Can A Consequential Believe in God?

The question of what is morality is one that this class has actively examined and debated. However, an interesting concept that we have yet to tackle has been how consequentialist theory would apply to an omnipotent being. There is an existing body of philosophy known as divine command theory, which states, “Divine command theory says that no acts are intrinsically right or wrong; their morality depends entirely on whether God approves of them.  On this view, acts are morally right just because God insists that we do them, and wrong because he loathes them. (Shafer-Landau 305)"

Consequentialist theory, and more specifically, act utilitarianism states that an action is morally required just because it does more to improve overall well-being than any other action you could have done in the circumstances.  Believers in God would say that God is an objectively good being, omniscient, and cannot possibly be subject to choosing between objective moral truths because he is the source of these objective moral truths. Thus, the question becomes whether or not consequentialist theory would view god as a completely moral being? 

An established theorist who tackles this question is Jonathon Pearce. Pearce argues that in contrast to divine command theory, god can make immoral decisions. He bases this of the premise that actions can either be right or wrong and that these actions create moral facts. He derives this conclusion from the standpoint of consequentialism, which measures actions comparatively to their effect on the whole of the society in question. As such, some actions are measurably better than others and can be defined as morally superior.  Pearce argues that any action can be right or wrong, and the collection of these constitutes moral facts.  With this theoretical framework established, Pearce moves on to evaluate whether or not Gods actions have been seen in religious texts as moral or immoral. He specifically cites the flood cast upon the Earth and theorizes that, “God was trying to achieve a greater good in this seeming ‘evil’. Perhaps God needed to do this potentially harsh act in order to achieve a particular (all-loving) end” (Pearce 2). Thus, God’s actions were not simply moral because this being was carrying them out. Rather, God was acting to ensure the betterment of the society (all of humanity) as a whole. As such, the morality of actions does not rest simply with god, but rather with what is good for the society.

            This argument is by no means completely sound, however it does propose some interesting viewpoints, which contradict divine command theory. As this has been one of this classes major focuses, I have found this new approach to be quite stimulating and look forward to further exploration of consequentialism as the class continues.

Works Cited:

• Pearce, J. "God is a Consequentialist." The Skeptic Ink. http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/essays-and-papers/god-is-a-consequentialist