The Wave
Unraveling Moral through Religious, Truth
Samuel Solomon Sanders
By

About the Writing
In this essay, the author explores the relationship between religious truth and moral truth, focusing on the theories of Divine Command and Natural Law. By dissecting these theories, the author concludes that religious truth may not be necessary to answer questions of moral truth. The essay highlights the potential pitfalls of relying on religious beliefs to determine moral correctness, and suggests that a deeper understanding of morality can be achieved by considering the situational context rather than strict religious guidelines.

The Writing
Samuel Sanders
Mr. ConcilioÂ
Philosophy 10
16 February 2024
Primary question: Is it necessary to resolve questions concerning religious truth before tackling questions concerning moral truth?
In the Ultimate Conundrum: Unwinding Religious and Moral Truths
Daily, thousands of Americans consider whether to pull the plug on the life support of their hospitalized loved ones. Making such a decision takes great moral tenacity and is not always accessible to the affected families. Because of this, many hospitals keep on staff a religious philosopher, whether Jewish, Christian, or otherwise, to pray and advise. Specifically, the Hubert Department of Global Health provides a national hotline for patients' pastoral care and the last rites to send a priest to any hospital in the country. Indeed, it can be comforting to consult with those who represent religious truth, if not directly communicate with a higher power-Â especially in such a solemn context. But we must ask why we put our faith in the clergy to answer questions of morality. Indeed, is it even necessary? By the epilogue of this paper, you will understand why questions of morality need not be considered alongside those concerning religious truth.
Religious truth is knowledge orientated towards an ultimate, most profound reality. This knowledge, whether previously conceived of or founded under the ideals of an institution, is considered the word and wish of that institution's omnipotent being of interest, such as God, Dharma, or Zeus. Of course, it is not the belief in a being but, as aforementioned, an ultimate, deciding power that makes this philosophical theory so attractive to its proponents. We will further expound upon this concept later in the paper.
Religious truth aims to create a basis for belief that encompasses all meanings of morality and goodness in the world without fail, whereas moral truth has a more ambiguous meaning. Moral truth is built upon principles that supersede any absolute, ultimate reality. That is to say, the boundaries of moral truth are not defined but instead discovered. Take, for instance, the Bible's prohibition of "hands that shed innocent blood." Right off the bat, shedding innocent blood appears to be a heinous act and is condemnable from both religious and moral standpoints. Say, however, that a terrorist is going to kill 14 people unless a random, innocent mother is shot and killed by someone. While the Bible still condemns killing the woman as wrong, the answer from the moral point of view is not so clear-cut.
It is clear from this point forward that religious and moral truths are on very different footing. However, we must recognize that there can be situations in which religion and morality agree. Many believe the Bible commands that "Thou shalt not kill"; however, this mistranslated the original Hebrew. It states that "Thou shalt not murder," which forces the cooperation of moral and religious truth. To murder is to kill immorally, meaning that both the religious texts and moral views are valid.Â
The various issues with accepting an ultimate religious truth allow moral truth to be considered in a panoptic, correcting light. First, however, we must compare these two truths as equals to observe their various applications and situational effects. We shall observe morality through two Platonic lenses: whether it is right or wrong because God says it is or if God says it because it is right or wrong.
Let us begin with the first: God determines the morality of an action. Take, for instance, the disparate religious and moral opinions concerning polygamy. While certain religions promote the practice of polygamy, the morality of this practice is, once again, not so clear-cut. Simply looking at religious truth, one reason for this discrepancy lies in the spiritual theory of Divine Command and the role God's word plays in the morality of an action. Roughly, Divine Command Theory is the view that morality is somehow dependent upon God and that moral obligation consists of obedience to God's commands.Â
The theory of Divine Command is compelling to some because it offers an ultimate truth from an omniscient leader and brings stability to religious truth. It can be enticing to follow the word of someone or something who will always give you the morally correct answer. Indeed, imagine that you were a female teenager who must consider whether to abort her unplanned pregnancy. Without Divine Command and the religious pretexts that come with it, the decision to abort the pregnancy might weigh more or less on your conscience than if you believed that a morally correct entity supported your decision. Divine Command can make complex decisions easier by telling us what is morally acceptable and can frame an understanding of religious truth as paramount to moral truth.
However, an issue with this theory is that while the word of God is morally correct, commands unspoken by him are considered permissible and morally okay. In the context of ending the existence of an unplanned child, say, by asphyxiating the healthy child after birth, this brings up significant moral concerns. If God has not commanded killing the child after birth as morally wrong, then, based on Divine Command, it is morally permissible and uncondemnable. However, since this murder is considered morally wrong, we are forced to either accept that the theory fails or that God can command morally evil actions.Â
Now, let us consider religious truth from the opposite Platonic angle: The situation in which God commands it because it is morally right or wrong. Proponents of this theory point towards the inability of God to command wrong because it is already morally right or wrong. Of course, having a God known only to command action whose moral correctness is universally known is incredibly enticing because of its sense of stability and bypass of the errors mentioned above. Take, for instance, the act of lying. If lying is morally wrong, then God must also command it as wrong to make it wrong, which puts a certain degree of trust in commands from God. However, while it may appear that Divine Command Theory cannot fail under this light, closer examination yields adverse results.
For God to command based on a moral truth separate from his defined own disbands the reasons behind morality that Divine Command depends upon. Simply put, were God to command it simply because of an action's moral correctness or wrongness, there would be no reasons behind his commands. Divine Command theory attempts to provide reasons for God's Command, such as "because God has named it so." But if God has not named something morally right or wrong, and it simply is morally right or wrong, then there is no reason behind the Command. In the context of lying, there would be no reason not to lie other than the fact that God has commanded us not to do it. Indeed, an acknowledgment of this sort would question the reason to believe in God- for how can God be God when he commands something defined entirely outside of his domain? -and is contrary to the reasons behind morality that religious truth seeks to impart.
Given the illegitimacy of the Divine Command Theory, in either Platonic form, it is quite clear that this argument cannot support religious truth. A second theory, however, appeals much closer to the laws of nature and again attempts to capture the utmost religious truth.
The theory of Natural Law attempts to describe moral truth in terms of the natural use of an object or action rather than the significance that object is imparted by society. The values and moral correctness of an object are based on its use. For example, the purpose of the liver is to filter all the blood in our bodies, and the purpose of rain is to water plants. However, since this theory's Aristotelian inception, adjustments have been made by the religious community to include the role of God in this spiritual truth. The liver filters our blood because God commanded that to be so, and rain falls from the sky because God commanded it so.Â
Indeed, this argument and its exponents are generally enthused by the corrective nature of the theory. The argument describes not how things are but how they ought to be. We should not use our livers for walking because that is not what they are meant for. This provides believers with a path to living a morally correct life—only pointing out the best things that can be done for a situation. However, as David Hume considered, this reveals a large fallacy.
 It is generally the case that things are different from how they ought to be. While we may not use our livers for walking, we do use them to consume excessive amounts of alcohol, which is contrary to their primary use. Excessive alcohol consumption is indeed a primary practice in many religious contexts. The "ought to" clause considered, does this make the use of our legs for dancing an evil or heinous act? Under Natural Law theory, absolutely. Indeed, the core of the problem lies in insinuating that what is not natural is evil and morally wrong, which is not the case.
Casting religious truth in this light also results in various losses of luxury for the individual. Music playing, for instance, would be rendered obsolete, as the natural use of our fingers is not to tickle the keys but to eat and climb.
The differences between religious and moral truth are slight yet deeply vital to our understanding of societal virtue. However, It is necessary to recognize the failings of the theories of spiritual truth and accept that it is unnecessary to answer questions concerning moral truth. Under the microscope, religious truth has been proven false under two theories: Divine Command and Natural Law. The former cannot exist for reasons based on Plato's ancient question, "Does God command it because it is right or wrong, or is it right or wrong because God commands it?" Indeed, was God to make arbitrary moral decisions simply because he is God, then God can command moral wrong.
On the other hand, were God's commands to be right or wrong simply because they are right or wrong, religion must recognize that there are no reasons behind morality and God's Command, which is precisely what religious truth aims to explain. By attempting to assign objective moral truth to a single entity, religious truth shows the exact opposite: objective moral truth may not be achievable from the word of one God or person- at least not one of the same disposition as in the Divine Command theory.
On grounds of Natural Law Theory, religious truth fails yet again when considering the fallacy of the "Is ought to" argument. This argument proposes that the morally right thing to do is that which is an object's natural purpose. However, it does not follow that the unnatural use of objects, such as our arms to open doors and wiggling our ears to entertain, is morally wrong, simply because it is unnatural. Instead, it becomes apparent that the unnatural use of objects is sometimes morally permissible, and the theory fails. Natural Law Theory's failure certainly narrows down moral truth parameters. It becomes evident that there may not be an objective moral truth based upon the purpose of an object but rather the situation to which the object is confined.
Applying religious truth is not necessary to resolve questions of moral truth. Religion's theories are much closer to determining the nature of moral truth than many others, but they have fundamental faults that, at best, amount to illogicality and, at worst, heresy. Indeed, the societal belief in the morality of religion, at least based on Natural law theory and Divine Command, is founded on ascetical tradition, not constant moral correctness.
1https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Reli/ReliBron.htm#:~:text=Truth%20of%20religion%20is%20here,%2C%20supernatural%2C%20sacred%20reality%20exists.
2https://iep.utm.edu/divine-command-theory/
https://sutherlandinstitute.org/the-religious-roots-that-grew-into-todays-healthcare/
