An Argument for Moral Systems Rooted in Theism
By Selina Li
Founding father Samuel Adams once stated, “Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness.” Because I agree with Adams, and because non-theistic systems are often predicated on theistic moral values, I believe moral systems rooted in theism are preferable to non-theistic moral systems.
First, let’s define our terms. A moral system, as one might predict, is defined by the University of Texas at Austin as “a framework of rules, values, and beliefs that a person or group uses to determine what is right or wrong, and how to act.” And preferable is defined, as per the Cambridge Dictionary, as “more desirable or suitable.”
But what does it mean for something to be “more desirable or suitable?”
According to Associate Professor Nicholas Smyth of Fordham University, “many philosophers now tell us that the function of morality is to reduce social tensions and increase group stability.”
Since this argument hinges upon moral preferability, I argue the term “preferable” ought to be defined as “better suited to uphold the function of morality”—in other words, the preferable system should be the one which leads to greater social cohesion and better fulfills deontological and teleological evaluations.
An important distinction to make: the term “rooted in theism” doesn’t necessarily mean a system where the moral agent believes in God—it simply refers to a system derived from divine belief.
This leads me to my first contention: theism forms the basis for sound ethical values. In any system, the "root" is the originating foundation that provides the structural logic and nutrients. A tree’s roots don't disappear just because the leaves are unaware of them. Therefore, if a moral system was constructed using theistic assumptions—such as the inherent sanctity of life, “Imago Dei,” or the "Kingdom of Ends"—it remains "rooted in theism" even if the modern practitioner is an atheist.
Most secular advocates argue for morality from the functionalist genealogical perspective—that is to say, moral systems defining right and wrong emerged from the evolution of the social instincts of ancestral species that fostered survival and cooperation. But if evolutionary biology and survival formed the basis for moral development, then why is it that many moral systems are predicated on protecting the least well off?
From an ontological perspective, if “survival” is the only reason for moral development, it makes no sense that we value charitable behavior, view all people as equal, and are willing to help others at the expense of our own wellbeing.
Many proponents of nontheistic systems may argue that animals demonstrate altruistic behavior, meaning there may be a strictly biological basis for moral behavior, but this is a poor argument for a couple of reasons. First, it’s an example of the false analogy fallacy: because “X and Y are related, X and Y are the same.” Second, according to Dr. Abigail Marsh in Psychology Today, many acts of animal altruism can be explained through the two established theories of kin selection and reciprocity—but these two theories can’t explain why a humpback whale would help a member of another species, or why a fruit bat would regurgitate its own blood for another, weaker fruit bat. This begs the question: do all living creatures have some inherent sense of morality? And if so, where does this innate goodness come from? Ironically, divine creation could serve as an explanation.
Many contemporary moral systems, even those associated with “secularity,” are actually rooted in theism because they’re foundationally derived from theistic values.
For example, the school of utilitarianism can be traced back to its foundations in the Christian faith of William Paley. The Hippocratic Oath is rooted in the polytheistic Ancient Greek, Hippocrates, originally requiring physicians to swear by deities like Apollo and Asclepius to uphold ethical standards. The Social Contract by which the majority of modern democracies were inspired comes from a variety of thinkers—Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, Montesquieu, Rawls—all of whom viewed faith as important for fostering eudaimonia—that is, that virtuous behavior leads to a flourishing society—and moral stability.
My second contention provides the impact: theistic systems provide a greater incentive for positive moral behavior, solving the free-rider problem
Atheism can explain the mechanics of morality, but it cannot explain the meaning of morality. It gives us a map of the brain, but it doesn't tell us why the destination matters. Only systems rooted in theism provide the “Why” that prevents “Good” from dissolving into “Useful.”
Non-theists might ask “what happens when conceptions of goodness differ across systems?” The simple explanation is a defense of pluralism. Let’s use the parable of the blind men and the elephant in the room as a heuristic, the blind men being us, and the elephant being the Divine. Even if the blind men are touching different parts of the elephant and provide different explanations of the object in the room, we can still somewhat determine the shapes and features of the object and narrow it down to its convergent principles.
I argue moral systems rooted in theism are preferable to non-theistic systems not because theistic morality is objective, but because the relational objectivity between pluralistic moral systems builds towards prosocial behavior founded upon conviction in the Greatest Good—that is to say, God.
Huston Smith says, “To be moral and to do good is intrinsic to all world religions.”
“The Golden Rule, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,' is perhaps the most widely recognized ethical principle across cultures and religions.” It is found, in nearly identical formulations, through Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and many indigenous spiritual traditions. This remarkable convergence suggests a deeply embedded moral intuition, often articulated and reinforced through religious teachings, that recognizes the interconnectedness of humanity and the necessity of empathy for harmonious social existence."
While secular systems can use laws and social consequences to enforce behavior, they are limited. They cannot enforce morality in private, and they have no final authority for those who successfully evade the law.
In this way, moral systems provide the solid ontological foundation which nontheistic explanations cannot. We ought to treat one another as equal not on the basis of simply reciprocal norms, but because we are all worthy of dignity and respect as a product of the divine.
But additionally, according to Michael Austin, “On theism, we are held accountable for our actions by God. Those who do evil will be punished, and those who live morally upstanding lives will be vindicated and even rewarded…Theism’s ultimate accountability provides an incentive that reaches beyond the confines of human law, making it a preferable moral system.”
Overall, moral systems rooted in theism augment group stability and promote prosocial behavior. We’ve demonstrated that theistic moral systems incentivize more prosocial behavior comparative to non-theistic moral systems. And although many quasi-non-theistic systems can describe and promote moral behavior, they are often actually systems rooted in theism in disguise.