Morality Without God Summary

Summary of Morality Without God by John Arthur

Nirvair Chahal
Dr. Ronald de Sousa
PHLA11 S
T.A. Chad Horne
996811650
January 24, 2012

John Arthur argues that morality exists without the influence of religion in his passage Morality Without God. Arthur claims that morality is independent of religion both logically and psychologically. He first distinguishes what he is referring to when he speaks of morality and religion. Arthur explains that morality is having the tendency to evaluate behaviour of oneself or others. Religion involves believing in the supernatural as the controller of nature as well as paying homage to these supernatural beings. Arthur distinguishes morality and religion as two very different things and asks, where is the connection between the two?
Many people suspect that religion is necessary for people to act in the correct manner. People often think this way because they fear or want to benefit from the consequences. Such consequences include Heaven for those that follow the demands of God, and Hell for those that choose to disobey his requests. If people live their lives harmoniously with God’s commands, they will be living a moral life. Arthur disputes the Divine Command Theory by saying that it is part of human nature to worry about simple consequences such as “will I get caught” or “what will someone think if they see me”. He points out that we often do not think about religion when making moral decisions, we just seem to know our duties. An argument in favour of religion being necessary for morality to exists challenges whether people would know how to do the right thing without the guidance of religion. It is only God who can be objective to what is right and what is wrong. Arthur refutes this argument by stating that there are far too many questions to answer in order for us to know that religion provides moral guidance. First we would have to find out whether there is a God or not. The next step would be to find out which God is the real one considering that different religions of differing views on his existence. Even after we have narrowed down a religion, we must choose which God is the correct one between the differing castes within a set religion. On top of that, we would have to correctly interpret revelations that may seem to contradict one another. Using this argument, Arthur says that instead of providing a shortcut to moral guidance, religion acts as a hindrance instead. Trying to find guidance in revelation just leads to more and more questions. Bishop R.C. Mortimer sees morality without God as statutes without legislature, meaning that there are no statutes without legal legislature just as there is no morality without God deciding what is truly right or wrong. Arthur also presents an argument where F.C. Copleston debates with Bertrand Russell in saying that without any objective basis, we would have not have the ability to condemn the behaviour of anybody, such as the Nazis for example. In reply to Copleston’s argument, Arthur says that many philosophers have found that morality can rest upon its own footing and not necessarily on the commands of God. He questions why there must be a foundation to morality because he believes that one is not necessary. In terms of the Divine Command Theory, Arthur disputes it by saying that if it were true, then God might change what we now morally see as wrong, into right and vice versa. If God were to command cruelty and cowardice, we would have to accept such vices as moral virtues or likewise we would have to neglect vices that were once virtuous. Plato makes a point in the dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro whether something is right because the Gods say so, or whether the Gods say it is right because it is right. Using Plato’s argument, Arthur challenges God’s omnipotence by saying that if God proves that kindness is a virtue, than it seems that he discovers morality rather than invent it.
To conclude he talks about whether a religious person can understand God’s relationship to morality even if they reject the Divine Command Theory. Arthur explains that the atheist will treat human nature simply as given and the theist may regard it as product of divinity but both will follow similar moral codes, so whether a person is religious or not should not be of importance.