Morality Without Religion-- is it Possible?
- Thread starter Mpride
- Start date
- Status
First of all define morality. Personally, I find that morality is a personal thing and not necessarily connected to any religion or belief.
So to answer the question, IMHO yes you can be moral without a religion. Um, if you so choose to be/want/whatsit.
So to answer the question, IMHO yes you can be moral without a religion. Um, if you so choose to be/want/whatsit.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,933
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
If morality involves not murdering people, it seems to be inversely related to how religious a country is.
Ah, then you would have to define murder by somebody's standards. Head hunters didn't consider killing people murder. Hmm....I wonder if they even had a murder law. ooo research...
Everything is relative.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,933
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
The correlation would work across Western countries with similar laws in terms of criminal life-taking. I am not actually suggesting a causal relationship but it is interesting that countries with the highest levels of atheism tend to have the lowest level of violent crime.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 536
- Reaction score
- 22
- Location
- Perth, Western Australia
- Website
- www.reelthinker.com
Like others before me, the OP's question offends me. It implies I go around killing people and causing harm willy-nilly just because I don't subscribe to a particular belief system.
The basis for (non-religious) morality is simple. If I take this action, how much pain or suffering will it cause to other people, directly or indirectly? Paedophilia, rape, torture and murder all cause direct and immediate suffering, so it makes me sick to even think about them. This doesn't vary from individual to individual, or society to society; pain is still recognisably pain (neurological conditions [such as a lack of empathy] are rare and require special attention).
I know this rabbit hole goes deep, but please, spare a thought for the people you label as lacking morals; it may not seem like it, but it comes across as priveleged bullying.
The basis for (non-religious) morality is simple. If I take this action, how much pain or suffering will it cause to other people, directly or indirectly? Paedophilia, rape, torture and murder all cause direct and immediate suffering, so it makes me sick to even think about them. This doesn't vary from individual to individual, or society to society; pain is still recognisably pain (neurological conditions [such as a lack of empathy] are rare and require special attention).
I know this rabbit hole goes deep, but please, spare a thought for the people you label as lacking morals; it may not seem like it, but it comes across as priveleged bullying.
Yes, I believe without any doubt that it is possible to be completely moral without religion just as people can also be sickeningly amoral with religion.
As an Asian, I have to say, in my personal experience, the nicest people I have known (and I have said this many times over the last thirty years) are American people. I always sensed their kindness and grace came from a set of values that were not based on religious foundations.
At the same time, several of the worst people I have known have often been openly "religious" and also come from all nations and are from various religions (I've never met a bad Parsi or Baha'i).
If my memoir ever gets published, parents would be up in arms and judge me to have been a completely amoral Christian Sunday School teacher for five years.
My Hindu relatives read the holy book and pray twice a day, they donate money for temples in California and they pray and pray. Yet they are amongst the most selfish, miserly, hypocrites I know.
So, while we cannot generalise, I will stand by the fact that there absolutely IS morality without religion. Even more, I'd say.
As an Asian, I have to say, in my personal experience, the nicest people I have known (and I have said this many times over the last thirty years) are American people. I always sensed their kindness and grace came from a set of values that were not based on religious foundations.
At the same time, several of the worst people I have known have often been openly "religious" and also come from all nations and are from various religions (I've never met a bad Parsi or Baha'i).
If my memoir ever gets published, parents would be up in arms and judge me to have been a completely amoral Christian Sunday School teacher for five years.
My Hindu relatives read the holy book and pray twice a day, they donate money for temples in California and they pray and pray. Yet they are amongst the most selfish, miserly, hypocrites I know.
So, while we cannot generalise, I will stand by the fact that there absolutely IS morality without religion. Even more, I'd say.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2011
- Messages
- 184
- Reaction score
- 16
- Location
- WASHINGTON STATE! WOO HOO!
- Website
- writery.wordpress.com
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2011
- Messages
- 184
- Reaction score
- 16
- Location
- WASHINGTON STATE! WOO HOO!
- Website
- writery.wordpress.com
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2011
- Messages
- 184
- Reaction score
- 16
- Location
- WASHINGTON STATE! WOO HOO!
- Website
- writery.wordpress.com
I thought war involved murdering people but they tell me it's okay. Unlike abortion, which does qualify as murder.
Is it no wonder we are all so confused on this topic?
Just to clarify: I'm a buddhist/hindu/unitarian/ala cart kinda gal living in a very redneck knee-jerk reactionary republican ultra-conservative gun-toting chicken-fried-steak eating hard-right-christian thinking town.
*largely outnumbered, heh*
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2011
- Messages
- 184
- Reaction score
- 16
- Location
- WASHINGTON STATE! WOO HOO!
- Website
- writery.wordpress.com
Lucky you! the last one I met wanted my David Bowie albums! Had to deal with him rather harshly....
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2011
- Messages
- 184
- Reaction score
- 16
- Location
- WASHINGTON STATE! WOO HOO!
- Website
- writery.wordpress.com
Psst! Jarrah! Teach yourself to multiquote, putting every reply you want to respond to in a single post. It's pretty easy.
To the right of the Quote button at the bottom of each post is a button with "+ on it. Press it for every post you want to quote so you can reply to it. On the last post of the many you want to respond to, press both the "+ and Quote.
This puts the text off all the posts you want to answer in a single reply. (You can delete the quoted parts which are irrelevant. Some people indicate they've done that by typing in <snip>, just to be clear something's missing.) Type your response right after each quote and there won't be any confusion about who you're talking to.
Maryn, all helpful (sometimes, anyway)
To the right of the Quote button at the bottom of each post is a button with "+ on it. Press it for every post you want to quote so you can reply to it. On the last post of the many you want to respond to, press both the "+ and Quote.
This puts the text off all the posts you want to answer in a single reply. (You can delete the quoted parts which are irrelevant. Some people indicate they've done that by typing in <snip>, just to be clear something's missing.) Type your response right after each quote and there won't be any confusion about who you're talking to.
Maryn, all helpful (sometimes, anyway)
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 561
- Reaction score
- 54
- Location
- San Francisco, CA
- Website
- blog.dianarajchel.com
Some people need instruction books. Some people need a sherpa. Some people need to pull over and ask for directions.
Some people really don't.
Some people really don't.
Can you have moarlity without the influence of religion? I would say yes.
In actuality, is this possible today? I would say not likely because religious principles are so ingrained in Society that those religious principles seep into everyone's morals. No one is born with a pre-set mature level of morals. The baseline morals of all children are laid down by parents and Society. When the child grows up and approaches adulthood, they are mature enough to question and sort through the upbringing they were given. By then however, it is too late, the religious influence has already colored your own morality.
Another thing to consider is how to distinguish between what is a religious principle and what is a purely humanist principle. I think most everyone would agree that murder is wrong. Religious people point to religious reasons as to why. Humanist people point towards purely mundane reasons why. Yet when looked at from above, the affect is similar on Society. Can you say which influenced your own morality?
In actuality, is this possible today? I would say not likely because religious principles are so ingrained in Society that those religious principles seep into everyone's morals. No one is born with a pre-set mature level of morals. The baseline morals of all children are laid down by parents and Society. When the child grows up and approaches adulthood, they are mature enough to question and sort through the upbringing they were given. By then however, it is too late, the religious influence has already colored your own morality.
Another thing to consider is how to distinguish between what is a religious principle and what is a purely humanist principle. I think most everyone would agree that murder is wrong. Religious people point to religious reasons as to why. Humanist people point towards purely mundane reasons why. Yet when looked at from above, the affect is similar on Society. Can you say which influenced your own morality?
I believe that organized religion makes morality less, not more likely. Look at all the people throughout who discriminate under the guise of religion---who start wars under the guise or religion---who kill others under the guise of religion. I believe that morality without religion is much more likely. I believe that people are basically good and don't need organized religion to form societal mores. Look at the Warren Jeffs trial--he has perverted his religion to allow for raping minors. I don't think anyone could argue that his "followers" would be better off with out his religion. Look at the Quakers, who are by all accounts, peaceful, forgiving people. I believe people are drawn to that faith because they are peaceful people, not because religion made them that way.
One can argue that morality is a product of evolution. While the details may change from culture to culture, the human conscience, capacity to feel guilt, and belief in the existence of right and wrong is probably hard-wired in our biology.
One can similarly argue that religion is a product of society and culture, invented by man as a way to understand and order his world.
So why not ask whether religion would be possible without morality? That question makes every bit as much sense to me.
Religion is the codification of morals (plus a bunch of culturally specific superstition and mythology).
One can similarly argue that religion is a product of society and culture, invented by man as a way to understand and order his world.
So why not ask whether religion would be possible without morality? That question makes every bit as much sense to me.
Religion is the codification of morals (plus a bunch of culturally specific superstition and mythology).
I am an atheist but I am not a militant one. I am not opposed any religion, or any religious person.
The fact that the church and state are separated in the US, does not mean that the writers of the constitution thought (to be clear - I do not pretend that I was there to read their minds, but this is how I have interpreted it) that having religion was all fine and good, but do it on your own time. I believe they wanted to be rid of all those religious holidays and other religious restrictions that prevented people to build a country six/seven days a week, ten or more hours a day. I also believe that they didn't want the church to have part of taxrevenues.
It also very clearly says in the First Amendment that;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" quote from usconstitution.net.
As far as I understand it that supports my first paragraph.
Now to morality and moral without religion;
I do not know exactly what the OP is reaching for with his question, but I know for a fact that I am leading a life within the boundries of the definitions of the two words that I found in Wikipedia and the Merriam Online Dictionary. (wanted to check that I had the right understanding of the two concepts)
I am not perfect, like most people I have flaws that someone else might think are immoral. A religious person might consider my atheism immoral for instance. But I do abide to the laws of the land, and therefore I am living within the moral code of the land.
Now, I might be wrong here, but the laws we live by, to me, have more to do with common sense than religion. Even though fervent judeo/christians might reference the ten commandments as the basis for a lot of the laws we live under, I am sure that some of these rules were already adopted in societies earlier than Moses - and all across the ancient world.
It makes perfect sense to regulate that stealing is bad, that adultery questions fatherhood, and that killing is seriously wrong. As we become more sophisticated (though sometimes I have doubts about that one) and have developed more and more laws, we have also surrounded ourselves with a jungle of ethical dilemmas.
I guess that most people in the west are abhorred by violence against children, but in other parts of the world certain acts against children are not considered 'wrong'. Unless we create global laws children can still be sold to brothels in Thailand for instance, and western men can still go there to have sex with little boys and still consider themselves both religiously and lawfully moral because it didn't happen 'at home' where both church, law and society would (and should) punish them severely.
The moral in that paragraph is that morality still is an extremely hard concept.
Now to the last part;
I see nothing wrong with living in a country where church and state are separated, and where the laws and the moral code of the land requires me to live a life of morality based on both common sense and some ancient religious beliefs. It is part of the culture.
I don't really understand why mottos like "In God we trust" suddenly are so undesirable. Even as an atheist I have no problems with the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance for instance. Partly because the term 'god' seems loose enough to me (it doesn't say Jesus or Buddha, does it)to fit any god, and also because it defines a codex in a sense, namely the law. Of course they could change it to "under law", but would it be as potent?
Religious or not, I believe that most people (in America since this is the country we are talking about) are naturally inclined to be 'moral'. I think that if you study other flock animals, they too have rules. It's just common sense and survival instinct.
The fact that the church and state are separated in the US, does not mean that the writers of the constitution thought (to be clear - I do not pretend that I was there to read their minds, but this is how I have interpreted it) that having religion was all fine and good, but do it on your own time. I believe they wanted to be rid of all those religious holidays and other religious restrictions that prevented people to build a country six/seven days a week, ten or more hours a day. I also believe that they didn't want the church to have part of taxrevenues.
It also very clearly says in the First Amendment that;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" quote from usconstitution.net.
As far as I understand it that supports my first paragraph.
Now to morality and moral without religion;
I do not know exactly what the OP is reaching for with his question, but I know for a fact that I am leading a life within the boundries of the definitions of the two words that I found in Wikipedia and the Merriam Online Dictionary. (wanted to check that I had the right understanding of the two concepts)
I am not perfect, like most people I have flaws that someone else might think are immoral. A religious person might consider my atheism immoral for instance. But I do abide to the laws of the land, and therefore I am living within the moral code of the land.
Now, I might be wrong here, but the laws we live by, to me, have more to do with common sense than religion. Even though fervent judeo/christians might reference the ten commandments as the basis for a lot of the laws we live under, I am sure that some of these rules were already adopted in societies earlier than Moses - and all across the ancient world.
It makes perfect sense to regulate that stealing is bad, that adultery questions fatherhood, and that killing is seriously wrong. As we become more sophisticated (though sometimes I have doubts about that one) and have developed more and more laws, we have also surrounded ourselves with a jungle of ethical dilemmas.
I guess that most people in the west are abhorred by violence against children, but in other parts of the world certain acts against children are not considered 'wrong'. Unless we create global laws children can still be sold to brothels in Thailand for instance, and western men can still go there to have sex with little boys and still consider themselves both religiously and lawfully moral because it didn't happen 'at home' where both church, law and society would (and should) punish them severely.
The moral in that paragraph is that morality still is an extremely hard concept.
Now to the last part;
I see nothing wrong with living in a country where church and state are separated, and where the laws and the moral code of the land requires me to live a life of morality based on both common sense and some ancient religious beliefs. It is part of the culture.
I don't really understand why mottos like "In God we trust" suddenly are so undesirable. Even as an atheist I have no problems with the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance for instance. Partly because the term 'god' seems loose enough to me (it doesn't say Jesus or Buddha, does it)to fit any god, and also because it defines a codex in a sense, namely the law. Of course they could change it to "under law", but would it be as potent?
Religious or not, I believe that most people (in America since this is the country we are talking about) are naturally inclined to be 'moral'. I think that if you study other flock animals, they too have rules. It's just common sense and survival instinct.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2011
- Messages
- 113
- Reaction score
- 8
- Location
- Marengo, IA
- Website
- crazyflipperfingers.blogspot.com
Moses knew he had done wrong when he killed--and this was before he was handed the Law by God. Even as his position would have rendered him immune from prosecution, he knew killing was incompatible with his beliefs. He was moral before he knew God. He was good before he knew religion.
Doesn't Judeo-Christian religion essentially demand that its followers be willing to replace their innate morality with that which is prescribed for them?
At least that's what I get out of the whole Abraham/Isaac thing. Sure, God let him out of the deal at the last second, but not without congratulating Abraham on being willing to kill his own son.
At least that's what I get out of the whole Abraham/Isaac thing. Sure, God let him out of the deal at the last second, but not without congratulating Abraham on being willing to kill his own son.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2010
- Messages
- 1,430
- Reaction score
- 131
What is it about religion that makes one automatically assume its followers are moral? As has been pointed out, religious people have been the source of some of the most horrendous, immoral acts, often believing that what they were doing was moral, since it was in the service of god. All you have to do is take a casual glance at history to see that religion doesn't automatically make people moral.
That's not to say that atheists and non-religious people are more inherently moral, I just don't think the morality of a person should be assumed based on whether or not she believes in god.
I was brought up in a home with no religion by parents who have their own, essentially non-religious beliefs about the universe. I was raised with morals, but I was taught to be a good person because it's simply the right thing to do, not because of any religious reason. None of my friends were religious at all, and we never went to church or synagogue or temple or anything. I didn't even know the ten commandments until I hit high school and decided to pick up a bible on my own.
I didn't do shitty things because I didn't want to make other people feel bad. I didn't like the guilty feeling I got when someone felt crappy because of something I did. That's all there was to it. Part of it's selfish, since I tried to be good partly so I didn't have to feel guilty, and I assumed that if I wasn't a jerk to people, they wouldn't be jerks to me (it took me a while to realise that isn't necessarily true); however, part of it was just a genuine desire to not see people upset.
Technically, I guess you could argue that since my parents and grandparents and so on were at least somewhat influenced by religious morals, that I was whether it was overt or not. But religion has been around for so long that you could make that argument and say that there isn't a single person on this planet whose morals weren't influenced by religion. But I wasn't told about god, and I wasn't told to be good because of god. So there you have it.
While I think that it is entirely possible to be raised with morals without religion even today (it may be uncommon, but it's certainly possible), you make a good point.
That's not to say that atheists and non-religious people are more inherently moral, I just don't think the morality of a person should be assumed based on whether or not she believes in god.
I was brought up in a home with no religion by parents who have their own, essentially non-religious beliefs about the universe. I was raised with morals, but I was taught to be a good person because it's simply the right thing to do, not because of any religious reason. None of my friends were religious at all, and we never went to church or synagogue or temple or anything. I didn't even know the ten commandments until I hit high school and decided to pick up a bible on my own.
I didn't do shitty things because I didn't want to make other people feel bad. I didn't like the guilty feeling I got when someone felt crappy because of something I did. That's all there was to it. Part of it's selfish, since I tried to be good partly so I didn't have to feel guilty, and I assumed that if I wasn't a jerk to people, they wouldn't be jerks to me (it took me a while to realise that isn't necessarily true); however, part of it was just a genuine desire to not see people upset.
Technically, I guess you could argue that since my parents and grandparents and so on were at least somewhat influenced by religious morals, that I was whether it was overt or not. But religion has been around for so long that you could make that argument and say that there isn't a single person on this planet whose morals weren't influenced by religion. But I wasn't told about god, and I wasn't told to be good because of god. So there you have it.
While I think that it is entirely possible to be raised with morals without religion even today (it may be uncommon, but it's certainly possible), you make a good point.
It's the very notion that "man is guilty by nature" that invalidates morality. Anyone who offers an unearned, guilt-trip as a 'gift,' can hardly be considered an arbiter of moral rectitude.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 536
- Reaction score
- 22
- Location
- Perth, Western Australia
- Website
- www.reelthinker.com
The net effect, in a utilitarian sense, might be the same, but intentions are as important as actions. A humanist doesn't kill someone because she knows killing is immoral. A religious man doesn't kill someone because he's afraid of a god's punishment. That difference is everything.
(I'm not saying religious folk are all murderers held back by fear of punishment; the point is to illustrate the difference between a rationalist/humanist morality, and a morality based on fear of supernatural retribution)
My current work deals heavily with non-religious morality. An atheist
(who stopped being a Christian after a incident with a gay man being beaten to death) tries to convince an abused child with psychic powers not to harm anyone, even though nobody can punish the child for causing harm. The atheist's morality is based on reason, but it is difficult to explain to a child.
(who stopped being a Christian after a incident with a gay man being beaten to death) tries to convince an abused child with psychic powers not to harm anyone, even though nobody can punish the child for causing harm. The atheist's morality is based on reason, but it is difficult to explain to a child.
- Status