This paper examines the relationship between religion and ethics, tracing how theistic belief systems have historically grounded moral codes in divine authority. It explores how the decline of religious certainty has forced philosophers and individuals alike to search for secular foundations for morality. Drawing on Kant's moral argument for the existence of God, Kierkegaard's existential framing of sin and anxiety, and the broader tension between divine command and autonomous ethics, the paper argues that separating God from morality leaves humanity navigating an increasingly difficult moral landscape — one prone to utilitarian pragmatism or nihilism without a transcendent source of moral authority.
Theistic belief systems have generally prescribed behavioral codes for adherents that ultimately derive their authority from God or other supernatural entities. However, while the prescriptive role of religion has waned in increasingly secular societies, God and morality have actually become more closely entwined as philosophers turn to the persistence of moral responsibility to argue for the existence of a divine lawgiver — or else reject the possibility of God and morality together.
As Zagzebski observes, virtually all religions include a code of moral conduct, and in the premodern age — and even today in large portions of the world — the relation between morality and religion was taken for granted (344–45). With the breakdown of religious certainty, human beings have been forced to search for new ways to identify, practice, and justify moral behavior.
Some of the simplest religions attribute evil itself to personal or collective failures to conform to taboos or other supernaturally mandated rules for behavior. In these worldviews, disease, death, famine, and other misfortunes are direct results of transgressing the prevailing moral code:
"They know that such sicknesses are unusual, and that they are proof that the inhabitants of the afflicted village have violated some important prohibition or failed to perform some important duty toward the mystic powers, and the illness shows that they are being visited by divine wrath" (Aldrich 166).
The threat of divine punishment — and the countervailing rewards for good behavior — remains a motivating factor even for moderns who have otherwise abandoned most of the other paraphernalia of religious life. God may nominally be dead, but the sentiment that the universe still chastises sinners and repays the virtuous is alive and well.
On a deeper level, religious ethics regulate human conduct in order to restrict opportunities for the creation of suffering or evil, or to alleviate its inevitable effects. God demands some behaviors and forbids others, generating a template for how worshippers can be "good," and this system of obligations and prohibitions serves as the basis for both religiously informed law and personal morality. Since these codes of behavior emanate from religion, their prescriptive power hinges on religious belief. Zagzebski argues that morality needs religion, and that "the goal of the moral life is unreachable without religious practice" (344–45).
The search for a secular foundation for morality reached a zenith in Kant's attempts to work backward from moral certainty to a proof that God exists. While the argument is complex, it can be abstracted as a variant on the familiar cosmological proof: rather than establish a first physical cause or creator, Kant establishes a first moral cause and defines the divine in those terms (Palmquist 76). Insofar as we are disposed to differentiate between right and wrong, he argues, we must inherently trust in some ultimate ethical arbiter and live our lives as if this arbiter exists with the authority to enforce its mandates.
This "proof," Kant points out (372), is compelling on grounds of "not logical, but moral certainty," but those who accept it are able to ground their moral aspirations in something like rational certainty without needing to fall back on faith in God. In fact, there is a sense here in which the will to do good deeds restores God to the universe as the fountainhead of morality, with the famous categorical imperative substituting for specific divine commandments. However, those who are not already convinced that moral truths are possible — who are not already "morally certain" — tend to find this argument circular (Palmer 259).
"Kierkegaard frames sin as absence of conviction"
"Separation from God risks nihilism or utilitarian drift"
However, efforts to appeal to logic, scientific truth, or even "happiness" as an end in itself as the transcendental basis for morality have not enjoyed complete success, especially in a pluralistic society. The individual may have enough trouble achieving existential moral certainty, but in the presence of multiple viewpoints, an objective or "categorical" imperative — even one based on secular reason — is going to be even harder to derive and defend (Zagzebski 371). In the end, the absence of God leaves us forced to negotiate between the abstractions of civil law and the urges of the self as we struggle to live a justified, or at least blameless, life.
You’re 68% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.