Published by Here we will consider the implications of morality being God-sent, or having its first cause in God. Before we attempt to surmount this great feat, we must first have some understanding of what we mean by “God” (note, this will be a very brief and unfastidious look at what we mean when we say “God,” for we will explore this idea by itself with much great meticulousness at a later point). That there are different ideas of a (or more than one) supernatural being who, whether he be active in it or not, is ultimately responsible for everything physical, metaphysical, etc., is more than obvious. In an attempt to be as general as I can, and being specific enough for our present purpose, I will assume that there exists a God, and that He is the one true objective God who rules over everyone and everything in the universe. If the reader is a polytheist we will count all deities – whether two or one-hundred – as one, understanding that a group of deities (only for our purpose herein) will be equal to one omnipotent deity, namely, God.
Now when we say God will here be our moral first cause I think it is important to distinguish this from any institution created by men as an interface between man and God, namely, religion. We will here regard religion as man-made (discussion of this topic will be held later), and thus to confuse religion and God in placing God as the moral first cause puts us in danger of placing the first cause of morality in a man-made institution, which can be simplified to men themselves, which was just undertaken. Again, I stress our first cause will here be the Deity himself, and not his institution(s), thereby positing from the beginning that morality proceeds from God, not from religion.
Degradation of man
A morality stemming from God would be one not of necessity, as in a moral system stemming from man, but of command. Just as a young child obeys his father not from a sense of necessity – for surely this idea of necessity never even alludes itself to the young child, for what child asks “must I do what my father says? Do I really need to be obedient?” – but from a sense of obedience, so does man obey the word of the Deity. Here we see right away that a morality coming from God has little to do with coexisting among other men, but has emphasis on faith and compliance. There are many implications that arise from this fact that we must examine. First we may say that since man receives a moral mandate from God and not from his fellow man, we can assume a care for fellow-man and coexistence is dwindled. For instead of morality obtaining in the world of the human as a means for survival, it here exists as a conduit to the grace of God (be it heaven after death, secular transcendence of any kind, enlightenment, etc.). Man has his “eye on the prize,” if you will. One only engages in good treatment of his neighbor in so far as it is commanded of him. Now it is certain that many religions hold fast to some variation of the charge to love your neighbor just as you love yourself. But note, this charge comes from God, not from man, so it is only God who wishes us to love all equally. But can we really say that this sentiment thus exists in man? Man’s purpose in a moral system set in God is a simple one: obey. Man becomes unconcerned with the fates of those others surrounding him, the dooms of whom are not in his control. Man is concerned with his own acquiescence with God, all other things secondary. Surely there are those who climb the heavenly ladder of moral righteousness in the eyes of God and look down on their fellow man, and discover a genuine feeling of empathy. Yet when this empathy is discovered the climber certainly does not turn back and descend again into the oblivion of immorality to lend a hand. Nay, rather, he continues upward, with that divine command ever in his ear, occasionally only looking back, perhaps even shouting down some word of encouragement to those who suffer at the bottom. Still, more often climbers of the ladder of divine moral righteousness look not down, but up, towards the sky, being so consumed with their task. God commands they climb up and up, and help however they can those struggling to place their feet firmly on the rungs. Thus in a morality with its first cause in God, the value of man is decreased, and an overwhelming emphasis is placed on obedience no matter what.
Degradation of relationships
A second and perhaps more serious implication of emphasizing compliance and faith rather than a valuation of our relationships among fellow men is the apathy of the people thereof. That is, since divine obedience is commanded, we look towards the heavens, not around us, for things of importance. Relationships with those around us become trivial. For, what may we gain of any importance from an earthly relationship as compared with moral righteousness? This is apparent in religious people during times of crisis. When catastrophe strikes they cling ever more tightly to divine mandates, only securing salvation for themselves, reaching up to God and never outward, to the sick or dying fellow man. This implication is grave. The great problems that emerge among humans (i.e., war, starvation, poverty, etc.) are undermined by this system of morality simply as not important and irrelevant. For, if all other humans were to die off leaving only me, what change has there been of my climbing the ladder of moral righteousness? If anything, I need not worry about feelings of empathy springing up anymore, causing me to look down to those who pitifully struggle, instead of looking up towards God. Of course this implication sounds bad, but if we examine it more closely, you at least may find it is not. If we assume that God is the sole author of moral truths, we may justly infer that any moral judgments we advance on our own are duly irrelevant. Thus, any empathy we may feel for abandoning our fellow man in search of moral righteousness under God is justified as silly and unimportant. All that is required of us according to a religious maxim of morality is that we simply obey. No outside actions are needed. So in advocating such a moral system we need not worry at all about the well-being or eternal damnation of our fellow brothers and sisters; we need not worry even about the members of our immediate families. Furthermore, (according to such a system) the feelings of empathy or anguish we may feel as a result of our loved ones being left behind on the path to moral righteousness is not only futile but also unjustified and quite possibly a waste of time. Regardless of whether or not the moral maxims of such a system command us to attend to our worldly relationships or not, the essence of such a system lies not in the particulars of the maxims, but in the obedience to them. That is, even if such a moral system would command us all to “love thy neighbor,” we would only be doing so in accordance with our moral commander-in-chief (god), and not because it is innately or inherently good and morally acceptable to act in such a way. Interestingly enough, man prides himself in being the animal of reason, intelligence, emotional and moral soundness. But where is our intelligence and our soundness if we only ever rely on an outside source to judge whether we are indeed intelligent and emotionally or morally sound? We would be a sad race, indeed, if we needed a supreme being to tell us which actions are morally good. Thus a morality stemming from God would have the aforementioned consequences.
