Does Morality Need Religion – Yes! Professor Derrick Willis The question of whether”morality needs religion” is an important one in both philosophy and religion. The central concern is where exactly does our sense of morality, of right and wrong, come from. Does our moral consciousness come from religion or God, or is it a socially constructed phenomenon - does it come from our parents, social environment, or community. If it is socially constructed, then where do we draw the line in terms of differences between cultures or cultural attitudes. For example, during Nazi Germany 12 million people were murdered, 6 million of whom were Jews. Their skin was used for lampshades, and they were tortured and used as slaves. If morality is socially constructed (that is based on culture) then does that mean that the cultural viewpoint of the Nazis was correct. And since we come from a different culture, then where and on what basis do we say that their cultural paradigm was incorrect or wrong? Who are we to tell them that their moral views (murder and torture) are wrong? This is the substance of the debate. Author’s Viewpoint Author C. Stephen Layman argues that morality does need religion because God becomes the absolute standard that draws the line. So Layman argues that: Any claim concerning the Good must be based on religion as an independent idealprinciple. Morality is a claim concerning the Good. Therefore, morality must be based on religion as an independent ideal principle. Layman argues that morality is not an emergent phenomenon, i.e., emerged into existence at a particular time and place, or in a particular social environment, but was established by God. Even though various cultures oppose murder, stealing, and lying, the foundation and groundwork for that was laid by God. We have a tendency to assign human value to principles that have ordered our universe from the beginning. Even though human beings twist religion to their own devices, there are in essence some universally agreed upon principles that they all share, opposition to murder and torture are two. If our sense of right and wrong comes from culture then what about secret violations when no one’s looking. For the religious person secret violations aren’t permitted because God is watching, and as we know, you can’t hide from God. But if right and wrong are culturally determined then why not cheat or murder if you can get away with it. If no one knows; no harm, no foul. And further still if it is culturally determined, then doesn’t this just simply insulate one culture in relation to the next. My culture is right, so I really have no moral obligation to a culture other than my own. This, according to Layman, creates a kind of cultural tribalism. My culture is my culture and you can’t judge it. If I need to kill my citizens to make life “better” in my country, then so be it. Your culture is your culture, and my culture is my culture, so butt out! But if God is in.

1. Does Morality Need Religion – Yes!
Professor Derrick Willis
The question of whether”morality needs religion” is an
important one in both philosophy and religion. The central
concern is where exactly does our sense of morality, of right
and wrong, come from. Does our moral consciousness come
from religion or God, or is it a socially constructed phenomenon
- does it come from our parents, social environment, or
community. If it is socially constructed, then where do we draw
the line in terms of differences between cultures or cultural
attitudes. For example, during Nazi Germany 12 million people
were murdered, 6 million of whom were Jews. Their skin was
used for lampshades, and they were tortured and used as slaves.
If morality is socially constructed (that is based on culture) then
does that mean that the cultural viewpoint of the Nazis was
correct. And since we come from a different culture, then
where and on what basis do we say that their cultural paradigm
was incorrect or wrong? Who are we to tell them that their
moral views (murder and torture) are wrong? This is the
substance of the debate.
Author’s Viewpoint
Author C. Stephen Layman argues that morality does need
religion because God becomes the absolute standard that draws
the line. So Layman argues that:
Any claim concerning the Good must be based on religion as an
independent idealprinciple.
Morality is a claim concerning the Good.
Therefore, morality must be based on religion as an independent
ideal principle.
Layman argues that morality is not an emergent phenomenon,
i.e., emerged into existence at a particular time and place, or in

2. a particular social environment, but was established by God.
Even though various cultures oppose murder, stealing, and
lying, the foundation and groundwork for that was laid by God.
We have a tendency to assign human value to principles that
have ordered our universe from the beginning. Even though
human beings twist religion to their own devices, there are in
essence some universally agreed upon principles that they all
share, opposition to murder and torture are two.
If our sense of right and wrong comes from culture then what
about secret violations when no one’s looking. For the religious
person secret violations aren’t permitted because God is
watching, and as we know, you can’t hide from God. But if
right and wrong are culturally determined then why not cheat or
murder if you can get away with it. If no one knows; no harm,
no foul.
And further still if it is culturally determined, then doesn’t this
just simply insulate one culture in relation to the next. My
culture is right, so I really have no moral obligation to a culture
other than my own. This, according to Layman, creates a kind
of cultural tribalism. My culture is my culture and you can’t
judge it. If I need to kill my citizens to make life “better” in
my country, then so be it. Your culture is your culture, and my
culture is my culture, so butt out!
But if God is in the picture, then the standards of behavior are
universal and absolute, across the board. He says “thou shall
not murder,” and “thou shall not steal,” etc. He doesn’t care
what culture you belong to, it’s wrong to murder and steal.
There’s a religious principle that governs this, it says “do unto
others as you would have them do unto you.” In other words, if
you don’t want someone to murder you then don’t murder
others, and if you don’t want someone to steal from you then
don’t steal from others. Reformulated as a principle of reason,
it says “always act in such a way that your actions can be the
guide for anyone else’s actions” or “act in such a way that your
actions are always exemplary actions.”
Layman also argues that in the end it pays to base morality on

3. religion. He says that secret violations are unacceptable
because they minimize the possibility of achieving an afterlife
with God. I therefore adjust my behavior in alignment with
God’s ideals and principles because the benefit is that I will go
to heaven and in the end be with God. That’s ultimately what
motivates me to behave well.
My Viewpoint
I agree with most of what Layman says. However, his claim
that the relationship between morality and religion pays seems
problematic to me. The fact that it pays seems irrelevant to the
issue of whether “religion is required or necessary to have
morality.” Yes, we can say that without God there can be no
morality whatsoever, since without Him there’s no universal
guideline. But the argument that it pays is external to the issue.
From my understanding one does not do what’s right because it
pays, but one does what’s right because it is the right thing to
do. Often, people do the right things for the wrong reasons (it
pays for them in some way). For example, some people give to
charity not from the kindness of their hearts but because they
can write it off as a tax deduction – it pays for them. This
seems to be a selfish and artificial act, directly opposed to what
most religions teach. Most of the world’s religions teach that
you should be unselfish in your behavior. Your behavior should
not center on what you can get out of it, but should center on
the good that you do. The good you do is less about you and
more about your love for God. According to both Christianity
and Hinduism, to name just two, you love God so much that you
want to exemplify that love through your actions. Of course
you will get something out of it, a better society, people’s trust,
a good reputation, but that’s not your foremost concern. For
example, I play chess. To play chess pays for me; I sharpen my
intellect, I sharpen my strategic and thinking skills, and I either
win or lose. But I don’t play it for those reasons. I play it
because I love it. I want to glorify the game by playing it well.
The payoff is really external and irrelevant to why I play; the

4. same thing with morality. I do the right thing because I love to
do it. I do it to exemplify and glorify God. The payoff is really
external and irrelevant to why I do it.
Question: Can there be some other basis of morality other than
religion or culture?
References
1. Taking Sides, “Ethics and the Kingdom of God” C. Stephen
Layman
2. Professor Derrick Willis
Does Morality Need Religion - No
Professor Derrick Willis
Author’sViewpoint
Over the years many philosophers have argued that we need
religion or God to establish ethics as a foundation for our
existence. From Descartes to Leibniz, from Augustine to
Aquinas many have held this view. However, philosopher, John
Arthur, argues that ethics is a socially constructed phenomenon.
He holds that every society has some sense of morality and that
this sense comes from our environment – family structure,
community, even church. He argues that there is a close
historical connection between religion and ethics, but in its
essence ethics is logically or theoretically independent of
religion. Thus, Arthur argues that
Nothing that is socially generated requires God or religion.
Ethics is socially generated.
Therefore, ethics does not require God or religion.
He says hypothetically, every society has some moral code that
acts as a motivating factor for moral action. Whether we agree
with the moral code of a society or not, its existence confirms
the insular reality of moral action as a part of specific cultures.
Society’s moral codes will differ because differing
environments will construct differing moral paradigms.

5. Part of the confusion, he says, centers on the definition of the
words ethics and religion. To clarify religion has to do with the
worshipping of a Divine Being and giving honor to that being
for existence and the ground of creation. It also involves
praying to that being reverentially for a blessed and fortunate
life. Ethics has to do with our attitudes toward certain forms of
behavior. The reason we think that stealing is wrong or that
murder is wrong is not because of God or religion but because
our environment has constructed an attitude that tells us that it’s
wrong. Doing the right thing does not involve God hovering
over us. Moral motivation is more about the pressure or
expectation of parents, family and community. For example,
Japanese students do really well in school not because of God or
religion but because of an intense cultural value that attaches a
lack of success with embarrassment to family. The last thing
you want to do is embarrass mom and dad. Further, it is quite
possible for a society to be religious, go to church, read sacred
texts, have institutionalized forms of worship, and be morally
bankrupt. Instead of helping their neighbor, they help
themselves. And likewise it is possible for a society without
any religious conviction to be morally righteous, to borrow a
phrase.
The problem with basing ethics on religion is the shaky nature
of religious knowledge as its foundation. Religious knowledge
is not like scientific knowledge. Wherein scientific knowledge
is public and open to objective verification, religious knowledge
is private and based on revelation or faith.
Revelation becomes very shaky as the ground of morality
because religious texts reveal themselves differently to different
people. Take the Bible for example. For some people the Bible
represents the actual Word of God. It is a reflection of the very
voice of God. For others the Bible is a document that reveals
revelatory events – God revealing himself through finite human
beings in history. So which is it, revelatory events or the actual
voice of God? In addition different people interpret scripture in
different ways. Take the death penalty, for example. Religious

6. individuals in the same family will differ. You ask, “Do you
support the death penalty?” One will answer that scripture says
“thou shall not kill”, but this person’s very brother will
vehemently disagree and say, “no,” scripture says “an eye for an
eye and a tooth for a tooth.” How can you base morality on this
kind of ambiguity?
The biggest issue that Arthur objects to though is what is called
The Divine Command Theory. The Divine Command Theory
holds that there would be no Ethics, a consciousness of right
and wrong, if God did not create it. In other words, there would
be no right and wrong if God, as its absolute foundation, did not
conceive it. So God is basically the foundation of the good.
Arthur drawing on Plato’s dialogue TheEuthyphro poses Plato’s
classic question: “Is a thing good because God says that it’s
good, or is a thing good in itself?” Is lying wrong because God
says that it’s wrong, or is lying just wrong? Is it good not to
murder, cheat, or steal because God says so or is it just flat out
wrong?
If a thing is wrong because God says that it is, what if God, who
is omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful), now
changes His Mind. He’s free to do so, because He’s God. But if
He does then murder, lying, cheating, stealing are now okay.
It’s now acceptable to do the things we “know” are wrong. If
this is the case then morality is simply a result of Divine fiat, a
Will out of control and consumed with its own power. And
further still, if murder, lying, cheating, and stealing are wrong
in them-selves, then God did not create the Good but simply
aligns Himself with the Good. Both of these place fundamental
limitations on God, hence limitations on God as the Ground of
morality and ethics.
Ethics therefore does not come from God but is a social
phenomenon created by human beings in different human
contexts. We therefore do not need religion or God to have
ethics.
My Viewpoint
I think that Arthur has a very thorough and compelling

7. argument but operates with several flaws. The dichotomy he
creates with the Divine Command Theory seems to me to be a
false dichotomy. Plato’s question, “Is a thing good because
God says that it’s good or is a thing good in-itself,” is falsely
formulated. God and the Good is inclusive rather than
exclusive. In other words, you cannot pose the question as if
God and the Good are two different things because God is the
Good. That is, the Good coincides with the essence of God.
You can’t separate the two. Because of our finite understanding
we can’t see the Good in the same way that God does. We don’t
have the proper perspective. As historical and three
dimensional beings our knowledge is temporal and limited. It is
constantly growing and coming into being. We know more
today, for example, than we did yesterday. This happens as
singular individuals and as collective social groups. But we do
have basic principles and rules that guide our behavior. These
rules are embedded in creation. Every culture and society as
Arthur says has them. Sometimes our judgment may be skewed
or misdirected (like the Nazis, during WWII) but with work and
dialogue, human civilization, is moving closer and closer to
what’s right. Take the uprisings now in North Africa and the
Middle East. We thought we would never see the day but
freedom and enlightenment are growing as intrinsic values of
human existence. As our insight grows I believe we grow
closer to God. We grow in spiritual and intellectual maturity.
So the answer to Plato’s question, “Is a thing good because God
says that it’s good or is a thing good in-itself,” is both-and. It
is good in-itself because God says that it’s good.
In terms of moral motivation it is true that most of us don’t go
around thinking, I’m not going to lie or steal because God will
be disappointed in me. That might be in some people’s minds
but of course not everyone. What about atheists. They don’t
even believe in God. They can be perfectly good individuals,
work hard, obey the laws, moral and statutory, but their moral
values come from some social environment, good parenting or a
good education. It does not have to be an immediate

8. environment but must be a part of the larger social world
somewhere. And what about the religious individual who goes
to church three times a week, tithes, and gives public praise to
God, but cheats on his wife, and misappropriates funds at work.
If God or religion is the basis of ethics then what about that?
Well the question isn’t how it is that flawed human individuals
actually act, we know how we act, but whether the rules for our
actions are already embedded in creation. The rules find
themselves in the social world because human reason is able to
pick up on what is already there; natural laws that make our
lives prosperous and better that are embedded in creation by
God.
Question: By what standard should moral action be judged?
References:
1. Taking Sides – John Arthur, “Religion, Morality, and
Conscience.”
2. Prof. Derrick Willis