Is Society the Source of Values? Functionalist or Moral Theist?

Values are standards of behavior. They provide a framework on whose basis
individuals determine what is good or bad, what is ethical or unethical, and what is desirable
or undesirable in different situations. Various theories have been advanced to explain the
source of individual and societal values as well as what motivates individuals and groups to
live according to those values. This paper examines the functionalist view advanced by
sociologists, such as Emile Durkheim, and moral theist view as explained by philosophers,
such as Immanuel Kant.

Functionalist theorists examine the role different social institutions play in society.
For instance, the role of the family is not just to ensure the continuity of society through
reproduction but also to socialize society’s new members. Emile Durkheim, considered one
of the fathers of modern sociology and a major proponent of functionalism, argued that
religion is a creation of society. He defined religion is a “unified system of beliefs and
practices relative to sacred things” (Horii, 2019). This system of beliefs and practices were
created to serve important functions. They include providing society with collective values,
and promoting social cohesion, and social control. Since religion has no use outside of
society, Durkheim argues that society created religion (Chen, 2018). Based on Durkheim’s
thinking, it can be summarized that society creates religion which in turn provides society
with values upon which individuals in the society live by. Thus, society is the source of
values. If society did not exist and everyone lived alone without any social interactions, there
would no values held by individuals.

According to functionalists, such as Durkheim, society does more than just produce
values through religion; it also ensures that individuals within a given society live according

3
to those values through a complex system of rewards and punishments. Individuals who
adhere to societal values are rewarded through respect and honor of other members of the
society. Not all rewards are indirect. They could also be indirect, such as when well-behaved
children are given presents either at home or at school. On the other hand, individuals who
deviate from established societal values are punished through direct punishment as well
indirect punishment, such as social isolation and feelings of humiliation, embarrassment, and
shame. Thus, the main motivation of adhering to a given set of values is to avoid both direct
and indirect punishment from the society.

From the arguments of functionalists, it does not really matter whether one believes in
God or not. An individual also does not need to take their religion seriously. Society’s
mechanisms of rewarding good behavior and punishing behavior that is not in accordance
with its values will force the individual to adhere to their society’s values even if they do not
believe or seriously take the religion that provides those values. In other words, religion’s
role ends after providing society with values to live by. It is the society that enforces those
values. This view contrasts with the arguments advanced by moral theists, such as Immanuel
Kant. According to Kant and other moral theists, religion is not just the source of values, it
provides the main motivation for people to live in accordance with those values. For Kant, if
one rejects God and the afterlife, it becomes difficult for them to live a moral life
(Breitenbach, 2021). For instance, among Christians, religion provides a set of values, such as
not killing, not stealing, and not lying. However, if one does not believe in God, they are
unlikely to live in accordance with these values. Belief in God provides the motivation
needed to act according to moral values provided by religion because it makes one to fear
hell, the ultimate punishment for those that do not act in accordance with religious values. It
also makes one to adhere to religious values in order to be rewarded with eternal life in
heaven. Thus, from a moral theist’s point of view, belief in God is central to morality.

4
Religion does not just provide values; it also provides a mechanism in which those values are
enforced in society.

Since belief in God is the main determinant of whether one acts morally or not, the
role played by society in regulating behavior is minimal under the moral theist framework.
Theoretically, one can live a moral life even if they are not part of any society. Thus, unlike
functionalists, moral theists do not believe that society is the source of values. Neither do
they believe that society regulates values. The main determinant of whether one acts morally
or not is their belief in God. Individuals who believe in God are likely to act morally because
of their concern for the rewards and punishments that are stipulated by religion, such as hell
and heaven. On the other hand, individuals who do not believe in God are unlikely to act
morally because they lack the moral values provided by religion and their non-belief in God
means that they also do not fear punishment for not acting morally.

In my opinion, I believe in functionalists’ view that society is the source of values and
that it is also the primary regulator of those values. In many countries, particularly western
countries, there has been rapid secularization of society as seen through reduced number of
people attending church services or even believing in God. Despite such moves away from
religion, people continue adhering to social values that dictate what is right or wrong,
appropriate and inappropriate, and desirable and undesirable. This shows people can still be
moral even if they do not believe in God. Society’s mechanisms of punishment, such as
social isolation, shame, and humiliation are much more potent than fear of punishment in the
afterlife for moral failings that religions, such as Christianity proclaim.

5

References

Breitenbach, Z. (2020). Evaluating the Theistic Implications of the Kantian Moral Argument
that Postulating God is Essential to Moral Rationality. Studies in Christian
Ethics, 34(2), 143-157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0953946820962408

Chen, N. (2018). Is Durkheim a Reductionist? The Journal of the Core Curriculum, 105.

Horii, M. (2019). Historicizing the category of “religion” in sociological theories: Max
Weber and Emile Durkheim. Critical Research on Religion, 7(1), 24-37.