Sources of Authority

Sources of Authority
Several common ways of thinking about ethics are based on the idea that the
standards of valuation are imposed by a higher authority that commands our
obedience.
the authority of the law the authority of one’s religion
the authority of one’s own culture

Law
It is supposed that law is one’s guide. In the Philippines, Filipinos are
constrained to obey the laws of the land as stated in the country’s criminal and
civil codes.
Positive law refers to the different rules and regulations that

are posited or put forward by an authority figure
that require compliance.
murder theft
The law is enforced by a way of a

system of sanctions administered
through persons and institutions,
which all help in compelling us to
obey.
Taking the law to be the basis of ethics has the benefit of providing us with an
objective standard that is obligatory and applicable to all.
“Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever the law says.”

However, there are some problems with this. Of course, we do
maintain that, generally speaking, one should obey the law.
However, the idea that we are examining here is a more
controversial one:
the more radical claim that one can look to the law
itself in order to determine what is right or wrong
Can one simply identify ethics with the law?

One point to be raised is the prohibitive nature of law. The law does not tell us
what we should do; it works by constraining us from performing acts that we
should not do.
To put it slightly differently, the law cannot tell us what to pursue, only what
to avoid.
Would we be satisfied thinking about ethics solely from the negative

perspective of that which we may not do, disregarding the important aspect of
a good which we could and maybe even should do, even if it were not required
of us by the law?
Religion
“Love the Lord, Your God, therefore, and always heed his charge: his statutes,
decrees, and commandments.” (New American Bible)
It expresses a claim that many people of a religious sensibility find appealing

and immediately valid: the idea that one is obliged to obey God in all things.
As a foundation for ethical values, this is referred to as the divine command theory.
Divine Command Theory
 The divinity called God, Allah, or Supreme Being commands and one is
obliged to obey his/her Creator.
 There are persons and text that one believes are linked to the Divine. By
listening to these figures and reading these writings, and individual discovers
how the Divine wants the person to act.
 Further, someone maintaining a more radical form of this theory might go
beyond these instruments of divine revelation and claim that God “spoke” to
the person directly to instruct him what to do.
“Thou shall not kill” “Thou shall not steal” “Thou shall not commit adultery”
In addition, there is an advance here over the law

because religion is not simply prohibitive, but it
also provides ideals to pursue.
The Divine can command absolute obedience on

one’s part as the implications of the person’s
actions involve their ultimate destiny.
Thus, we would not be surprised if we were to hear someone say,

“Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever your religion says.”
However, there are some problems with this:
 First, on the practical level, we realize the presence of a multiplicity of
religions. Each faith demands differently from its adherents, which would
apparently result in conflicting ethical standards.
For instance, certain religions have prohibitions concerning what food may be
consumed, while others do not share the same constraints.
 Are we then compelled to judge others negatively given their different
morality?
 Are we called upon to convert them toward our own faith?
 How about the problem of realizing that not everyone is devout or maintains
a religious faith?
 Would we be compelled to admit hen that if religion is the basis of morality,
some people would simply have no moral code?
For instance, we can easily imagine a number of Christians agreeing that they
should read and find their inspiration from the Bible; but we could also easily
imagine them disagreeing on which particular lines they need to focus on.
 Which of the passages from the scripted Scriptures are they supposed to
follow? All of them or only some? If so, which ones?
 Which pastor am I supposed to obey if I find them debating over how to
interpret the scriptures, not to mention ethical issues?
 Second, on what may be called a more conceptual level, we can see a further
problem where one requires the believer to clarify her understanding on the
connection between ethics and the Divine.
Euthyphro
Aristotle
Euthyphro: But I would certainly say that the holy is what all the gods love, and that the
opposite, what all the gods hate, is unholy.
Socrates: Well, Euthyphro, should we examine this in turn to see if it is true? Or should we
let it go, accept it from ourselves or anyone else without more ado, and agree that a
thing is so if only someone says it is? Or should we examine what a person means
when he says something?
Euthyphro: Of course. I believe, though, that this time what I say is true.
Socrates: Perhaps we shall learn better, my friend. For consider: is the holy loved by th gods
because it is holy? Or is it holy because it is loved by the gods?
In the exchange between Socrates and Euthyphro, the question is raised as to
how one is supposed to define “holiness.” Euthyphro puts forward the idea
that what is holy in itself and that is why it is loved by the gods, or is it holy in
itself and that is why it is loved by the gods?
The relevance of these questions to our discussion becomes clear if rephrased

this way: Is it the case that something is right only because God commanded
it, or is it the case that something is right in itself and that is why God
commanded it?
If we presume that taking another’s life is wrong, we can ask the question: Is it
the case that this is so only because God commanded it, or that killing is in
itself wrong, and that is the reason why God commanded it? If we were to
accept that it is wrong to take another’s life because God commanded it, we
are left with the difficult conclusion that there is nothing inherently wrong with
killing.
It is only because God said so—”Thou shall not kill”—that we consider such an
act wrong.
Having said this, we maintain that, generally speaking, it is a good thing for a
person of faith to abide by the teachings of the person’s particular religion. But
the divine command theory demands more than this as it requires us to
identify the entire sense of right and wring with what religion dictates.
Culture
 Our exposure to different societies and their cultures makes us aware that
there are ways of thinking and valuing that are different from our own, that
there is in fact a wide diversity of how different people believe it is proper to
act.
 There are aesthetic differences (Japanese art vs Indian art), religious

differences (Buddhism vs Christianity), and etiquette differences (conflicting
behaviors regarding dining practices). In these bases, it may become easy to
conclude that this is the case in ethics as well.
Cultural relativism is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to, or

that is to say, dependent on one’s culture.
There is something appealing to this way of thinking because cultural
relativism seems to conform to what we experience, which is the reality of the
differences in how cultures make their ethical valuations.
Second, by taking one’s culture as the standard, we are provided a basis for
our valuations.
Third, this teaches us to be tolerant of others from different cultures, as we

realize that we are in no position to judge whether the ethical thought or
practice of another culture is acceptable or unacceptable. In turn, our own
culture’s moral code is neither superior to nor inferior to any other, but they
would provide us the standards that are appropriate and applicable to us.
Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever your culture says.

First, the argument of cultural relativism is premised on the reality of
difference. Because different cultures have different moral codes, we cannot
say that any one moral code is the right one. But it is a case of the presence of
disagreement means there are no right and wrong answers? Isn’t it a common
experience to be confronted by a disagreement between persons and then to
have the conflict clarified later as who is right and wrong?
In other words, disagreement may mean that the question of who is right or
wrong is not immediately evident, but it does not necessarily mean that there
is no one correct resolution.
Second, under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to
render any kind of judgement on the practices of another culture. This seems
to be a generous and an open-minded way of respecting others.
Third, under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render

judgement on the practices of even our own culture. If our culture was the
basis for determining right and wrong, we would be unable to say that
something within our cultural practice was problematic, precisely because we
take our culture to be the standard for making such judgements.
Fourth, perhaps the most evident contemporary difficulty with
cultural relativism is that we can maintain it only by following the
presumption of culture as a single, clearly-defined substance or
as something fixed and already determined. Now, it is always
possible to find examples of a certain culture having a unique
practice or way of life and to distinguish it from other cultures’
practices, but it is also becoming increasingly difficult to
determine what exactly defines one’s culture.
In an increasingly globalized world, the notion of a static and well-defined
culture gives way to greater flexibility and integration. One result of this is to
call into question an idea like cultural relativism, which only makes sense if
one could imagine a clear-cut notion of what can be defined as our culture.
We can conclude this criticism of cultural relativism by pointing out how it

is a problem in our study of ethics because it tends to deprive us of our use
of critical thought.
On the positive side, cultural relativism promotes a sense of humility, that
is, urging us not to imagine that our own culture is superior to another.
Such humility, however, should go hand in hand with a capacity for a
rational, critical discernment that is truly appreciative of human values.
Unfortunately, what happens in cultural relativism is that it basically

renders us incapable of discerning about the values we may wish to
maintain as we are forced to simply accept whatever our culture gives us. It
keeps us from exploring whether there are values that are shared between
cultures; it keeps us from comparing and judging—either positively or
negatively—the valuations that are made by different cultures.

Sources of Authority

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sources of Authority

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sources of Authority

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sources of Authority

the authority of the law the authority of one’s religion

the authority of one’s own culture

Positive law refers to the different rules and regulations that

The law is enforced by a way of a

“Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever the law says.”

Can one simply identify ethics with the law?

Would we be satisfied thinking about ethics solely from the negative

It expresses a claim that many people of a religious sensibility find appealing

In addition, there is an advance here over the law

The Divine can command absolute obedience on

Thus, we would not be surprised if we were to hear someone say,

The relevance of these questions to our discussion becomes clear if rephrased

 There are aesthetic differences (Japanese art vs Indian art), religious

Cultural relativism is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to, or

Third, this teaches us to be tolerant of others from different cultures, as we

Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever your culture says.

Third, under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render

We can conclude this criticism of cultural relativism by pointing out how it

Unfortunately, what happens in cultural relativism is that it basically

You might also like