The Link Between and

Tim Kocher Phil 227 11 December 2012

Morality is a huge question that both actions define morality? I will show in my religious and non-religious people deal with on a analysis that the correct nature of a daily basis. In my analysis of morality, I will deal and the problems associated with the primarily with religious morality since I consider should cause us to invalidate the divine God as the key factor in morality rather than command theory; we cannot use it as a basis an individual. I will analyze morality relative to of morality. In Norman Kretzman’s paper, he the story of Abraham and Isaac in the Book of evaluates the and comes to and examine whether or not Abraham a solution based on God’s simplicity. Based on would have been morally justified killing his son these ideas, I will conclude that Abraham was because God commanded him to do so. not morally justified in killing Isaac. According to the , First, we need to become familiar with the anything that God commands is morally right. story of Abraham and Isaac as it appears in the Based on this theory, is Abraham morally right in Book of Genesis. Already having a direct killing his son? The Euthyphro Dilemma poses relationship with Abraham, God commands a problem to the divine command theory. Is the Abraham to offer his son as a sacrifice: rightness or wrongness of actions independent Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you of God or do God’s approval or disapproval of love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the by his holy people, a way for followers to show mountains that I shall show you. (Gen 22:2) their dedication to their God. Some may see the God presumably commands Isaac to kill his son sacrifice of Isaac as nothing more than a religious as a test of Abraham’s commitment and trust in ceremony in which Isaac will join God in God. While on the mountain, Abraham has every –a joyous occasion, not a murder as we think of intention to kill. He pulls a knife and is ready to it. This poses a problem in today’s society. Based do the deed when an angel appears, emulates on this argument a person could justify a murder Abraham’s faithfulness, and tells him not to kill based on religious . “The murder of Isaac but instead offer a nearby ram as an offer- Mike is nothing more than a holy offering to God. ing to God. Abraham does this and spares the life You should be thanking me because Mike is in of his son. a better place.” This is obviously nonsensical. A I see three interpretations of this story. sacrifice is a murder even if the recipient of the Some may believe that Abraham would never offering is God. Sacrificing my neighbor to my have killed his son since he knew that an altru- friend, Joe, is no different than a sacrifice to God. istic God would not allow such an awful thing to It is murder in both situations. If brought to trial, happen (Kretzman, 419). Abraham already had no American jury would believe me if I a relationship with God, so did Abraham have rationalized the murder as a religious sacrifice. so much trust in God that he knew God wouldn’t Therefore I must conclude that Abraham’s intent allow him to go through with it? I think not. There was not a sacrifice but murder. is no evidence in the story for us to believe Abra- The third way to interpret the story of ham knew God was not sincere, so we must Abraham and Isaac is by using the Divine Com- assume that Abraham was going to kill his son. mand Theory. According to the Divine Command Abraham had every intention to do it; he had his Theory of , actions are justified based on a knife pulled and was ready for the sacrifice. direct command by God. Rightness and wrong- Another plausible interpretation is in the ness depend entirely on what God commands nature of the sacrifice. In ancient times a or prohibits. Proponents of the divine command sacrifice was meant as a religious offering to God theory believe that actions are morally neutral

Religion and Reason 2 unless God directly commands or prohibits it. For actions and disapproves of the wrong actions. example, murder is morally wrong because God So are we to believe that God dictates what is prohibits it in the . In the right and what is wrong (TS) or are we to believe story of Abraham and Isaac, the proponent of the that God has nothing to do with defining morality divine command theory can argue that (TO)? Abraham was morally justified in his intended There are problems with both of these action of killing Isaac because God directly com- views. The problem with theological manded him to do so. Based on this theory of is that God plays no important role in morality God’s commands dictating morality, killing Isaac (Kretzman, 432). If God can literally be written would be the morally right thing to do. Or is it? out of the story of morality then the view is hardly The Divine Command Theory contains a theory of religious morality (Kretzman, 432). I many problems as Kretzman outlines in the think this view also is inconsistent with an Euthyphro Dilemma (Kretzman, 419). The absolutely perfect being, specifically omnipo- dilemma is basically a question of the source tence. If God is omnipotent then he has the of morality. Are actions morally right or wrong power to do anything, even play a role in because God approves or disapproves of them determining morality. If we accept theological (Theological Subjectivity), or does God approve objectivity to be true then God’s is or disapprove of actions because they are destroyed. Consequently, the view that actions morally right or wrong (Theological Objectiv- are objectively right or wrong and God approves ity)? Theological subjectivity means that God is of the right actions and disapproves of the wrong the subject of morality and defines it. An action actions is not a basis of religious morality and is is made right because God approves of it and inconsistent with a theistic absolutely perfect an action is made wrong because God disap- being. proves of it. Theological objectivity means that The problem with theological subjectivity actions are either right or wrong independent of is that God can decide what is morally right and God. Right and wrong actions are objective and morally wrong. This in itself is ok, but the position are predefined. God then approves of the right means that God can command any action to be

Schemata | 2013 3 right and any action to be wrong at his choosing. God approves of them and wrong actions are not It further means that God can take an action that morally wrong because God disapproves of them. we intuitively know to be wrong and command it The problems with the Euthyphro Di- to be right and vice versa; he can willingly flip our lemma show that the divine command theory has meaning of right and wrong. Any action can be problems. The two horns of the dilemma are not made morally right in light of God commanding it. consistent with an absolutely perfect being and This is what we see in the story of Abraham and we cannot accept the divine command theory Isaac as applied the divine command theory. God as a basis of morality. So how do we come to a commanded Abraham to do something that he conclusion from the dilemma? Kretzman answers knows is wrong. How could God do such a thing? that God is independent and simple (Kretzman, This view is also inconsistent with an 424). If God is independent then he does not rely absolutely perfect being, specifically immutability on any other being; he is entirely self-existent. and perfect goodness. If God can reverse what He is simple meaning that we can take all the is right and wrong then God must change. But attributes of an absolutely perfect being and say if the theistic God is immutable then there is an that God is identical with these characteristics inconsistency with theological subjectivity. Since (Kretzman, 425). God does not merely possess the theist that God cannot change, he omnipotence, , immutability, and cannot make wrong actions to be morally right. perfect goodness; rather, God is omniscience, Kretzman adds that we cannot follow this view omnipotence, immutability, and perfect goodness. based on perfect goodness either (Kretzman, Therefore, God as being equal to perfect 421) He explains that if everything God goodness approves of right actions and commands is perfectly and if God approves disapproves of wrong actions; and actions are of perfectly good actions, then this just means either right or wrong because God, equaling that God approves of himself because God is perfect goodness, approves and disapproves of perfect goodness. We can get nothing out of say- them (Kretzman, 426). One might cry the ing that God approves of himself. Consequently, impossibility of these qualities being equal; it is right actions are not morally right just because like saying 2=3=4. Kretzman responds that while

Religion and Reason 4 goodness does not equal power, perfect murder even if the offering is to God. We can, goodness equals perfect power (Kretzman, 426). however, use the fact that God is simple meaning The perfect term in front of the qualities implies that God, equaling perfect goodness, approves that the reference is of God, and God is perfect of morally right actions. Abraham may have been goodness and perfect power. given a direct command by God, but it would be Based on the facts that the divine com- morally wrong for him to carry out the command. mand theory cannot hold true and the nature of a sacrifice, I propose that it would not have been Works Cited morally right for Abraham to carry out what God Kretzman, Norman. “Abraham, Isaac, and Euthy- commanded him. We cannot use the divine phro: God and the Basis of Morality.” command theory and both components of the of Religion: The Big Questions. Euthyphro Dilemma as a basis for theistic Ed. Eleonore Stump and Ed. Michael J. religious morality because they are not consistent Murray. 6th. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Pub- with the characteristics of an absolutely perfect lishers Inc., 1999. 417-427. Print. being. Furthermore, a human sacrifice is still

Schemata | 2013 5