Morality & Religion Perceived Differently by Different People Summary

CHAPTER
4
Morality Depend
D oes
on Religion?
The Good consists in always doing what God wills at any particular
moment.
Emil Brunner, THE DIVINE IMPERATIVE (1947)
I respect deities. I do not rely upon them.
Musashi Miyamoto, at Ichijoji Temple (ca. 1608)
4.1. The Presumed Connection between
Morality and Religion
In 1995 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued Judge
Roy Moore of Gadsden, Alabama, for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. Such a display, the ACLU said,
violates the separation of church and state, which is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The ACLU might not have liked
Moore, but Alabama voters did. In 2000, Moore successfully
campaigned to become chief justice of the Alabama Supreme
Court, running on a promise to ?restore the moral foundation
of law.? Thus the ?Ten Commandments judge? became the
most powerful jurist in the state of Alabama.
Moore was not through making his point, however. In the
wee hours of July 31, 2001, he had a granite monument to the
Ten Commandments installed in the Alabama state judicial
building. This monument weighed over 5,000 pounds, and anyone entering the building could not miss it. Moore was sued
again, but the people were behind him: 77% of Americans
thought that he should be allowed to display his monument.
Yet the law did not agree. When Moore disobeyed a court order
49
50
THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY
to remove the monument, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary
fired him, saying that he had placed himself above the law.
Moore, however, believed that he was putting God above the law.
The United States is a religious country. Nearly 80% of
Americans say they believe in God, and another 12% say they
believe in a universal spirit or higher power. The main religion
in America is Christianity; 41% of Americans report believing
that Jesus Christ will return to earth by 2050. In America, members of the Christian clergy are often treated as moral experts:
Hospitals ask them to sit on ethics committees; reporters interview them on the moral dimensions of a story; and churchgoers
look to them for guidance. The clergy even help decide whether
movies will be rated ?G,? ?PG,? ?PG-13,? ?R,? or ?NC-17.? Priests
and ministers are assumed to be wise counselors who will give
sound moral advice.
Why are the clergy regarded in this way? The reason is
not that they have proven themselves to be better or wiser than
other people?as a group, they seem to be neither better nor
worse than the rest of us. There is a deeper reason why they
are thought to have special moral insight. In popular thinking,
morality and religion are inseparable: People commonly believe
that morality can be understood only in the context of religion.
Thus the clergy are assumed to be authorities on morality.
It is not hard to see why people think this. When viewed
from a nonreligious perspective, the universe seems to be a
cold, meaningless place, devoid of value and purpose. In his
essay ?A Free Man?s Worship,? written in 1902, Bertrand Russell
expressed what he called the ?scientific? view of the world:
That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his
growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are
but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that
no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling,
can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all
the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration,
all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined
to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that
the whole temple of Man?s achievement must inevitably be
buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins?all these
things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain
that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.
DOES MORALITY DEPEND ON RELIGION?
51
From a religious perspective, however, things look very
different. Judaism and Christianity teach that the world was created by a loving, all-powerful God to provide a home for us. We,
in turn, were created in his image, to be his children. Thus,
the world is not devoid of meaning and purpose. It is, instead,
the arena in which God?s plans are realized. What could be
more natural, then, than to think of ?morality? as part of religion, while the atheist?s world has no place for values?
4.2. The Divine Command Theory
Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe that God has told us to
obey certain rules of conduct. God does not force these rules
on us. He created us as free agents; so, we may choose what
to do. But if we live as we should, then we must follow God?s
laws. This idea has been expanded into a theory known as the
Divine Command Theory. The basic idea is that God decides
what is right and wrong. Actions that God commands are morally required; actions that God forbids are morally wrong; and
all other actions are permissible or merely morally neutral.
This theory has a number of attractive features. It immediately solves the old problem of the objectivity of ethics. Ethics is not merely a matter of personal feeling or social custom.
Whether something is right or wrong is perfectly objective: It
is right if God commands it and wrong if God forbids it. Moreover, the Divine Command Theory explains why anyone should
bother with morality. Why not forget about ?ethics? and just
look out for yourself? If immorality is the violation of God?s
commandments, there is an easy answer: On the day of final
reckoning, you will be held accountable.
There are, however, serious problems with the theory. Of
course, atheists would not accept it, because they do not believe
that God exists. But there are difficulties even for believers.
The main problem was identified by Plato, a Greek philosopher
who lived 400 years before Jesus of Nazareth. Plato?s books are
written as conversations, or dialogues, in which Plato?s teacher
Socrates is always the main speaker. In one of them, the Euthyphro, there is a discussion of whether ?right? can be defined
as ?what the gods command.? Socrates is skeptical and asks, Is
conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods
command it because it is right? This is one of the most famous
52
THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY
questions in the history of philosophy. The British philosopher
Antony Flew (1923?2010) suggests that ?one good test of a
person?s aptitude for philosophy is to discover whether he can
grasp [the] force and point? of this question.
Socrates?s question is about whether God makes the moral
truths true or whether he merely recognizes that they?re true.
There?s a big difference between these options. I know that the
Burj Khalifa building in the United Arab Emirates is the tallest building in the world; I recognize that fact. However, I did
not make it true. Rather, it was made true by the designers and
builders in the city of Dubai. Is God?s relation to ethics like my
relation to the Burj Khalifa building or like the relation of the
builders? This question poses a dilemma, and either way out
leads to trouble.
First, we might say that right conduct is right because God commands it. For example, according to Exodus 20:16, God commands us to be truthful. Thus, we should be truthful simply
because God requires it. God?s command makes truthfulness
right, just as the builders of a skyscraper make the building tall.
This is the Divine Command Theory. It is almost the theory of
Shakespeare?s character Hamlet. Hamlet said that nothing is
good or bad, but thinking makes it so. According to the Divine
Command Theory, nothing is good or bad, except when God?s
thinking makes it so.
This idea encounters several difficulties.
1. This conception of morality is mysterious. What does it mean
to say that God ?makes? truthfulness right? It is easy enough to
understand how physical objects are made, at least in principle.
We have all made something, if only a sand castle or a peanutbutter-and-jelly sandwich. But making truthfulness right is not
like that; it could not be done by rearranging things in the physical environment. How, then, could it be done? No one knows.
To see the problem, consider some wretched case of child
abuse. On the theory we?re now considering, God could make
that instance of child abuse right?not by turning a slap into a
friendly pinch of the cheek, but by commanding that the slap is
right. This proposal defies human understanding. How could
merely saying, or commanding, that the slap is right make it
right? If true, this conception of morality would be a mystery.
2. This conception of morality makes God?s commands arbitrary. We assume that God has good reasons for what he does.
DOES MORALITY DEPEND ON RELIGION?
53
But suppose God commands truthfulness to be right. On this
theory, he could have given different commands just as easily.
He could have commanded us to be liars, and then lying, and
not truthfulness, would be right. After all, before God issues his
commands, no reasons for or against lying exist?God is the one
who creates the reasons. And so, from a moral point of view, God?s
commands are arbitrary. He could command anything whatsoever. This result may seem not only unacceptable but impious
from a religious point of view.
3. This conception of morality provides the wrong reasons for
moral principles. There are many things wrong with child abuse:
It is malicious; it involves the unnecessary infliction of pain; it
can have unwanted long-term psychological effects; and so on.
However, the theory we?re now considering cannot recognize
any of these reasons as important. All it cares about, in the end,
is whether child abuse runs counter to God?s commands.
There are two ways of confirming that something is wrong
here. First, notice something the theory implies: If God didn?t
exist, child abuse wouldn?t be wrong. After all, if God didn?t exist,
then God wouldn?t be around to make child abuse wrong.
However, child abuse would still be malicious, so it would still
be wrong. Thus, the Divine Command Theory fails. Second,
keep in mind that even a religious person might be genuinely
in doubt as to what God has commanded. After all, religious
texts disagree with each other, and sometimes there seem to
be inconsistencies even within a single text. So, a person might
be in doubt as to what God?s will really is. However, a person
needn?t be in doubt as to whether child abuse is wrong. What
God has commanded is one thing; whether hitting children is
wrong is another.
There is a way to avoid these troublesome consequences.
We can take the second of Socrates?s options. We need not say
that right conduct is right because God commands it. Instead,
we may say that God commands us to do certain things because
they are right. God, who is infinitely wise, recognizes that truthfulness is better than deceitfulness, and so he commands us to
be truthful; he sees that killing is wrong, and so he commands
us not to kill; and so on for the other moral rules.
If we take this option, we avoid the consequences that
spoiled the first alternative. We needn?t worry about how God
makes it wrong to lie, because he doesn?t. God?s commands are
54
THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY
not arbitrary; they are the result of his wisdom in knowing what
is best. Furthermore, we are not saddled with the wrong explanations for our moral principles; rather, we are free to appeal
to whatever justifications of them seem appropriate.
Unfortunately, this second option has a different drawback. In taking it, we abandon the theological conception of
right and wrong. When we say that God commands us to be
truthful because truthfulness is right, we acknowledge a standard
that is independent of God?s will. The rightness exists prior to
God?s command and is the reason for the command. Thus, if
we want to know why we should be truthful, the reply ?because
God commands it? does not really tell us. We may still ask, ?Why
does God command it?? and the answer to that question will
provide the ultimate reason.
Many religious people believe that they must accept a theological conception of right and wrong because it would be sacrilegious not to do so. They feel, somehow, that if they believe
in God, then right and wrong must be understood in terms of
God?s wishes. Our arguments, however, suggest that the Divine
Command Theory is not only untenable but impious. And, in
fact, some of the greatest theologians have rejected the theory
for just this reason. Thinkers such as Saint Thomas Aquinas
connect morality with religion in a different way.
4.3. The Theory of Natural Law
In the history of Christian thought, the dominant theory of ethics is not the Divine Command Theory. That honor instead goes
to the Theory of Natural Law. This theory has three main parts.
1. The Theory of Natural Law rests on a particular view
of the world. On this view, the world has a rational order, with
values and purposes built into its very nature. This conception
derives from the Greeks, whose way of understanding the world
dominated Western thinking for over 1,700 years. The Greeks
believed that everything in nature has a purpose.
Aristotle (384?322 b.c.) built this idea into his system of
thought when he said that, in order to understand anything,
four questions must be asked: What is it? What is it made of?
How did it come to be? And what is it for? The answers might
be: This is a knife; it is made of metal; it was made by a craftsman; and it is used for cutting. Aristotle assumed that the last
DOES MORALITY DEPEND ON RELIGION?
55
question?What is it for??could be asked of anything whatever. ?Nature,? he said, ?belongs to the class of causes which act
for the sake of something.?
Obviously, artifacts such as knives have purposes, because
craftsmen have built them with a purpose in mind. But what
about natural objects that we do not make? Aristotle believed
that they have purposes, too. One of his examples was that we
have teeth so that we can chew. Biological examples are quite
persuasive; each part of our bodies does seem, intuitively, to
have a special purpose?our eyes are for seeing, our heart is
for pumping blood, our skin is there to protect us, and so on.
But Aristotle?s claim was not limited to organic beings. According to him, everything has a purpose. To take a different sort
of example, he thought that rain falls so that plants can grow.
He considered other alternatives, such as that the rain falls ?of
necessity? and that this helps the plants only ?by coincidence.?
However, he rejected them.
The world, therefore, is an orderly, rational system, with
each thing having its own proper place and serving its own special purpose. There is a neat hierarchy: The rain exists for the
sake of the plants, the plants exist for the sake of the animals,
and the animals exist?of course?for the sake of people. Aristotle says: ?If then we are right in believing that nature makes
nothing without some end in view, nothing to no purpose, it
must be that nature has made all things specifically for the
sake of man.? This worldview is stunningly anthropocentric, or
human-centered. But Aristotle was hardly alone in having such
thoughts; almost every important thinker in our history has
advanced such a thesis. Humans are a remarkably vain species.
The Christian thinkers who came later found this worldview congenial. Only one thing was missing: God. Thus, the
Christian thinkers said that the rain falls to help the plants
because that is what God intended, and the animals are for human
use because that is what God made them for. Values and purposes
were thus conceived to be part of the divine plan.
2. A corollary to this way of thinking is that the ?laws of
nature? describe not only how things are but also how things
ought to be. The world is in harmony when things serve their
natural purposes. When they do not, or cannot, things have
gone wrong. Eyes that cannot see are defective, and drought is
a natural evil; the badness of both is explained by reference to
56
THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY
natural law. But there are also implications for human conduct.
Moral rules are now viewed as deriving from the laws of nature.
Some ways of behaving are said to be ?natural? while others are
said to be ?unnatural?; and ?unnatural? acts are regarded as
morally wrong.
Consider, for example, the duty of beneficence. We are
morally required to care about our neighbors. Why? According to the Theory of Natural Law, beneficence is natural for
us, given the kind of creatures we are. We are by nature social
and need the company of other people. Someone who does not
care at all for others?who really does not care, through and
through?is seen as deranged. Modern psychiatry says that such
people suffer from antisocial personality disorder, and such people
are commonly called psychopaths or sociopaths. A malicious personality is defective, just as eyes are defective if they cannot see.
And, it may be added, this is true because we were created by
God, with a specific ?human? nature, as part of his overall plan.
The endorsement of beneficence is relatively uncontroversial. Natural-law theory has also been used, however, to support
more contentious moral views. Religious thinkers often condemn ?deviant? sexual practices, and they usually justify this by
appealing to the Theory of Natural Law. If everything has a purpose, what is the purpose of sex? The obvious answer is procreation. Sexual activity that is not connected with making babies
can therefore be seen as ?unnatural,? and practices like masturbation and gay sex may be condemned for this reason. This
view of sex dates back at least to Saint Augustine (a.d. 354?430),
and it is explicit in the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225?
1274). The moral theology of the Catholic Church is based on
natural-law theory.
Outside the Catholic Church, the Theory of Natural Law
has few advocates today. It is generally rejected for three reasons.
First, the idea that ?what?s natural is good? seems open
to obvious counterexamples. Sometimes what?s natural is bad.
People naturally care much more about themselves than about
strangers, but this is regrettable. Disease occurs naturally, but
disease is bad. Children are naturally self-centered, but parents
don?t think this is a good thing.
Second, the Theory of Natural Law seems to confuse ?is?
and ?ought.? In the 18th century, David Hume pointed out that
what is the case and what ought to be the case are logically different
DOES MORALITY DEPEND ON RELIGION?
57
notions, and no conclusion about one follows from the other.
We can say that people are naturally disposed to be beneficent,
but it does not follow that they ought to be beneficent. Similarly,
it may be true that sex produces babies, but it does not follow
that sex ought or ought not to be engaged in only for that purpose. Facts are one thing; values are another.
Third, the Theory of Natural Law is now widely rejected
because its view of the world conflicts with modern science.
The world as described by Galileo, Newton, and Darwin has no
need for ?facts? about right and wrong. Their explanations of
natural phenomena make no reference to values or purposes.
What happens just happens, due to the laws of cause and effect.
If the rain benefits the plants, this is because the plants have
evolved by the laws of natural selection in a rainy climate.
Thus, modern science gives us a picture of the world as a
realm of facts, where the only ?natural laws? are the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, working blindly and without purpose.
Whatever values may be, they are not part of the natural order.
As for the idea that ?nature has made all things specifically for
the sake of man,? well, that is only vanity. To the extent that one
accepts the worldview of modern science, one will be skeptical
of the Theory of Natural Law. It is no accident that the theory
was a product, not of modern thought, but of the Middle Ages.
3. The third part of the theory addresses the question
of moral knowledge. How can we determine what is right and
what is wrong? The Divine Command Theory says that we must
consult God?s commandments. The Theory of Natural Law
gives a different answer. The ?natural laws? that specify what we
should do are laws of reason, which we are able to grasp because
God has given us the power to understand them. Therefore,
the Theory of Natural Law endorses the familiar idea that the
right thing to do is whatever action has the best reasons backing it up. To use the traditional terminology, moral judgments
are ?dictates of reason.? As Saint Thomas Aquinas, the greatest
natural-law theorist, wrote in his masterpiece the Summa Theologica, ?To disparage the dictate of reason is equivalent to condemning the command of God.?
This means that the religious believer has no special
access to moral truth. The believer and the nonbeliever are in
the same position. God has given everyone the ability to listen
to reason and follow its directives. In an important sense, this
58
THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY
leaves morality independent of religion. Religious belief does
not affect the calculation of what is best, and the results of
moral inquiry are religiously ?neutral.? Even though they may
disagree about religion, believers and nonbelievers inhabit the
same moral universe.
4.4. Religion and Particular Moral Issues
Some religious people will find the preceding discussion unsatisfying. It will seem too abstract to have any bearing on their
actual lives. For them, the connection between morality and
religion is an immediate, practical matter that centers on particular moral issues. It doesn?t matter whether right and wrong
are understood in terms of God?s will or whether moral laws are
laws of nature. What matters are the moral teachings of one?s
religion. The Scriptures and the church leaders are regarded
as authorities; if one is truly faithful, one must accept what
they say. Many Christians, for example, believe that they must
oppose abortion because the church condemns it and (they
assume) the Scriptures do too.
Are there distinctively religious positions on major moral
issues that believers must accept? The rhetoric of the pulpit
suggests so. But there is good reason to think otherwise.
For one thing, it is often difficult to find specific moral
guidance in the Scriptures. We face different problems than
our ancestors faced 2,000 years ago; thus, the Scriptures may
be silent on matters that seem pressing to us. The Bible does
contain a number of general precepts?for example, to love
one?s neighbor and to treat others as one wishes to be treated.
And those are fine principles, which have practical application
in our lives. However, it is not clear what they imply about the
rights of workers, or the extinction of species, or the funding of
medical research, and so on.
Another problem is that the Scriptures and church tradition are often ambiguous. Authorities disagree, leaving the
believer in the awkward position of having to choose which
element of the tradition to accept. For instance, the New Testament condemns being rich, and there is a long tradition of
self-denial and charitable giving that affirms this teaching. But
there is also an obscure Old Testament figure named Jabez
who asked God to ?enlarge my territories? (1 Chronicles 4:10),
DOES MORALITY DEPEND ON RELIGION?
59
and God did. A recent book urging Christians to adopt Jabez as
their model became a best-seller.
Thus, when people say that their moral views come from
their religion, they are often mistaken. What?s really going on
is this. They are making up their minds about the moral issues
and then interpreting the Scriptures, or church tradition, in a
way that supports the conclusions they?ve already reached. Of
course, this does not happen in every case, but it seems fair to
say that it happens a lot. The question of riches is one example;
abortion is another.
In the debate over abortion, religious issues are never far
from the discussion. Religious conservatives hold that the fetus
is a person from the moment of conception, and so abortion is
murder. The fetus, they believe, is not merely a potential person
but is an actual person, possessing a full-fledged right to life.
Liberals, of course, deny this?they say that the fetus is something less than that, at least at the beginning of the pregnancy.
The abortion debate is complex, but we are concerned
only with how it relates to religion. Conservatives sometimes say
that fetal life is sacred. Is that the Christian view? Must Christians condemn abortion? To answer those questions, one might
look to the Scriptures or to church tradition.
The Scriptures. It is difficult to derive a prohibition against
abortion from either the Jewish or the Christian Scriptures.
Certain passages, however, are often quoted by conservatives
because they seem to suggest that fetuses have full human status. One of the most frequently cited passages is from the first
chapter of Jeremiah, in which Jeremiah quotes God as saying,
?Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before
you were born I consecrated you.? These words are presented
as though they were God?s endorsement of the conservative
position: it is wrong to kill the unborn because the unborn are
consecrated to God.
In context, however, these words obviously mean something different. Suppose we read the whole passage in which
they occur:
Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ?Before I
formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were
born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the
nations.?
60
THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY
Then I said, ?Ah, Lord God! Behold, I do not know
how to speak, for I am only a youth.? But the Lord said
to me,
?Do not say, ?I am only a youth?; for to all to whom I
send you, you shall go, and whatever I command you, you
shall speak. Be not afraid of them, for I am with you to
deliver you.?
The sanctity of fetal life is not discussed in this passage.
Instead, Jeremiah is asserting his authority as a prophet. He is
saying, in effect, ?God authorized me to speak for him; even
though I resisted, he insisted.? But Jeremiah puts the point
more poetically; he says that God had intended him to be a
prophet even before he was born.
This often happens when the Scriptures are cited in connection with controversial moral issues. A few words are lifted
from a passage that is concerned with something else entirely,
and those words are then construed in a way that supports a
favored moral position. When this happens, is it accurate to say
that the person is ?following the moral teachings of the Bible??
Or is it more accurate to say that he has searched the Scriptures
to find support for a moral view he already believes, and then
has read the desired conclusion into the Scriptures? If the latter, it suggests an arrogant attitude?the attitude that God himself must share one?s own moral opinions!
Other biblical passages seem to support a liberal view of
abortion. Three times the death penalty is recommended for
women who have had sex out of wedlock, even though killing
the woman would also kill her fetus (Genesis 38:24; Leviticus
21:9; Deuteronomy 22:20?21). This suggests that the fetus has
no right to life. Also, in Exodus 21, God tells Moses that the
penalty for murder is death; however, the penalty for causing a
woman to miscarry is only a fine. The Law of Israel seemed to
regard the fetus as something less than a person.
Church Tradition. Today, the Catholic Church strongly opposes
abortion. When the Pope visits America, where abortions are
performed routinely, his main message is always: Stop killing
unborn children. In many Protestant churches, too, abortion is
routinely denounced from the pulpit. It is no surprise, then,
that many people feel that they must condemn abortion ?for
religious reasons,? regardless of how Scripture is interpreted.
What lies behind the Church?s current position on abortion?
DOES MORALITY DEPEND ON RELIGION?
61
To some extent, the Vatican has always opposed abortion
for the same reason that it has always condemned condoms,
birth control pills, and other forms of contraception: All of
these activities thwart natural processes. According to naturallaw theory, sex is supposed to lead to the birth of a healthy baby.
Condoms and birth control pills prevent this from happening
by preventing pregnancy; and abortion, whenever it occurs,
puts a man-made end to the fetus?s natural course of development. Thus, by the lights of traditional Catholic thinking, abortion is wrong because it disrupts natural processes. This type
of argument, however, can hardly show that Christians ?must?
oppose abortion. The argument depends on natural-law theory,
and, as we have seen, natural-law theory is based on a worldview
that predates modern science. Christians today need not reject
modern science?the Pope himself, for example, believes in
Charles Darwin?s 19th-century theory of evolution as well as the
20th-century idea that the universe began with a ?Big Bang.?
Thus, Christians are not required to oppose abortion based on
natural-law considerations.
At any rate, to say that abortion disrupts a natural process
is to say nothing about the moral status of the fetus. The Pope
does not merely believe that abortion is immoral, like using
a condom; he believes that abortion is murder. How did this
position become dominant within the Catholic Church? Have
Church leaders always regarded the fetus as enjoying a special
moral status?
For most of the Church?s history?until around a.d. 1200?
little of relevance is known. Back then, there were no universities, and the Church was not especially intellectual. People
believed all kinds of things, for all kinds of reasons. But in the
13th century, Saint Thomas Aquinas constructed a philosophical system that became the bedrock of later Catholic thought.
The key question, Aquinas believed, is whether the fetus has a
soul: if it does, then abortion is murder; if it doesn?t, then abortion is not murder. Does the fetus have a soul? Aquinas accepted
Aristotle?s idea that the soul is the ?substantial form? of man.
Let?s not worry about exactly what that means; what?s important is that human beings are supposed to acquire a ?substantial
form? only when their bodies take on human shape. So now the
key question is: When do human beings first look human?
When a baby is born, anyone can see that it has a human
shape. In Aquinas?s day, however, nobody knew when fetuses
62
THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY
begin to look human?after all, fetal development occurs in
the mother?s womb, out of sight. Aristotle had believed, for no
good reason, that males acquire a soul 40 days after conception and females do after 90 days. Presumably, many Christians
accepted his view. At any rate, for the next several centuries,
it was natural for Catholics to strongly oppose abortion at
any stage of pregnancy, because the fetus might have already
acquired a human form, and so abortion might be murder.
Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic Church has
never officially maintained that the fetus acquires a soul at the
moment of conception. Around 1600, however, some theologians began to say that the soul enters the body a few days
after conception, and so abortion is murder even at an early
stage. This monumentally important change in Catholic thinking occurred without extended theological debate. Perhaps
it seemed unimportant because the Church already opposed
early-term abortions. Yet we understand little about why the
Church changed its position.
Today we know a lot about fetal development. We know,
through microscopes and ultrasounds, that fetuses do not look
human until several weeks into the pregnancy. Thus, a follower
of Aquinas should now say that fetuses do not have a soul during the first month or two of pregnancy. However, there has
been no movement inside the Catholic Church to adopt that
position. For reasons that remain murky, the Church adopted
a conservative view of the status of the fetus in the 1600s, and it
has held fast to that view ever since.
The purpose of reviewing this history is not to suggest that
the contemporary church?s position is wrong. For all I have
said, it may be right. My point, rather, is this: every generation
interprets its traditions to support its favored moral views. Abortion is but o