WHAT PROPELS MORAL RESPONSIBILITY: | ETHICS OR RELIGION?
By Andrew Akpan
INTRODUCTION:
Wisdom tells us that it is good
to be good. This holds true because reality proves that in most times
people may forget what one said or did but they will always remember the
refrain: “He is a good man”. This refrain, to a great extent implies
ones moral responsibility. This moral responsibility should not be
one-sided but should attain the level of objectivity: Responsibility to
God and Humanity (Cf. the preamble of the Basic Law of German State).
The question arises, what propels moral responsibility, ethics (reason)
or religion (faith)? Having accepted the contribution of each to moral
life, to what extent does each propel responsibility? If religion tries
independently it will lead to moral blindness and if ethics tries alone
it results to moral lameness. Which support which? To what extent? The
rest is “story”, analysis to justify their complement.
A Good Life
I equate moral responsibility
with a good life. We see this in honesty to conscience, courageous and
real with strength, faithful in spirit and determining in focus. In this
issue of responsibility, Hans Jones, a philosopher gives a standard: “so
act that the consequences of your action support the continuance of
authentic human life on earth. Put negatively, “so act that the
consequence of your action will not be destructive to the future
conditions of life”. It is setting limit to our worldly (human) desire.
In the other way, I see responsibility as applied cardinal virtues:
Prudence (knowing the good and the right means to it), justice (giving
what we owe to God and others), fortitude (being courageous to resist
temptation and to overcome obstacles) and temperance( moderating our
desires for pleasurable good).
It is being humanly civil in ordinary
human act.
The Extent of Ethics
By ethics here I mean the rules of
behaviour. It draws it principles from reason. It has its foundation in
the first principle of natural law: (Possible) good must be done and
(possible) evil must be avoided. Reason assuming the frailty of man
formulates laws to moderate our negative tendencies. The laws are
regulate human acts in the social order so that man relates with
civility in respect to one another. This is because it takes a plurality
to live a moral life and it takes formulated laws to maintain the
tension that is experienced in plurality.
Within this level, there are fundamental principles: reverence for life,
non-injury (to things) and goodwill (in action). Some of its
formulations were in the codes of Hammurabi that existed in the 17th –
18th centuries before Christ. Later some of the formulations formed
religious oriental laws. Moreover, five basic c commands based on reason
have a wide application in business world and politics before we
associate them with religion: 1. Do not kill 2. Do not lie. 3. Do not
steal. 4. Do not practice immorality 5. Respect parents and love
children. Even the Golden Rule is based on reason. Its observance is not
only hypothetical and conditional; but also categorical, apodeitic and
unconditionally practical in every situation. Kant’s (moral
philosophical principle) the categorical imperative could be taken as a
modernization, rationalization and secularization of this Golden Rule:
“Act in such a way that the maxims of your action at any time may can be
taken at the same time as the principle of universal application.”
Furthermore, the Declaration of the thirteen states of America on June
4, 1776 is based on reason, a recognition of the humanness in other: “…
these are self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are
endowed…with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life,
liberty and pursuit of happiness…” (Cf.
James Q Wilson, American
Government- Institutions and Policies, U.S.A.: Heath and |Co., 1980, p.
621). Even the Article 1 of in the United Nations Declaration on
December 10, 1948 emphasizes freedom, equality, rights and human
dignity. To recognize this in others is to have made a giant stride in
the ladder of moral responsibility.
Ethics has its operational point. It propels from without by means of
law: Prohibitions, a streams of
don’ts. This propels a man who then
controls his impulses, or otherwise faces the dark side of the law. To
find relevance, one tries to keep the code that maintains the I-THOU
relationship. This forces him to live a morally responsible life to
avoid sanctions.
Ethics also has that to be responsible is to struggle to attain the
realization of the human person. One’s conscience (power of
discrimination), updated by the ethos of the society, helps him to
decides what promotes authentic self-realization. However, his
conscience is not infallible but reason tells him that the voice of
conscience, even when it errs must be unconditionally followed. What of
when conscience becomes lax? Is the effect not abhorrent to reason?
The Extent Of Religion
A problem: there are many religions in the worlds and moral
responsibility may be relative, as it were. History submits fact to show
that some religions do not respect the primary principle like reverence
for life. Moreover, some “Holy Horrors”, which are most time
unreasonable are committed in God’s Name. What seems good for one
religion may not be considered same in another. I will not go through
the struggle of mentioning particular religions and their acts. Instead
I will be confessional, speaking from a Christian perspective as a
background to religion as a human phenomenon influencing morality.
In religion, what propels moral responsibility is the demand of God as
the supreme Value. One acts for the promises of God: a happy death,
escape from eternal punishment etc. the classical example of this can be
seen in the book of Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, that if God did
not exist, then everything is permissible. Another man puts more
succinctly, “If God does not exist then the wicked man will be the only
reasonable man.” In religion “God alone demands moral responsibility”.
In moral issues, one is not answerable to self, or society but to God
alone. Some actions are judged wrong not because of the harms they cause
to self or to others or to the sacred tradition of reason but that they
do not fit into God’s requirement. In contrast to ethics, nothing can be
excused in one time and justified in other time. For instance in
Christian tradition, there are four sins/crimes that cry towards heaven
for immediate answer: 1.murder 2.sodomy 3.oppression of the people
especially the widows, foreigners and orphans 4. Dishonesty in wage
payment to workers. These can never be justified in any circumstance.
With the mentality that religion propels moral responsibility, a very
practical example is noticed when one sends his children to schools run
by religious leaders with a view that they will make them morally
responsible. People with this kind of mentality are predisposed to
scandal when religious leaders like bishops, pastors, Imams, nuns etc
live a morally irresponsible life. For them any immoral life is a revolt
against the law-giver (God). There is also a strong aversion of the
so-called atheist( a non-religious person) no matter how responsible he
is in his moral conduct. For a Christian believer, morality is closely
related with faith. In other words, morality depends on faith.
Conclusion
Actually one does not need to
be religious to live a morally responsible life. Reality proves that
even people who have strong religious affiliation are not sometimes
better in moral conduct. Our society expects one to understand right and
wrong, good and bad outside religious sentiments. The conscience, our
last judge is there. This is where the Church holds that “…an atheist is
not excluded from salvation on the condition that his atheism has not
made him act against his moral conscience.”(Cf. Karl Rahner S.J.
Concilium- The Pastoral Approach to Atheism, New York: Paulist press,
p.11). With this background I personally conclude that an atheist has a
faith that God alone knows hence he can live a morally responsible life.
However, this should not be exaggerated by turning an atheist’s position
to be the right or the best in our secular world. Here I personally put
an atheist in the plan of the salvation of mankind so that the world
goes round, as it were.
Moreover the goals of ethics and religion will prove that they need each
other to meet the objective responsibility: Responsibility to God and
Humankind.” In as much as reason propels moral responsibility, one
cannot dwell on reason alone since there is no such thing as a purely
natural man. At least from the Christian background, Christ has redeemed
man and his reason for moral responsibility is opened to faith. For our
Muslim brothers/sisters, they are being guided by the teachings of the
Revered Prophet of Allah, Mohammed. Hence man with his limited moral
ability needs assistance from faith. We have to rise above ethical
principles of moral responsibility to compassion principles. In
Christianity, these principles (compassion) were introduced into human
history by her key figure, Jesus, the Christ. We can see these in the
following: “Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you!” “Do
not revenge!” “Forgivr!” “be merciful!” To stress further, this moral
responsibility will include the care of the ecosystem to justify our
cosmic mission as custodians of creation – to the care of the earth. We
do not need reason alone but also the grace of God to live a morally
responsible life since “the course of man is not in his control, nor is
it in man’s power as he goes his way to guide his steps” (Cf. Jeremiah
10:23)
By Andrew Akpan 08063139646
sandymanx@yahoo.com
andrewakpan2003@yahoo.com
