Religious Ethics: Christianity
Section 1: How are Religion and Morality
Linked?
Some would argue that morality and religion are not (or should not be) linked at all.
Autonomy – an ethical theory is autonomous if it is independent of religion, its principles are
justified on the basis of reason and experience without reference to religious concepts. It is
not necessarily anti-religious but it does not require any assent to religious ideas.
Arguments to support moral autonomy:
1. Ethics needs to be removed from religious control because morality should be
autonomous.
Many religious rules and ethics work out of the fear of punishment and abdicate
personal freedom and responsibility. Can a moral choice truly be moral if you‘re
acting out of fear?
2. Religion should have no influence on morality because the word is culturally relative.
There cannot be one-size fits all ethical system. There are a variety of different
cultures and religions in the world; not one approach can be right, therefore religion
should be removed from ethical decision-making.
3. Moral responsibility requires autonomy.
If God is omnipotent and omniscient that he knows what I am about to choose and
would be able to prevent me from making this choice. If I accept this, then God is at
best, an accomplice to my actions, and at worst, a controlling influence. I would
therefore bot be morally responsible for my actions.
Heteronomy – an ethical theory is heteronymous if it depends on a force outside of a person.
It may be traditional laws, communities or societies, perhaps families? It could also be that
heteronomous ethical theories take their force from religion, or churches - in this sense, we
use the word ‘religious’ as different from ‘God’.
Arguments to support moral heteronomy:
1. Everyone is influenced by factors outside of their control, perhaps their parents,
society, the Government. This may be how we
2. Society is influenced by religious ideas – people cannot help but be influenced by
religious ideas to some degree.
3. All ethical language is influenced by religion – you cannot start from scratch and have
to admit the religious influence.
4. Religion provides the inspiration to act morally. It can be easy to work out what‘s the
right thing to do but sometime people need encouragement to act morally – religion
Thank you to Philosophical Investigations for much of the information in this booklet!
does this.
5. Autonomous ethical theories depend on good will and people‘s reasonableness for
them to work. Perhaps ethics needs religion to deal with peoples‘ selfishness and
compel them to act morally. Natural Law ethics escapes this problem by arguing for
an a priori (before experience) desire to ―do good and avoid evil, the synderesis rule.
Theonomy – an ethical theory is theonomous if both it and religion depend on a common
source for their principles and values. Western religions speak of this authority as God, so
theonomous morality comes from an understanding of God without depending on the
authority of institutions like the church.
Arguments to support theonomy
1. Without some form of religious experience it is difficult to account for the sense of
moral obligation, which is experienced almost universally.
2. There‘s no such thing as autonomous reason . If God is the source of everything then
human reason will eventually discover something of God‘s will and purpose.
3. Many philosophers have thought that ethical systems rest on something that cannot be
described rationally but only through intuition or immediate awareness. This has
parallels with religious experience.

Which theory do you think is strongest? Why?
Section 2: Divine Command Theory
Christian Absolutism: morality is dependent on God.
Divine Command Theory was supported by Luther (1483-1546) and Calvin (1509-1564)
during the Protestant Reformation, and before that by Franciscans like Duns Scotus (12661308). Modern evangelical Christians take a very similar view.
The name ―divine command theory can be used to refer to any one of a family of related
ethical theories. What these theories have in common is that they take God‘s will to be the
foundation of ethics. According to divine command theory, things are morally good or bad,
or morally obligatory, permissible, or prohibited, solely because of God‘s will or commands.
It is therefore a morality of law or commands that are non-negotiable and absolute.
Carl Henry is a modern day proponent (supporter) of divine command ethics and argues that
the Bible is the source of morality:
“Biblical ethics discredits an autonomous morality. It gives theonomous ethics its classic form- the identification
of the moral law with the Divine will. In Hebrew-Christian revelation distinctions in ethics reduce to what is
good or what is pleasing, and to what is wicked or displeasing to the Creator-God alone. The biblical view
maintains always a dynamic statement of values, refusing to sever the elements of morality from the will of
God…The good is what the Creator-Lord does and commands. He is the creator of the moral law, and defines its
very nature.”
Thank you to Philosophical Investigations for much of the information in this booklet!
Divine Command Theory can be summarized in three points:
1. Morality (that is rightness and wrongness) originates with God
2. Moral rightness means simply ‘willed by God’ and moral wrongness means ‘being
against the will of God.’
3. Because morality is essentially based on divine will, not on independently existing
reasons for action, no other reasons for actions are necessary. In other words; it is
right because God says so.
Divine command theory is often thought to be refuted by an argument known as the
Euthyphro dilemma. This argument is named after Plato‘s Euthyphro, the dialogue in which it
has its origin. In Euthyphro dilemma Socrates poses two questions - originally it referred to
holiness but people have adapted this to:
A) Are good things good because God commands them?
Or
B) Does God command what is Good because it is good?
What are the implications of:
View A:
View B:
Why are they opposed?
Opinion has been divided over which proposition to accept; thinkers as diverse as Descartes
and C.S. Lewis have held that things are good because God commands them but Hobbes,
Hume and to some extent Thomas Aquinas think that some things are good irrespective of a
belief in God.
Philip Quinn, a modern divine command theorist, comments:
Monotheists of all stripes should, at least initially, be sympathetic to an ethics of divine commands. Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam share the view that the Hebrew Bible has authority in religious matters. Both Exodus
20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21, which recount the revelation of the Decalogue, portray God as a commander,
instructing the Chosen People about what they are to do and not to do by commanding them. It seems natural
enough to suppose that the authority of the Decalogue depends on the fact that it is divinely commanded. It is
possible, of course, to understand these divine commands as nothing more than God's emphatic endorsement
of a moral code whose truth is independent of them. Being omniscient, God would know such moral truths, and
being supremely good, God would want to communicate them to the Chosen People. On this view, commands
are God's way of transmitting important moral information to humans. But it is also possible to understand the
truth of the moral code expressed by the Decalogue as dependent on the divine commands.
Thank you to Philosophical Investigations for much of the information in this booklet!
Section 3: Jesus Ethics
A quick way into Jesus‘ ethics is through an analysis of a section within the Sermon on the
Mount.
Jesus talks about Loving your Enemy
43: "You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.'
44: But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45: so that you
may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the
good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46: For if you love those who love you,
what rewards have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47: And if you salute only
your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48: You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matthew 7
Gerd Theissen (University of Heidelberg) in Social Reality and the Early Christians (1992)
pays careful attention to this teaching of Jesus. He thinks there is no doubt that Jesus radically
calls into question our normal behaviour and that this is linked to eschatology (what happens
after this life). Theissen‘s analysis of this section not only highlights the importance of
perfection but also provides one of the clearest descriptions of the key points of Jesus‘ ethical
theory. What are the motives for loving one’s enemies?
1. Imitatio dei – Imitate God
Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of
your father.”
Son of God is being used ethically as it is used in the Jewish Scriptures. Sirach 4:10,
―Be like a father to orphans…you will then be like a son of the most high,” and
Wisdom 2:18 ―for the righteous man is God’s son’. Jesus is being very Jewish! By
fulfilling these extreme ethical commands one is acting like God and therefore
becomes a ―son of God. At the time of Jesus this was not an unattainable goal that
could only be the preserve of one literal son of God, rather it was the aim of all lawabiding Jews to become through their actions and covenant membership a ―son of
God.
2. Differentiation - be different!
A key aim of ethical action is to be different, to stand out from the crowd through their
perfection and holiness do not the tax collectors… and gentiles do the same?’ This
stresses the Christian‘s superiority to other groups by putting into place the commands
that they are different, something special.
3. Reciprocity
Underpinning this is the notion of the Golden Rule ―And as you would wish that men
would do to you, do so to them.” (Matthew 7:12). Acting in certain ways encourages
reciprocal behaviour – basically if you treat others well you will be treated well in
return.
Thank you to Philosophical Investigations for much of the information in this booklet!
4. Eschatological Reward
Bubbling beneath the surface is the threat of eschatological judgement. Behave or else!
―For if you love those who love you what reward have? ―(Matthew5:46), ― …so
that you may be sons of your Father‖ (Matthew 5:45)
Jesus seems to be calling people to re-orientate themselves to focus on God in the face
of the forthcoming judgement. Perfection and ultra-holiness will lead to salvation
when God‘s kingdom arrives. ―Jesus’ purpose is to reshape human intentions and
establish a new will, that he wants to claim for God not just the body but the heart, the
whole person.” Wolfgang Schrage
Love your Neighbour
The best basic summary of Jesus‘ love command is Mark 12:38-34.
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a
good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most
important one” answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the
Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with your entire mind and with all your
strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than
these."
In Jewish Law, Jesus would have been taught to love his neighbour, but that neighbour would
have been only Jews. Jesus radical message was one where a neighbour was anyone that he
came into contact with. Luke highlights this in his version of the parable of the Good
Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). The well known parable that illustrates the command to ―love
your enemies. The Samaritans were regarded as a mixed Jewish- Gentile race and bad Jews
since they had, for a while, their own temple on Mount Gerizim. There was considerable
hatred between the Jews and the Samaritans – so much so that Samaritans scattered human
bones in the Temple on the night before Passover (Josephus Antiquities 18:29f)! Thus a
―good Samaritan‖ would have been a truly shocking thing (think: good member of al-Qaeda)
and represents all non-Jews who were held in contempt.
If you don't know the story - Read the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37).
Love of Sinners
Lots of traditions attest Jesus’ loving outreach to sinners, although they do not necessarily
mention the actual word love!
While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" were eating with him
and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16When the teachers of the law who were
Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he
eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" 17On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who
need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Mark 2:15-17)
Why does Jesus urge people to love sinners? So that they would change, and therefore be
saved on the arrival of the kingdom of God. Jesus is not preaching unconditional love, but
conditional love – God‘s love and offer of salvation is contingent on people turning from their
unhealthy‘ lives and embracing God.
Why is it controversial to say Jesus offered conditional ‘love’? Is it right?
Thank you to Philosophical Investigations for much of the information in this booklet!
How central & useful is love in Jesus’ Ethics?
An American scholar Leander Keck (Yale University) thinks that people latch onto love in
Jesus‘ teachings and blow it up out of all proportions.
Jesus actually said little about love, and nothing at all about God’s love for humans, locating love as the
principle from which Jesus’ ethics are derived shows clearly enough that it is the ethics-minded
interpreter who makes this move in order to give coherence to the diverse and often divergent sayings.
In effect, one thereby creates Jesus’ ethics for him, as if compensating for what he had overlooked.”
(Pp.157-8 Who is Jesus? 2001)
Do people put too much emphasis on love as a part of Jesus‘ ethics?
Many cite the example of people like Martin Luther King who have put Jesus‘ commands to
Love you enemies‘ into action, but in truth leading a civil rights movement needed more basis
than simply love. Rudolf Bultmann said ―Agape[love] cannot be regarded as an ethical
principle from which particular concrete requirements can be derived”
How useful and clear is Jesus‘ love command?
Thank you to Philosophical Investigations for much of the information in this booklet!