is worthy of worship
because of the fact that the individual cannot be an autonomous moral agent while also worshipping God.
Therefore, he states, “there cannot be any being who is God” (Rachels 373). Although James Rachels feels that worshipping God and being morally independent are not compatible, many would think differently. There are a few different flaws within James Rachels’, “God and Morality Are Incompatible”. Rachels is speaking outside of his own knowledge range when he asserts, “to apply the tittle ‘God’ to a being is to recognize him as one to be obeyed” (Rachels 372). Now, this would usually be a true statement as Rachels brings up the word “’King’” (Rachels 372). A king is a great being and is obeyed by all without question, just like a dictator. This would be an example of the God that Rachels is talking about in the previous statement. Many others would see the Christian God as
one who could be compared to the United States Legislature and the President of the United States, or rather how they were designed to be. The Legislature is designed to make and enforce laws, but they cannot always prevent someone from breaking the laws anyway. If someone decided to break a law they would serve their time and move on with their life in the country that they love. The act they have committed may not make them the best citizen, but does not take away their right to live in this country. The point is that one is able to make their own decisions while still worshipping the God they have loved all along. The reason why God is, “perfectly good in addition to being perfectly wise” (Rachels 372) is to make up for one’s imperfections just as the United States Government is supposed to make up for its citizen’s imperfections. Rachels tends to use the previous statement against God almost calling it a standard we all must live up to. God does not intend for us to be, “perfectly good in addition to being perfectly wise” (Rachels 372). Which is one reason why God’s people can be both a child of God yet also an autonomous moral agent. Rachels believes one cannot be God’s follower unless one is willing to become an all-willing servant to him, giving up all of one’s own moral standings. God’s plan for his people is unclear to many, leaving room for them to make mistakes, and also their own decisions. Worship and personal moral standards have absolutely no contradiction. God gives his people full rein to make their own informed decisions, while setting a solid foundation for his people to build their moral standards on. If this were not true, everyone on this earth, or at least the believers, would be living a very parallel life. God would be making their decisions for them. God intends for his words to be interpreted, and like our country’s “living document” is ever changing to form as time goes on, so is God’s word. Throughout Rachels’ statements, he was slightly biased, and immensely uninformed. It is easy for one to see a great comparison between government and God, and less between royalty and God. This leads into the fact that there is no contradicting factor between God and standing as a free moral agent, only one’s self. God sets a solid foundation for his people to make good decisions, and also worship him fully which leads to a life full of good.

Works Cited
Rachels, James. “God Morality Are Incompatible.” Moral Philosophy. Louis P. Pojman and