Linking Religion and Morality

The author of "Metaethical Issues" argues that morality transcends religion for a number of reasons. I want to address his very first argument, which I will seek to show is a weak one, and his very last one, which I consider his strongest argument. On page 8, the author breaks down the linking of religion to morality by raising the Platonic objection of, "...Is an action right and good because God says it is, or does God say an action is right and good because it is right and good." I want to show that the first clause of that sentence, which is the first statement the author seeks to disprove, is stronger than the author shows. I also want to offer a few potential counters to his final argument, which I believe is a very tempting one.

The author uses a reductio ad absurdum to prove that it cannot be that morality springs from what God says is good. He/she argues that this leads to the absurd consequence that God could say murder is good on Mondays and Wednesdays, but definitely bad every other day of the week. I believe this is a weak assertion and displays a lack of consideration for what God is/could be. The assumption built into his argument is that God is more like a person in the sense that he/she/it can pick and choose arbitrarily, instead of perhaps existing by an entirely different set of rules. Perhaps the way God "chooses" what is moral and immoral is not really what we consider a "choice" at all. I will attempt to argue for this from the perspective of a pantheist (a la Hegel) and state that everything is God and that our reality is really just God coming to know itself more and more. Perhaps morality, as given to us by God (everything around us/reality), exists in the same way; God's morality is coming to know itself more and more over time. In this way, God does not "pick" what is moral and immoral, but rather learns over time and goes through stages. This is less arbitrary and allows for moral progression while seeming less like "the man upstairs" is cherry picking when things are good and bad. A less radical way of asserting my argument might simply be to say that in God's realm of existence, what is moral and immoral is not a choice; his supposed omnipotence is limited in some ways. One of the ways it is limited is that morality is simply how he created it to be and he no longer has the power to change it.

The author would have a strong point in countering me by question how it is God is relaying these moral truths to us mortal humans. Perhaps it's less of what he tells us and more about letting us discover the moral truths ourselves, but as God is not a tangible and definable presence for us it is hard for me to argue on his/her/its side without begging the question somehow.

Briefly, I would like to mention that the author's final argument that morality and religion cannot be linked because then atheists, agnostics, and other people without religious faith in God(s) would no reason to act morally. I think this is where the pantheist-style argument I previously brought might be worth considering as a counter argument. If God is everything around us (reality), then surely one might not necessarily have to believe that our reality is really God for us to accept that morality is good. Another way of saying this is that even if I don't believe the existence of God, I could still believe in the existence of morality (that he created). A final counterargument that might be posed is that when we enter into society, that somehow changes the moral laws that God set up for us in the "state of Nature." I think this argument would require a great deal more explanation in order to work, but it may be a possibility.