Religious Moral Decision-Making (AQA A-Level Religious Studies): Revision Notes
Religious Moral Decision-Making
Introduction to Christian moral approaches
Christian religious decision-making takes various forms. Three key approaches include:
-
Aquinas' Natural Moral Law: Begins with the synderesis rule that humans naturally aim to do good and avoid evil. Emphasises reason and follows primary and secondary precepts.
-
Divine Command Theory: Requires moral decisions to align with biblical laws and principles found in scripture.
-
Fletcher's Situation Ethics: Focuses on applying the law of love situationally, adapting to specific circumstances.
Despite their differences, all Christian theories share a foundation in God's moral demands as expressed through Jesus and St Paul's teachings. This common ground is crucial when evaluating compatibility with secular ethical theories.
Bentham's utilitarianism and religious decision-making
Arguments for inconsistency
1. Formulated independently of God
Bentham developed utilitarianism without reference to religious belief. This suggests fundamental incompatibility with any religious moral system. Bentham anticipated a future where religion would become irrelevant, demonstrated by his decision to donate his body for dissection and display after death.
2. Self-interest versus Christian selflessness
Utilitarianism treats self-interest as inevitable and natural. Christianity, however, encourages setting aside self-interest. Bentham believed religious belief corrupted the principle of utility by encouraging people to act against their own self-interest and that of the community. He clearly saw little compatibility between utilitarian and Christian moral decision-making.
Bentham viewed self-interest as a natural foundation for moral reasoning, while Christianity often demands self-sacrifice and placing others' needs above one's own. This represents a fundamental philosophical divide between the two approaches.
3. Spiritual dimension absent
Religion emphasises spiritual life and relationship with a personal God. Christianity seeks happiness rooted in the Kingdom of Heaven, whilst Bentham's happiness must be quantifiable within observable society and daily living.
4. Focus on vulnerable members of society
Christianity prioritises the meek, poor, diseased and suffering. Bentham's Act Utilitarianism contradicts this approach by insisting every individual's happiness counts equally as one, without special consideration for the vulnerable.
5. Role of rules in decision-making
Most forms of Christianity are rule-based. Divine Command Theory and Natural Moral Law rely on specific rules. In Act Utilitarianism, the principle of utility overrides any rule. Any law or rule that fails to maximise happiness or minimise pain is considered a bad law.
6. Importance of mental state
For Christians, moral decisions must be made in the right mental state because God knows people's thoughts. Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that lustful thoughts constitute adultery in one's heart (Matthew 5:27-28). Bentham argued we cannot know another person's state of mind, so the individual's task is simply to maximise happiness in any situation. Christians and utilitarians therefore approach moral decisions from different perspectives.
Arguments for compatibility
1. Jesus judges by response to need
When questioned about his authority, Jesus pointed to healing people and feeding the hungry as evidence of positive change. In the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46), he states that people will be judged according to their response to strangers, those needing clothes, the hungry, sick and imprisoned. Relieving need sits at the heart of both Bentham's approach (bringing greatest happiness) and religious evaluation of behaviour.
Biblical Example: The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats
Jesus states in Matthew 25:31-46 that people will be judged by their actions toward the vulnerable:
- Did they feed the hungry?
- Did they give drink to the thirsty?
- Did they welcome strangers?
- Did they clothe those in need?
This parallels utilitarian ethics by focusing on tangible outcomes and relief of suffering rather than abstract adherence to rules.
2. Situational responses
Both Jesus and Act Utilitarians respond to specific situations. The situation dictates the response, and laws can sometimes be irrelevant. Several Gospel incidents (such as Matthew 12:1-14) record Jesus breaking Sabbath laws when the situation required doing what was right, such as healing the sick.
3. The golden rule connection
John Stuart Mill argued for a direct link between utilitarianism and Christianity. Mill noted that Jesus made decisions using the 'golden rule' ('do as you would be done by' and 'love your neighbour as yourself'). This represents the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality, requiring strict impartiality between one's own happiness and that of others.
4. Recognition of self-love
Bentham accepted religion in his assessment of feelings governing human behaviour. Religion falls under both 'self-interest' (offering divine rewards or punishments) and 'sympathy' (devotional feeling as sympathy with God). Jesus acknowledged self-love as natural in his summary of the great commandment (Mark 12:28-31): 'Love your neighbour as yourself'. Both utilitarianism and Christianity recognise that loving self and loving others are interconnected.
A key difference exists: Bentham viewed religion as merely psychological, believing its doctrines were false. For Christians, love of God, self and neighbour form an indissoluble unity, with love for others arising from love for God.
Kant's categorical imperative and religious decision-making
Arguments for compatibility
1. Good will concept
Kant's good will is the only thing good without reservation. This aligns with the Christian idea that the virtuous person freely practises good as part of their religious intentions. Both Christians and Kantians emphasise the crucial importance of intention and will in moral assessment.
2. Use of reason
Kant's emphasis on pure practical reason choosing actions because they are good in themselves parallels Aquinas' use of reason to understand natural moral law. For Kant, reason makes moral choices; for Aquinas, reason is a God-given faculty underpinning morality.
3. Similar moral ends
For Kant, moral activity aims to achieve perfect union of virtue and happiness in the summum bonum (highest good). For Aquinas, the end is union with God in the next life. Both theories share a similar ultimate purpose.
Both Kant and Aquinas envision an ultimate goal that combines virtue with reward. While Kant calls this the summum bonum and Aquinas describes it as union with God, the underlying structure is remarkably similar: moral virtue should ultimately lead to perfect happiness.
4. Postulates of practical reason
At the end of his Groundwork, Kant's moral theory assumes beliefs about human nature rooted in religion rather than unaided reason. His postulates include God and immortality, both required to make sense of human moral nature.
5. Principle of universalisability
Kant's principle clearly aligns with religious ideas about behaviour towards others. Jesus stated: 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you' (Luke 6:31). This essence of the categorical imperative matches Jesus' teaching that the second great principle is to 'love your neighbour as oneself' (Mark 12:31). These Christian principles are universal in the same sense as Kant's imperative.
Arguments for inconsistency with religious ideas
1. Enlightenment values foundation
Kant's system rests on Enlightenment values of reason and autonomy. His views on the categorical imperative, universalisability, and individuals as ends in themselves suggest the inherent value of individuals and the rule of human reason without religious reference. As a leading Enlightenment figure, Kant championed human reason and autonomy triumphing over superstition and unquestioning acceptance of authority.
2. Autonomy requirement
Kant insists the only thing good in itself is the good will, which is self-evidently a matter of volition (exercise of will). He excludes all consideration of divine command because following divine command involves accepting another authority's moral will, contradicting the autonomy necessary for a good will.
The Autonomy Problem
Kant's requirement for autonomy creates a fundamental tension with religious ethics. If moral worth depends on acting from one's own rational will, then obeying divine commands because they come from God undermines the very autonomy that gives actions their moral value. This is perhaps the strongest argument against compatibility between Kantian and religious ethics.
3. No scripture as authority
Kant makes no appeal to text or scripture as ethical authority. All authority rests with the moral agent, who must assent to the categorical imperative through practical reason rather than submitting to supposedly God-given texts.
4. Secular application possible
Kant's principle of universalisability functions in secular ethics. For example, Hare used a version in his meta-ethical theory of Prescriptivism. Universalisability requires no religious reference. The religious parts of Kant's theory can be abandoned without weakening his ethical approach. His ideas about God and summum bonum might even be incompatible with his ethical approach, potentially weakening arguments about moral law and moral will.
5. Unconditional commands
Kant's categorical imperative is an unconditional command (do not murder, do not steal). This unconditional nature conflicts with some Christian ethics versions:
- Fletcher's Situation Ethics holds that any moral command can be ignored to maximise love depending on the situation
- Aquinas held that secondary precepts are not absolute in all situations (for example, stealing to save a starving person from death is permissible)
Key differences and problems
Essential meta-ethical difference
The fundamental divide between Bentham and Kant lies not just in their specific moral theories, but in their underlying meta-ethical assumptions about the nature of morality itself.
Bentham's naturalism: Act Utilitarianism is cognitivist and naturalist. It treats ethical values as factual, concerning real facts of pain and pleasure existing 'in the world'. Bentham believed moral facts are observable natural phenomena.
Kant's non-naturalism: Morality is cognitivist but non-naturalist. The command to obey the categorical imperative is a rational choice of will. The mind is not physical or governed by natural laws, so moral will belongs to the noumenal realm (outside space and time, not investigable by natural sciences). Moral facts are non-natural.
Main problems
Utilitarianism's is-ought gap: Critics argue Bentham cannot bridge the gap between 'is' and 'ought'. Moore argued (following Hume) that all naturalist theories, including utilitarianism, commit the naturalistic fallacy by moving from facts to moral values. We cannot logically move from 'happiness is what humans desire' to 'you ought to bring about the greatest happiness'.
Kant's noumenal realm: Many modern philosophers question Kant's invention of an extra ontological realm (the noumenal) for which no evidence exists.
The Is-Ought Problem for Bentham
The naturalistic fallacy poses a serious challenge to utilitarian ethics. Just because we can observe that humans seek pleasure and avoid pain (an 'is' statement) doesn't logically entail that we ought to maximise pleasure and minimise pain (an 'ought' statement). Critics argue this logical gap undermines the foundation of utilitarian moral theory.
Possible defences
For Bentham: There may be factual content to human morality, namely human flourishing. If humans are part of the biosphere, then the biosphere flourishing factually entails human flourishing. Good would then factually be what brings about flourishing, and bad what interferes with it. Utilitarianism might be incomplete but takes us part way towards understanding morality.
For Kant: The noumenal world does not invent a separate world but represents two aspects of one reality. This connects to Dual Aspect Monism, where mind and matter are two aspects of one underlying substance. Given quantum physics' insights about reality's appearance, Kant's noumenal realm may not be as unnecessary as some critics suggest.
Key terms
Act Utilitarianism: In any situation, choose the action that maximises utility.
Autonomy: The state of being self-governed, free from external control or influences.
Categorical Imperative: An absolute, unconditional moral command (for example, do not murder, do not steal, do not lie).
Maxim: A general guideline or principle of action.
Noumenal realm: Reality as it 'really' is, known through synthetic a priori knowledge.
Ontology: A branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of existence.
'Ought implies can': Kant's view that the force of the moral 'ought' implies we can fulfil our moral duty.
Phenomenal realm: The world experienced through the senses, governed by cause and effect.
Postulate: A presupposition or assumption necessary to make sense of moral choices. Kant's three postulates of practical reason are God, freedom and immortality.
Summum bonum: The highest good where virtue meets its appropriate reward of perfect happiness.
Synthetic a priori: Propositions providing new information that is necessarily true, known without sense experience.
Universalisability: Act only according to that maxim you can will to become a universal law.
Utility: That property whereby something produces benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or happiness.
Volition: Exercise of the will.
Exam tips
Key Strategies for Success:
- When discussing compatibility, consider both similarities and differences between theories
- Use specific biblical examples to support arguments about religious decision-making
- Distinguish between different forms of Christian ethics (Natural Law, Divine Command Theory, Situation Ethics) as they relate differently to Bentham and Kant
- Understand the meta-ethical distinction between naturalism and non-naturalism
- Be prepared to evaluate whether similarities between theories represent genuine compatibility or superficial resemblance
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
- Bentham's utilitarianism was formulated independently of God and can conflict with religious priorities such as self-sacrifice and the spiritual dimension
- However, utilitarian principles appear in Jesus' teachings, particularly through the golden rule and judging people by their response to those in need
- Kant's categorical imperative shares significant common ground with religious ideas, including the importance of good will, use of reason, and the principle of universalisability
- Yet Kant's emphasis on autonomy and rejection of external authority (including divine command) creates tension with religious decision-making
- The fundamental difference lies in meta-ethics: Bentham's naturalism treats morality as observable fact, whilst Kant's non-naturalism locates morality in the noumenal realm of pure reason