Sign In
Subscribe
By Natural Philosopher Michael Alan Prestwood
By Natural Philosopher Michael Alan Prestwood
Sign In
Subscribe
Science    Philosophy  •  Critical Thinking  •  History    Politics  •  RW  •  AI  •  Physics  •  Evolution  •  Astronomy

Fear-based Ethical Systems: Karma and God’s Wrath

By Michael Alan Prestwood
With fear-based systems like karma and divine command, you do good acts out of fear of punishment. For this invalid argument, the solution is to shift the reason for good act to the reasons why the punishment is justified.
Fear-based Ethics
Ethical systems that focus on fear of consequences, as in a god's wrath, are rudderless. A shift toward teaching right and wrong can fix it.
TAKE-AWAY: With fear-based systems like karma and divine command, you do good acts out of fear of punishment. For this invalid argument, the solution is to shift the reason for good act to the reasons why the punishment is justified.
Share :
Email
Print

Fear-based Ethical Systems: Karma and God’s Wrath

The following is content drawn from 30 Philosophers, a quick overview summary of Fear-based ethics. Read the section “Fear-based Ethics” in chapter 27 for a more in depth exploration. For an exploration of personal morality and group ethics, explore my “good intent-good results” anchor device in chapters 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, and 30.

Summary

Fear-based ethics refers to ethical systems that motivate behavior by focusing on the fear of negative consequences. This approach often falls under Consequentialism, a branch of ethics where actions are judged morally right or wrong based on their outcomes, with an emphasis on avoiding harmful consequences.

In fear-based ethics, the measure of a “good result” is often wielded like a big stick, prioritizing consequences over inherent merit. One person might see an action as good, while another deems it bad, both based on the feared outcomes. Here, actions aren’t necessarily done because they’re seen as intrinsically right, but rather to avoid punishment. Take Karma and Divine Command Theory as examples of this approach. In Karma, good actions aim to prevent undesirable rebirths, such as returning as a dung beetle. Similarly, in Divine Command Theory, certain actions are avoided out of fear of divine wrath. But what if one loses faith or their fear of God’s wrath? What if someone misinterprets divine guidance?

Over two millennia ago, Plato challenged the idea that morality depends on the gods’ commands alone. In his dialogue Euthyphro, Plato explored this through what is now known as the “Euthyphro Dilemma.” He posed a critical question: are acts morally right because the gods command them, or do the gods command them because they are morally right? Take, for example, the idea that “Murder is wrong because the gods have declared it so.” Plato argued that this reasoning is flawed. If the gods were to declare murder as right, would it then become morally acceptable to kill without cause, merely for the enjoyment of doing so? Clearly, most would find this idea deeply unsettling. Divine Command Theory might respond that the gods do, in fact, have reasons behind their commands. But here, Plato saw an issue: if the gods have reasons for forbidding murder, then it’s not their declaration that makes it wrong, but rather those underlying reasons. In this way, Plato suggested that moral truths exist independently of divine command, pointing to a deeper standard of right and wrong beyond any god’s decree.

In Chapter 27 of 30 Philosophers, the section on “Fear-Based Ethics” tackles this very dilemma from a “good intent-good result” angle. Throughout the book, this device illustrates ethics by using this literary device. Here, the text identifies the core issue: ethical behavior rooted in fear of punishment, such as that found in Divine Command Theory, risks leaving individuals morally adrift once they lose faith in divine authority. If actions are only deemed “good” to avoid punishment, then moral grounding remains fragile and easily destabilized by doubt or disillusionment.

To address this, the book proposes a straightforward but profound shift for religious teachings. Rather than teaching that acts are wrong simply because of divine decree, one could instead focus on the reasoning behind why they were deemed wrong. By teaching the “why” behind moral commands, we cultivate ethics that go beyond fear of divine wrath, establishing a moral foundation grounded in empathy, social harmony, and the inherent value of actions. This approach encourages individuals to act morally for reasons beyond punishment, building a resilient ethical compass independent of any specific belief.

— map / TST —

Get the full story…

Nothing beats the long-format of a book for clearly telling a grand story. For a deeper exploration of the broader landscape of modern human thought, check out my new book, “30 Philosophers”, where I tell the story of the greatest ideas that have shaped humanity over the last 5,000 years.

30 Philosophers: A New Look at Timeless Ideas

Immerse yourself in knowledge, not snippets. Pure inspiration from cover to cover. Dive deeper than headlines and memes and explore the minds of the greatest thinkers.
The story of
humanity’s
80 BEST IDEAS,
and the
30 GIANTS
behind them!
Uncover the wisdom of our best ideas!
divider-red-swirls1.png
Michael Alan Prestwood
Author & Natural Philosopher

Prestwood writes on science-first philosophy, with particular attention to the convergence of disciplines. Drawing on his TST Framework, his work emphasizes rational inquiry grounded in empirical observation while engaging questions at the edges of established knowledge. With TouchstoneTruth positioned as a living touchstone, this work aims to contribute reliable analysis in an emerging AI era where the credibility of information is increasingly contested.

Share this on...

Comments

Join the Conversation! Currently logged out.

Leave a Comment

No Kings Has Deep Historical Roots
TAKE-AWAY: From union leaders standing up to the boss to modern-day NO KINGS protests, the timeless struggle to limit power is about defending individual rights and freedom against the will of any king, boss, or crowd.
What is a realistic timeframe for humanity to terraform Mars?
The Civilization-Scale Commitment
TAKE-AWAY: Terraforming Mars isn’t about speed — it’s about persistence. It’s a multi-century experiment in extending civilization itself, one that would eventually set Earth and Mars on separate evolutionary paths. To turn the Red Planet green will take a couple thousand years, not decades as some hope. The real work won’t start with humans in spacesuits, but with machines, microbes, and carefully engineered atmospheres doing the slow, patient work of planetary change. The path forward likely begins with autonomous robots and AI-driven systems warming Mars, thickening its atmosphere, and preparing the soil. Genetically engineered microorganisms may come first, reshaping barren ground into something that can eventually support life. Humans will already be there, but living in domes, not outdoors.
Scroll to Top