Humans are social animals and cooperation is needed for society, and the humans within it, to prosper and survive. To maintain and enhance cooperation, each culture has evolved norms of human behavior. Culturally appropriate forms of etiquette—norms regarding how people act with regard to each other—act as a social lubricant and help to reduce interpersonal conflict. Violations of etiquette norms may increase social tensions, but do not necessarily threaten the existence of society. To deal with behaviors that threaten society as a whole, cultures evolved moral norms, ways of behaving that are required for the continuation of the society.
In today’s society, there are many people, including many politicians, who view the idea of morality as an absolute set of inflexible rules which were handed down by a deity to a prophet. The prophet then “gave” the rules to the people so that they could live moral lives and not anger the deity. If these god-given moral rules are violated, then there can be angry retaliation in the form of natural disasters (hurricanes, tornados, blizzards, earthquakes, wild fires), illness (AIDS, epidemics), and wars. The proponents of the god-given rules of morality generally ignore the fact that many of the people hurt in the natural disasters sent by the deity as punishment for violating moral rules are people who are actually trying to live by these same rules.
For many people, it is only by following these god-given rules that a person can be good, can be considered a “moral” person. All of those who don’t follow these rules are therefore not moral. Following the rules set down by another god to another prophet also makes a person immoral in their eyes . In an essay in The Big Questions, psychologist Ara Norenzayan writes
“People steeped in the Abrahamic faiths are so accustomed to seeing a link between religion and morality that it is hard for them to imagine that religion did not start that way.”
In their book In Freedom We Trust: An Atheist Guide to Religious Liberty, Edward Buckner and Michael Buckner write:
“The philosophical questions related to whether morality needs an absolute basis, a source beyond humankind, have engaged theologians and philosophers for centuries. Atheists and many other secularists come down, usually, on the situational side of the question, in agreement with the idea that no absolute basis—no god—is needed.”
In an essay in The Big Questions, Victor Stenger writes:
“If God is the source of morality, then we should find evidence for a supernatural origin in human behaviour. We do not.”
Victor Stenger goes on to say:
“…moral behaviour appears to have evolved socially.”
In an essay in Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?, Arthur C. Clarke writes:
“The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.”
One of the problems with god-given moral norms or moral codes is that they are written down. Over time all societies change. Written codes of behavior, while often modified through time, tend not to change. Thus after a few centuries, these moral norms are often irrelevant to the survival needs of the people and may in fact hinder their survival. While an autocratic king may have been vital to the survival of a society several millennia ago, in a world in which democracies are common, moral norms calling for the support of a king seem a little out of sync with modern society.
While there are some claims that a cross-cultural examination of moral codes finds much similarity among different cultures, such claims, which are generally true only on a very broad level, are due to the natural needs of the group rather than to any deity or supernatural entity. Mathematician John Allen Paulos, in his book Irreligion: Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up, writes:
“How will they get food, keep warm, protect themselves from predators, and other humans, mate, and reproduce? Any group that doesn’t meet these basic requirements doesn’t last long.”
John Allen Paulos goes on to point out:
“These natural constraints, rather than commandments from a God, are the reason for whatever rough similarity of moral codes there is across cultures.”
While there is a common feeling or belief that moral behavior is dependent upon obedience to rules or norms dictated by a deity to a prophet, there are also many who disagree. In his book Beginner’s Guide to Blasphemy, Richard Wackrow writes:
“Atheists do the right thing because it is the right thing to do—not because they expect their behavior to be rewarded or punished by a Great Arbitrator in the Sky.”
Richard Wackrow also writes:
“In reality, one does not need an imaginary friend to behave morally. Ethical treatment of each other (the Golden Rule) in fact preceded any religious belief. And moral behavior by both the religious and the non-religious, therefore, is not contingent on any religious dogma but rather on parental guidance, enlightened self-interest and common sense.”
If god-given rules, norms, pronouncements, commandments, and/or edicts are not needed for morality, then what should be the source of morality in the twenty-first century? British philosopher A.C. Grayling, in his book Life,Sex and Ideas: The Good Life Without God, provides on possible clue:
“Education in literature, history, and appreciation of the arts opens the possibility for us to live more reflectively and knowledgeably, especially about the nature and variety of human experience. That, in turn, increases our capacity for understanding others better, so that we can treat them with respect and sympathy, however different their outlook on life. When sympathy and respect are returned, the result is that the differences which cause friction, even conflict, come to be resolved or at least tolerated.”
In an essay in The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever, Albert Einstein writes:
“The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life. To make this a living force and bring it to clear consciousness is perhaps the foremost task of education. The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.”
Albert Einstein also writes:
“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectively on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary.”
Moral norms are the recognized behaviors that ensure, enhance, and promote the survival of society. It is evident today that human-caused global warming is a danger to the survival of society and thus it should be a moral obligation to research, promote, and use forms of energy which do not aid global warming. Actions which encourage the use of coal and oil should be seen as immoral.
It is evident today that overpopulation and poverty are threats to the continuation of society. Thus, family planning, including the use of contraception and abortion, is a moral activity. Actions to alleviate poverty, to distribute the society’s wealth in a humane and empathetic manner should be seen as moral actions. Actions which restrict family planning, which transfer wealth from the poor to the wealthy, which deny education and health to people because of their lack of wealth, should be seen as immoral.
Religion 101
Religion 101 is a series exploring various topics in religion in which the concept of religion is not restricted to the Abrahamic religions nor to a belief in gods. The topics explored have included:
Religion 101: Theism, Pantheism, Panentheism
Religion 101: Hidden Blasphemy
Religion 101: Some Norse Gods
Religion 101: The Great Awakenings
Religion 101: Confucianism
Religion 101: Naturalism
Religion 101: The Evolution of Morality
Religion 101: Divination in Ancient Civilizations
