Reflections of the Aquinas Academy on the debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Coppleston:
The eminent Jesuit historian of philosophy Frederick Copleston debated the existence of God with Lord Bertrand Russell on BBC Radio in 1948. “I’m sure, Lord Russell, that you would say it was absolutely wrong to behave in the way that the guards in the German concentration camps behaved to the inmates.” He [Russell] said: “Of course I would wish to say that is absolutely wrong, but it doesn’t fit in with my theory, so I’m rather in a dilemma.” Some may object: “But Bertrand Russell was a morally decent man and many believers are not morally decent people.” That is not the point. The point is that Bertrand Russell had no reason to be moral. The believer does have a reason to be moral. The sad fact of the matter is that many a believer just doesn’t hear and heed his/her conscience.
This debate always brings to mind the old question of whether or not you need God in order to be moral, and especially as to how this relates to lawmaking and ethics.
Most would answer God is essential to morality. However, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics did precisely this – set up a moral framework – without using God or other deistic proposals or prepositions. John of Salisbury, Duns Scotus, and Thomas Aquinas all used the “natural law” as the embodiment of a moral system (even though it required a God to remain fixed and absolute). Opposed to that system is the Hobbesian social contract and variants thereof from Locke, Rousseau, and Mill. Nozick and Rawls go back and forth on justice as fairness, etc.
The question becomes which system allows for fixed moral values, so that in the case of Nazi concentration camps, the Nazis could not be excused for following an opposite and somehow legitimate and equal moral system. Relativism? Well, yes… that’s precisely the problem all ethical and moral frameworks have to confront. The social contract fails miserably in this regard, as does Rawls’ idea of fairness.
The question of the necessity of God (or a “god” to be more theistic about it) as a fixed frame of reference for morals is indeed a great question to think about and reflect upon. When viewed in this light, defenders of absolute moral values have many more friends from different faiths than we do enemies — something to keep in mind as we careen towards this “clash of civilizations” or ideas.