In his argument in Book One against the death penalty for stealing, Raphael uses ethos by making an appeal to the word of God as a source of credibility:
"Bearing in mind that God has denied us the right to take not only the life of another but even our own, if the general consensus among nations over laws for killing each other carries sufficient force to exempt their agents from this ban and so permits them to kill—without any precedent from God—those condemned by human decrees, doesn't this subordinate that precept of divine law to human justice?"
Considering the time period in which More lived, invoking Biblical scripture in an argument may have been perhaps the strongest method possible of establishing credibility. This enters into a long tradition of establishing political authority by asserting moral authority through religion—take, for example, the Divine Right of Kings, a political tactic whereby kings would assert that God had given them the right to rule, imbuing all of their kingly decisions with divine authority. If one considers Raphael's voice an extension of More's, this argument centering religion and God as the source of ethical determination—as opposed to the state—may reflect More's own views about the preeminence of religious concerns in governance.
