How does Religion Impact an Individual’s Inclination Towards a Utilitarian or Deontological Moral Framework?

20 min readFeb 15, 2021

INTRODUCTION

The story of religion is intertwined with that of human development, which involves, to an extent, the development of ethics and morality. At par with a renewed and increased interest of philosophy and free thought in the 21st century, society has taken an interest in morality and ethics. Determining the right course of an action within politics has been for a while now, at least in Western democracies, a question of morality. There are claims of concern that, because of society’s trend towards secularization, the moral fiber of humanity is being corrupted towards unethical action and the degrading of morality towards moral relativism– a philosophical stance that is worrisome to many people (Voert et al. 302). On the other hand, philosophers like Stephen Maitzen ardently argue that secularism is a necessary factor for morality to flourish– Maitzen’s argument being that “Ordinary Morality Implies Atheism” (Maitzen, 107).

The relationship between religion and morality is one that has been thoroughly explored. A good example is the anthropological lens of the research paper “Religion and Morality”, by Ryan McKay and Harvey Whitehouse. However, morality, like most things considered by philosophy, is complex and multi-faceted. If we apply the Socratic method of scrutiny to the question “Does secularization degrade the moral fabric of society?”, we will soon find ourselves with the need to define what exactly constitutes moral action. There are competing schools of thought on what the nature of moral action is. Two of the most famous stances, which are incompatible, are Utilitarianism, and Deontology (such as that of famed philosopher Immanuel Kant). Neither of these moral frameworks are synonymous with the aforementioned moral relativism, and they are widely popular philosophies.

Briefly, Utilitarianism is the belief that “moral” action is that which brings about the most utility. Utilitarian morality is famous for its core philosophy of “the ends justify the means”. Utilitarianism is not concerned with principles or rules, but with consequences– in other words: “did it do any good?” not “is it morally permissible?”. Deontology, on the other hand, is antithetical to Utilitarianism. This philosophy judges morality by the nature of the action itself, not the consequence. In other words: “Is this action morally permissible?”. Kantian morality, in particular, is best known for its use of reason to to create moral maxims, or rules. The Kantian method to identify the morality of an action is through the use of the “Formula of the Universal Law of Nature” (FUL) The formula states the following: “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will¹ that it become a universal law”. For Kant, the formula was the key for the rationalization of morality, as it allows someone to make ethical decisions through the use of logic.

The influence of Utilitarianism and Deontology are felt throughout history, often pitted against each other. Take for example, the influence of Utilitarianism in Marxism² and in the ideas of the authoritative socialism of Maoism and the Soviet Union. Not surprisingly, Deontology’s influence is encapsulated in the aphoristic constitutions of Western democracies. Because of their historical and philosophical importance, this paper will focus mostly on the relationship between religion, Utilitarianism and Deontology. Moreover, this study is important because we live in an increasingly polarized world in which moral terms and arguments are constantly being hijacked by fear mongers, demagogues, and politicians. A complex understanding of human behavior, and of how morality and ethics intertwine with our daily life, will make us less susceptible to incendiary sophistry.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In order to define some of the key terms and ideas explored in this paper, we must refer and build upon the existing body of literature. The moral ideas of Deontology and Utilitarianism are old and deceivingly complex. Specifically, the study of how these specific moral ideas relate to religion is deeply nuanced and somewhat understated and unexplored. To shed some light on the ideas discussed in this paper, we must refer mainly to the world of philosophical academia. The links between religion and morality — in the holistic sense of the term– has been studied in detail. For example, Ryan McKay and Harvey Whitehouse’s paper, “Religion and Morality” broadly illustrates the relationship between different interpretations of religion and moral behavior. McKay and Whitehouse mainly concern themselves with explaining and proposing different origins of the relationship from an anthropological and sociological lens, exploring theories such as the “Descriptive Ethnocentrism” and the “Cognitive Versus Cultural Levels of Explanation” theories. The study encourages the acknowledgment of the complexity of the relationship between religion and morality, stating that the hypotheses they explored “are all correct, but together provide a fuller understanding” (McKay and Whitehouse). McKay and Whitehouse take special care in acknowledging that the relationship between religion and morality is one of complexity, and possibly, syncretism. Either way, the paper emphasizes the fact that there may not be a single connection that bridges religion and morality, but rather suggests that the relationship consists of a series of shared factors that intertwine each other. As opposed to McKay and Whitehouse’s broad exploration of morality, other papers study specific frameworks of morality, such as “Does Kant Reduce Religion to Morality?” by Stephen Palmquist. Palmquist explores the relationship between the moral framework of Immanuel Kant– from whom Kantian morality is derived– and religion. Similarly to McKay and Whitehouse’s paper, Palmquist concludes the paper with an acknowledgment that the relationship between religion and morality is extremely complex and that the answers that “Kant gives to the wide range of questions which occupy his attention in Religion go far beyond the simple idea that religion is just morality in disguise.” (Palmquist, 146). It is an overarching theme of these papers that there is a nuanced and complex relationship to be explored between religion and morality that goes beyond the scope of their research.

The relationship between the two different moral frameworks has been studied before. In “Assessing Moral Rules: Utilitarian and Kantian Perspectives” by Thomas E. Hill, Jr. the core principles of the Kantian and Utilitarian frameworks are outlined in detail. Hill identifies various key terms. First, “Act Utilitarianism” (AU) or the belief that any action is moral as long as it promotes the most amount of utility, in this case, pleasure, and diminishes the most amount of pain. In AU, pleasure is the only inherent good and pain the only inherent evil. Secondly, “Rule Utilitarianism” (RU) or the belief that there are some basic principles that should not be trespassed. RU emerged as a response to the discomfort surrounding some AU’s lack of moral principles, and it states that there are some actions that could produce the most utility, but are not moral. Through a set of moral ground rules and limitations, RU states that the ends sometimes do not justify the means. Finally, Kantian Deontology finds itself at the opposite end of the spectrum with its ideas about universality and strict moral “legislation” (Hill).

The aforementioned studies, although helpful in understanding and exploring the ideas at the core of the relationship between religion and morality, are exclusively rooted in a rationalist philosophy and contain only a qualitative interpretation of the moral-religious phenomena. For a complete overview of the relationship, there is a need to refer to more empirical studies that collect and interpret quantitative data. A good compromise between a qualitative and quantitative study is the paper “Moral and religious convictions: Are they the same or different things?” by Linda Skitka. The paper relies on data from previous literature to draw theories on the hypothesis that religion and morality are equivalent. The team proposes that either religion and morality are either functionally the same (the equivalence hypothesis), entirely different entities (the different constructs hypothesis) or somehow aligned through ideology (the political asymmetry hypothesis).

In some sense, Skitka is continuing the work of Palmquist in “Does Kant Reduce Religion to Morality?” by challenging the notion that religion and morality are equivalent. On the other hand, examples of studies focused solely on the interpretation of quantitative data also exist. For example, the paper “The Influence of Religiosity on Moral Judgement in Sport” studies 258 Greek Christian athlete’s responses to tests designed to interpret their approach to morality. Mostly a quantitative study, the paper identifies different facets of interest, such as Moral judgment, Religious schemas, and Moral Judgment and Religiosity. It concludes by stating that “religiosity in athletes seem[s] to be differentiated according to various types of sports” (Proios). The literature on the topics of religion and morality is varied, but quantitative studies rarely intersect with more nuanced exploration of morality .

Most of the existing literature either deals with abstract philosophical concepts– including the exploration of diverse moral frameworks like Utilitarianism or Kantian Deontology, or they focus on interpreting quantitative data based on vague notions of morality. It seems that studies either neglect quantitative data or have only shallow explorations of morality. Therefore, this study will attempt to bridge this gap in the literature by answering the following research question: “How does religion impact an individual’s inclination towards Utilitarian or Deontological moral framework?”. Through the interpretation of quantitative data to understand how spirituality and organized religion may affect an individual’s leaning towards a specific moral framework, such as Utilitarianism or Deontology. This study is important insofar that it will shed some light on the nuance and complexity of the theoretical thesis that religion, spirituality, and morality are interconnected.

HYPOTHESIS

It is the expectation that individuals who are part of a religious institution will be more likely to lean towards Deontology. This relationship could exist due to the fact that religious morality is often based upon scripture which delineates moral axioms, such as the ten commandments. On the other hand, participants who self identify with more secular labels will be more likely to favor a Utilitarian framework of morality.

METHODOLOGY

To explore the validity of the hypothesis, a quantitative method was employed in the form of a questionnaire that measured participants’ inclination towards a Utilitarian (UT) or Deontological (DE) framework of morality. Synthesis of the data would then shed some light on the relationships between different religions, levels of religiosity, “spirituality”, and an inclination towards UT or DE. The questionnaire was selected as the primary means of data collection, as it is easily distributed, which helped broaden the sample size and variety. The quantitative method of research was utilized in this paper, as it compliments the abstract and theoretical study of Utilitarianism and Deontology by providing large amounts of experimental data– thus bridging a gap in the literature. Using a qualitative method would not have provided the same level of clarity of the results upon which the new understanding is developed. Moreover, a qualitative method would not have been a deviation from the trends of other papers, which would fail to bridge the gap in the literature.

The goal of the questionnaire was to determine an individual’s inclination towards a UT or DE framework of morality. The questions and the scaling had to be crafted specifically to meet this need. The questions themselves consisted of two parts. The first, a initial screening determined some basic information about the participants: their religious affiliation (or lack thereof), their level of religiosity³, their level of spirituality⁴, and moral self-reflection⁵. Spirituality and self-reflection were parameters included in order to explore alternative (or supplementary) experiences which are not necessarily religious that may inform an individual’s inclination towards UT or DE. The questions in this section were answered in a five point scale, as opposed to a close ended “yes” or “no” response, in order to avoid reductionist answers of what otherwise might be a more complex and nuanced response.

The second section of the questionnaire consisted of a series of moral dilemmas posed as statements. The participants were required to rank their responses in a five point scale ranging from “I agree completely” or a (5), to “I disagree completely” which is a (1). The questions were specially crafted to determine an individual’s moral inclination. This method is complex, and its effectiveness is up for debate, as some questions’ results are clearly interpreted, for example if someone answers (5) for the statement:

“Intention determines the morality of an action”

Then, it is inferred that they lean towards DE, as the very statement is a cornerstone of DE ethics. However, Deontological views can vary, and different individuals may subscribe to different moral axioms. This is why some questions assume that there are some moral axioms that are, if not universal, at least widely popular within DE ethics. Some of these axioms are well known, such as “Thou shall not kill”, or “Humans should never be used as means to an end” which translate into the questionnaire through statements such as:

“Capital punishment should be allowed if it contributes towards the greater good of society”

It is an assumption of this paper that, because Deontological ethics usually place a great emphasis on the inherent value of human life, a person inclined towards DE will most likely answer with a (2) or a (1). The method is not perfect, but the philosophical tendencies of DE ethics⁶ suggest that it is a good enough indicator to gain some baseline understanding of the relationship between religiosity, spirituality and DE or UT tendencies.

Once the questionnaire was finished, there was a period of testing, in which a small sample of individuals took the test and provided feedback to help improve the clarity and accessibility of the questionnaire. These few individuals, who participated in the initial testing, were chosen randomly for the sole purpose of providing feedback that would make the questionnaire more accessible. Once the final edits were done, the questionnaire was distributed via email to a diverse variety of congregations and communities. There was no specific demographic that was targeted for this paper. Rather, there was an aim to reach the most diverse amount of people, in order to acquire accurate and holistic data that would properly illustrate the relationship between religiosity, spirituality and DE or UT tendencies.

GATHERING OF RAW DATA

Once the questionnaire was closed, there were 136 responses to process. The first steps of the synthesis was to gather all of the raw data. To begin with, the initial screening of the questionnaire revealed some baseline information about the participants. The first, and most basic graph is one that outlines the distribution of religions of the participants (fig.1). One can observe that the majority of the participants self identified as non-religious (65.2%): Atheists (31.1%), Agnostics (18.2%), other non-religious denominations (9.1%), and Hard Naturalists⁷ (6.8%). From the religious demographic (34.8%), the participants were overwhelmingly Christian, with Anglicans (7.6%) being the majority.

The initial graphs were constructed out of a raw data dump to Google sheets, where three graphs were plotted. The graphs represent the following relationships: Reflection versus Inclination (fig.2), Spirituality v.s Inclination (fig. 3), and Religiosity v.s Inclination (fig.4). To interpret the graph correctly, one must keep in mind that the number of the inclination value represents a score of the participants’ inclination towards UT or DE. The higher the score is, the more Utilitarian the response was, the lower the score, the more Deontological the response.

The first graph, Reflection v.s Inclination (fig.2), shows the relationship between the participants responses in the moral reflection section of the first part of the questionnaire, versus the participants’ score in the moral dilemma questions on the second part of the questionnaire. The r² value of the graph is 0.084. The second graph represents Spirituality v.s Inclination (fig. 3). This graph shows the relationship between the responses in the spirituality section of the first part of the questionnaire. The r² value of the graph is 0.139. Finally, the last graph Religiosity v.s Inclination (fig.4), represents the respondents score in the religiosity section of the first part of the questionnaire. The r² value if the graph is 0.049.

To contextualize the information given in these three graphs, an additional 3 graphs were made to further aid the interpretation of the data. These graphs represent the relationships of Religion v.s Religiosity, Religion v.s spirituality, and Religion v.s Reflection.

Once the raw data was plotted in a visual medium, and the regression lines were drawn, one could speculate that there may be a sort of relationship between the variables. However, the r² values were all significantly low, which is not unusual for research focused on human behaviour. Yet, the r² seemed unusually low, and the data would have been very hard to interpret without a clearer correlation that may support or disprove the hypothesis. To solve this problem, the mean (average) values of the data from the graphs were used to create three new graphs which represent the values of multiple data points with a single value, and more appropriately illustrate the relationships between spirituality, religiosity, reflection, and an inclination for a UT or DE framework of morality.

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The new graphs were extremely useful in visualizing the relationships between the many variables taken into account in the questionnaire.

The first relationship, Reflection v.s Inclination (fig. 5), has a satisfactory r² value of 0.937. The curve of the regression line shows an interesting phenomena: it would seem that the most morally introspective people are more likely to be inclined towards a DE framework of morality. However, it also suggests that the least introspective people also tend to be inclined towards DE. It is the people who scored a (2) that show a dip in the inclination score and suggest a predisposition for a UT framework of morality.

The second relationship, Spirituality v.s Inclination (fig. 6), shows an almost perfect inverse bell curve– with an r² value of 0.998. The curve seems to suggest that, at the extremes of the Spirituality score (both the very spiritual, and otherwise), participants showed a predisposition for a DE framework of morality. On the other hand, the graph suggests that the respondents with a more moderate relationship with spirituality– who scored a (2), (3) or a (4)– were more likely to lean towards a UT framework of morality.

Finally, the third relationship, Religiosity and Inclination (fig.7). The regression line shows an almost linear positive relationship between how religious and how inclined towards DE an individual is. With an r² value of 0.744, the graph suggests that, while individuals who self identified as not religious at all on average scored below (35) in inclination (a score that strongly suggests UT), individuals who self identified as very religious scored, on average, above (40) in inclination (a score that strongly suggests an inclination for DE). The only discrepancy in this linear relationship is a dip in the inclination score for people who chose (4) as their religiosity score. A cause for this anomaly may be a lack of data. It was only a small number of people who selected (4) as their religiosity score; this would make sense, considering most of the participants self identified as non religious. Perhaps a large enough sample size would shed light on this discrepancy, or further support the suggestion that religiosity and moral inclination share a linear relationship.

This third graph particularly supports the hypothesis that individuals who are practicing a religion will be more likely to lean towards Deontology. Yet, the denomination with the highest score of religiosity, Hinduism, is not the faith with the highest inclination towards DE. Hinduism’s score suggests that the hypothesis still stands, as (39) is the second highest score. However, Presbyterianism– a faith with moderate religiosity⁸– has the highest inclination score, which is (43). There might be a couple of explanations for this phenomenon. It may be that the sample size of Hinduism was not large enough to portray accurate data, and that it can be ruled out as an outlier. After all, Hindu participants only made up 1.5% of the respondents. Another explanation that is worth considering is that although Presbyterian participants scored low in religiosity, they scored remarkably high in spirituality and moral self reflection. Both figures 5 and 6 suggest that high scores in spirituality and moral self reflection are indicators of an inclination towards DE morality. A plausible explanation, and a point of exploration for future research, may be whether the cultural heritage of a religion, despite the levels of religiosity– still manages to affect the inclination of a community. If these values transcend religious practice, then it could be said that the relationship between religion and inclination is not one of causation, rather of correlation, or as Skitka and the group of researchers from the University of Illinois at Chicago hypothesized, a relationship of Political Asymmetry.

Finally, the scores from the second part of the questionnaire were averaged and plotted. The resulting graph, (fig. 11), presents the relationship between moral inclination and religion. The graph is a combination of all of the participants’ responses to the moral dilemmas presented to them in the questionnaire. The data was plotted as a bar graph in order to visually represent the average score of individuals from different religions. The graph revealed the following: In general, the denominations that are least affiliated with religious belief (Naturalism, Non-religious, Atheism) are more likely to score within the range of (33–34), which suggests an inclination towards UT morality. On the other hand, the responses of participants affiliated with a religion varied, with some scoring as high as (38–43), which suggests an inclination for a DE framework of morality.

One exception for this generalization is the score of participants who self identified with the “Other Christian denomination” label. Their average score in inclination was remarkably low: (33.5). The “Other Christian denomination” results of religiosity, spirituality, and reflection all reflect relatively high scores– (3), (4.5), and (4.5)– respectively. This is a unique case in which the additional indicators (religiosity, spirituality, and reflection) do not accurately reflect the moral tendencies of an individual. A very similar case occurs with Buddhism, which has a remarkably high score of (37.8) in the Inclination v.s Religion graph, but whose additional indicators would suggest otherwise⁹. If this phenomenon has a cause, it is beyond the scope of this paper.

INTERPRETATION

The three graphs plotted using the average data values provided the following insights into the relationship between religion, religiosity, spirituality and moral reflection:

A) The most morally introspective people are most likely to be inclined towards a DE framework of morality.

B) The extremes of the Spirituality score, the very spiritual, and vice versa– showed a predisposition for a DE framework of morality.

C) Individuals who self identified as very religious, were predisposed for an inclination for DE. On the other hand, individuals who scored relatively low in the religiosity graph, were more likely to be inclined towards UT. .

D) Labels that are not religious (Naturalism, Non-religious, Atheism) are more likely to score a result that suggest an inclination towards UT morality.

But, how do these insights align with the hypothesis? Briefly, the relationships observed in the graphs, apart from a few outliers, support the hypothesis that individuals who are subscribed to a religious institution will be more likely to lean towards a Deontological framework of morality.

To better understand, and to verify this phenomenon, it is worthwhile to look at the top three denominations¹⁰ with the highest and the lowest average scores as well as their respective religiosity, reflection, and spirituality values.

The average values were:

Average values

Inclination value: (33.6)

Religiosity value: (2.4)

Spirituality value: (3.7)

Reflection value: (4.1)

The four highest scoring denominations in the Inclination v.s Religion graph are:

Presbyterianism

Inclination value: (43)

Religiosity value: (3.4)

Spirituality value: (4.6)

Reflection value: (4.4)

Hinduism

Inclination value: (39)

Religiosity value: (4.5)

Spirituality value: (4)

Reflection value: (4.5)

Episcopalian Christianity

Inclination value: (37.8)

Religiosity value: (3)

Spirituality value: (5)

Reflection value: (4)

The three lowest scoring denominations were:

Atheism

Inclination value: (32.3)

Religiosity value: (1.17)

Spirituality value: (2.79)

Reflection value: (3.8)

Hard Naturalism

Inclination value: (33.6)

Religiosity value: (1.2)

Spirituality value: (2.3)

Reflection value: (4.3)

Other non-religious denomination

Inclination value: (34)

Religiosity value: (1.4)

Spirituality value: (3.2)

Reflection value: (4.3)

The data from these top scoring, and lowest scoring denominations, as compared to each other and the average value from all the denominations, seems to verify the observation that individuals with secular labels are more likely to have a low inclination, and thus, a moral inclination towards UT. On the other hand, the data also seems to suggest that religious labels with high religiosity values are more likely to be inclined towards DE.

LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

There are multiple limitations that could hinder the legitimacy of the findings from this research paper. For starters, the data available for this research is restrained by the geographic restraints of the researcher. The survey was distributed to local individuals and organizations, which could have reduced the diversity of religion, cultural background, ethnicity, and gender of the participants of the research. In some instances, this lack of homogeneous representation may have affected the collected data,compromising the validity of the interpretation. The impact of this flaw is evident upon consideration of figure 1, where it can be observed that some denominations had a more numerous representation among the participants, and likely had more accurate results to those of labels with fewer participants.

IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

This paper has various implications for our understanding of philosophy, sociology, and most importantly, religion. It is important for society to better and empirically understand the workings of how something so influential– such as religion– impacts our psyche, and in particular, our morality. Moreover, the findings in the paper are unique, as insofar that they are a product of a study of ethics, which is highly abstract, through the use of a quantitative method. The insight this research contributes is distinct because it focuses on the relationship between two very specific models of morality– Utilitarianism and Deontology– and religion. The data from this study suggests that there is a relationship between religion and specific moral inclinations. This study acknowledges the complexity of both religion and morality by refusing to state that religiosity makes an individual moral or otherwise. Rather, it makes an effort to acknowledge that humans make use of a plethora of systems of morality. For future research, however, the study of the abnormalities of this paper, such as Hinduism’s unusually high religiosity score, may shed some light into whether the relationship between religion and morality is a correlation or a causation– thus contributing a new layer of understanding to the research from Linda J. Skitka and the group of researchers from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

CONCLUSION

The relationships established in the primary interpretation are supported by the data observed from the three highest and lowest scoring denominations. These relationships, drawn from the Reflection v.s Religion, Religiosity v.s Religion, Spirituality v.s Religion, and the Inclination v.s Religion graphs, support the initial hypothesis that individuals who are subscribed to a religious institution will be more likely to lean towards a Deontological framework of morality. And, that participants who self identify with secular labels will be more likely to favor a Utilitarian framework of morality.

¹ As in the verb: “to will”.

² “Some… have maintained that Marx’s ethics are non-Utilitarian. Others… have argued that in fact, Marx is a Utilitarian, though of course Marx did not proclaim himself to be a Utilitarian. Rather… the arguments of Marx are the kind used by Utilitarians although not expressed in Utilitarian language”. (Brenkert, 421).

³ As defined for the purposes of the research: “To believe and actively practice and live by a particular faith’s dogma and rules.”

⁴ As defined for the purposes of the research: “Acknowledgement and reflection on the spirit or something beyond the physical– such as a universal truth.”

⁵ The question posed was “How often do you reflect on the morality of your actions?”

⁶ Such as when the “Formula of the Universal Law of Nature” is applied to a moral dilemma. Interestingly, in the case of “Capital punishment should be allowed if it contributes towards the greater good of society”, Kant contradicts himself. Even though killing people is not permissible by traditional DE ethical standards or when FUL is applied, Kant defended capital punishment (if the perpetrator had commited murder) under the principle of “The Law of Retribution” (Hoag). Whether Kant contradicts himself is still up for debate, as some critics hold his views as incoherent (Chun, 1).

⁷ For the purposes of this paper: “The belief that only the laws of physics rule the universe. Implied atheism/agnosticism.”

⁸ See (fig. 8)

⁹ Inclination value: (37.8), religiosity value: (2.14), spirituality value: (3), moral reflection value: (3.85).

¹⁰ Excluding outliers (Other Christian denominations, and Buddhism).

APPENDIX

(Figure.1)