|
Religion and Ethics
Moral theory
Recently added to the site
|
Don Cupitt and the new Christian ethics (or the non-God moral argument)Information: This article discusses the key themes and ideas in Don Cupitt's book New Christian Ethics (1988). All quotes are taken from this publication unless otherwise stated. It is important to keep in mind that this book was written by Cupitt during his 'post-modernist years' (1981-1996). As Cupitt's views are noted (and notorious) for their fluidity, this review should not be taken as being indicative of his present beliefs on the same matter (although one suspects they will be close). A version of this article was originally published on the website www.faithnet.org.uk. Key terms
Introduction
Many people mistakenly think that Christian non-realists do not believe in God, but this is not entirely true. Although non-realists do not believe in a God 'out there' or 'in the heavens' (i.e. beyond this world), they do believe that the concept of God has played an important role in cultures around the world, and can continue to do so. Non-realists believe the idea of God is essentially a human creation, and because of this they see more opportunity for this view of God to be a positive influence in the world, rather than the realist's (fixed and unchanging) approach. A new starting-point for Christian ethics Cupitt's point-of-departure for New Christian Ethics, is grounded in what he considers to be the cultural condition of our time: 'The end of the old realistic conception of God as an all-powerful and objective spiritual Being independent of us and sovereign over us makes it now possible and even necessary for us to create a new Christian ethic it is we ourselves who alone make truth, make value, and so have formed the reality that now encompasses us.'
The major challenge to the certainty and centrality of religious belief in Europe, came as a result of the work of philosophers in the the 1700s. This period in philosophical history has come to be known as the Age of Reason (or The Enlightenment). The pursuit of finding what it was reasonable (or rational) to believe in, resulted in a decline in the belief in an objective (or other-worldly) view of God. In terms of ethics, this challenged the idea that doing good was about obeying a so-called God-given moral code, and instead led to the notion that there are no absolute standards of right or wrong. The bottom line for all of this (as far as Cupitt is concerned), is that we need (and have) a new starting-point for Christian ethics. 'There is no bedrock and nothing is fixed, not my identity nor my sexuality nor my categories of thought, nothing... There is external measure or value or disvalue - and therefore our life is exactly as precious or as insignificant as we ourselves make it out to be.' The non-God moral argument Cupitt largely rejected God's objective existence, because of various epistemological concerns related to our knowledge of God (or more importantly our lack of it). However, in New Christian Ethics he rejects the existence of a God as one who resides in the 'heavens', because if such a Being were to exist it would by its very nature as a 'law-giver', impose a morality onto us either directly (by telling us what to do) or indirectly (by knowing what we should do). Either way, if God exists humans are not truly free to find their own way in life, and have no choice but to live the specific way God has deemed to be right: 'How can such a hetronomous faith ever be the means whereby I become autonomous and fully-liberated spirit? It is impossible. This appears to be a conclusive religious argument against the objective existence of God. An objective God cannot save.' (Emphasis mine) Cupitt's argument then is that the traditional Christian view of God as the Divine-lawgiver in the heavens, is an repressive one. This God is also believed to have set out 'in the heavens', the right way we should live. As such, humans will naturally be expected (by God and the church) to become the sort of person God expects them to be. This is why Cupitt suggests that this view of God cannot save anyone. Salvation implies freedom, however this view of God implies submission (and a lack of freedom): 'The more God is absolutised, the more we are presented with the possibility of living under the dominion of a cosmic tyrant who will allow nothing, and least of all religion, to change and develop.' Furthermore, as Cupitt believes we are limited in what we can know about God - because God is beyond our realm of experience - even if there were God-ordained objective moral standards, they would be useless anyway, because we would not be able to attain full knowledge of them: 'Where previously the nature of God had dictated what could and could not be said of him, now the nature of language dictates what can and cannot meaningfully be said of anything, God included.' For the simple reason that we cannot know anything outside of our experience, Cupitt believes we are limited in what we can know of God and moral truths. Something to think about: It Cupitt right to say our knowledge of religious and moral truth, should be limited by what we can experience of these things? For instance, do religious and moral truths fall into the same category as saying we know there is a cat over there, or that we know that the universe is 4.6 billions years old? Advertisement The new Christian ethic Removing the old (objective/realist) view of God, has now cleared the path for a new religious and moral freedom:
Re-grounding morality in religion It is quite easy to mistake Cupitt as being anti-God, and anti-religion. However, this is far from the truth. Although he is clearly a revisionist when it comes to what has been traditionally believed about God (and morality), he still believes it is vital to retain religious symbolism when it comes to ethics, as this has been proven to be capable of developing good and moral people in the past: 'The human being acquires a dignity and status that is directly derived from the ancient holiness and worshipfulness of God. God indeed just was such a symbol of the goal towards which our moral development is heading and of the dignity to which we should ultimately attain.' Cupitt believes non-realist ethics should be religiously-based, because (at present) secular humanism has not got the (proven) necessary symbols of value in it. For example, through Jesus Christ the Christian message is that God is fully human, and therefore knows and understands us intimately. For Cupitt, this is a powerful image, and one which can give hope to those who are feeling hemmed in by an oppressive (realist) Christian morality - built on the notion that there are enduring and eternal moral values, which cannot (and should not) be changed. However, if we have an image of God as one who understands our humanity, then it follows that such a Being will be more understanding (and less judgmental) when it comes to our actions in the world. Realist ethics was always about pursuing the Ideal, and about learning who God is in order to understand what we should become like ('Be holy, because I am Holy' - 1 Peter 1:16). Such a morality was also largely built on contemplation and avoidance behaviour, as exemplified in the lives of monks and nuns. Yet as a result of this, the body became viewed as something which could be easily swayed by sin. For example, people were encouraged by the Church to avoid following their feelings, as they could distract them from doing what God wants, or to avoid certain places and activities which were deemed sinful, potentially leading them into sin. All this is a rather negative view of things, and offered little incentive for considering oneself and others in a more positive light. Advertisement The new world 'Our task, then, is to redeem people from the old masochistic 'orthodox' Christianity by curing them of the sense of sin, restoring their self-esteem and vindicating Christian action.' So what will a world built non-realist ethics (new Christian ethics), look like? Firstly, life is to be seen as an endless striving of activity, or endeavour. As there are no moral absolutes, so there is no expected outcome to life. We are not expected to become something, but simply to live our life. Secondly, there is no 'final success' or Ideal. This means there is no ultimate standard against which we can be judged or feel condemned by, because there is nothing to achieve or fall-short of. We simply 'fight until we drop'. Thirdly, no-one can claim perfection. We cannot look at others and judge their actions to less-perfect than ours, because we think we alone are living the moral life. Rather, we will simply acknowledge the choices some people have made, and those others may not have made. This means that we will eventually remove notions of 'sin' and guilt' from our thinking.
Some issues In his book World Views and Perceiving God (Macmillan, 1993), Joseph Runzo offers the following critiques of Don Cupitt's non-realist ethics: Non-realist ethics encourages us to engage in self-deception If you do not believe in the objective reality of God, why bother to continue with any form of religious belief, or revise the content of religious language to make it more palatable? 'Whilst acknowledging that God does not exist, we are to continue to use traditional language about God' Why be a Christian humanist? Why not be a secular humanist? 'Religion, [Cupitt] says, provides a supportive symbolic and institutional context for ethics… [however, this] appeal to a known fiction; [is] to encourage self-deception.' [Brackets mine] Non-realist ethics provide little check against moral anarchy and 'isolated idiosyncratic views' If there are no moral absolutes, on what basis can others tell the Nazi or the Klansman, that their moral take on things is wrong? 'If worldviews are incommensurate and there are no shared objective cross-schema moral standards, relying on 'one's own vocabulary' would count the Klansman right and allow for moral anarchy.' God's existence does not imply 'blind obedience' Runzo also argues that Cupitt is wrong to suggest that God's (objective) existence is morally oppressive. He argues that we often follow a person's advice because we trust them, and because we believe they are wise. Non-realism fails to say why we should take the moral position Cupitt claims it is rational to act morally. Runzo points out that it is possible to be both rational and to act immorally! Cupitt's arguments appears to be unable to give any reason why someone should not be logically immoral, for if he did, he might be verging onto the territory of moral absolutes (which he resolutely denies the existence of). |
That Religious Studies Website
| Home | Religious Studies | Ethics | Video Lessons |  |
 |
In the past, Christian morality was grounded in a realist view of ethics. For
example, the Bible says that God has commanded us to do certain things, and this
led to the idea that there are moral-truths which are independent to us. This
also meant that God's commandments were there to be obeyed; and as such there was no
negotiation about them as far as many in the church were concerned. However,
as religious and moral truths began to be challenged (and rejected) by the pursuit of finding what
it was reasonable (or rational) to believe in, this led to the notion of
any absolute forms of these things being gradually being rejected.
Finally, we are to be artists! Our life is to be one of
moral creativity and imagination. We are to become absorbed into our
work. We are no longer to have one eye on the 'clock' of life, against which we
might feel the pressure to change things 'before it is too late'. We are
simply to live our life to the full in each moment, and be content for it to end whenever
that may be. We are to be like the sun, burning brightly and expending our
energy ceaselessly, until we are finally spent.- Share:
- Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Stumbleupon
Advertisement
This website and its content is protected by international copyright laws
