I do not agree that morality necessarily needs a religion unless you are someone that has a
deep need for a belief in the afterlife. There are many people that are self-identifying atheists that
do by many people’s consideration live a morally fulfilled life. There are atheists that do follow
what some consider to be universal moral truths such as no murder, helping your fellow man
when possible, and no racism. If religion was to cure-all to being a morally just person then why
even have psychologists, social workers, or life coaches? The fix for criminal behavior would be
to get them on a regimen of regular practicing faith. So then why do we see some people
belonging to major religious groups still committing heinous crimes? And even if religion were
to be the determinate factor in developing a socially acceptable moral compass, well then which
society is it I am trying to be acceptable for and which religion for that particular society is
considered to most morally just?
Let’s take Christians for example, who base their religion off of the bible. The bible is
complex and full of contradictory ideas. Nobody is able to believe in all of it and thus many
things in the bible are unacceptable to modern Christians. These slight differences in which parts
of the bible to uphold have also caused different denominations of Christianity. This makes
morality even harder to go by because for every major world religion there are even mores
subcategories of those religions that people go by. Many Christians either don’t believe or are
opposed to the idea of magic, but even the ones who do don’t believe in killing practitioners of
sorcery. In the bible, it is suggested that we should be killing witches as they are “advocates of
the devil”. So, are modern Christians basing morality off of the law, the bible, or what is
common in society? People are only taking the parts of the bible that suit their needs.
Many people’s cultural practices today have nothing to do with the bible at all even
though they claim that they do. Catholics for example, believe in having fish instead of meat on
Friday, a practice that was never mentioned in the bible at all. People take religious morality off
of some moral compass that they already have. They only want to go to churches whose
teachings line up with what they like. Since people are deciding what religion to follow based on
a morality they already have, this is why atheists are able to be just as moral as Christians.
Everyone feels that what they believe to be right or wrong most likely lines up with what their
idea of God believes to be right or wrong, which is a clear indication of the hidden narcissist
within us all. If you change someone’s moral beliefs, you change their opinion on what God
thinks. When thinking of God’s beliefs, you are subconsciously accessing your own beliefs.
Morality is not based off of religion as it is more based off of culture, family environment,
finances, and social status because subconsciously people what to believe that they are the God
of their own world.
I am on the fence in regards to some of the information presented in Ethics and the
Kingdom of God (pg.24). It is obvious that there are many moral disagreements but who’s to say
how widespread those disagreements are. Many of the big moral issues today have not been
resolved to the satisfaction of many people, such as abortion. Just because these moral issues
have not been resolved does not mean that they are unresolvable. It must be possible to resolve
these issues otherwise philosophers would not attempt it. I do believe that God’s existence can
make the moral life rational. God’s existence does this whether people know it or not.
Being that there are so many moral issues, this can also cause us to have extreme
skepticism is regards to God. It is odd to tell a woman that is contemplating abortion that either
position she acts on is rationally justified. Giving her this information would be very unhelpful
and gives her no motivation to act one way or the other. You are basically boiling every advice
you could offer someone to “know matter what you decide it is ok” and perhaps that is true
because you decided it for your own life and whatever your circumstances and/or belief in God
are. Skepticism does not take away the desire to be moral but it does take away the motivating
force as morality is based off of feelings, commitments, sacrifices, expectations, and hopes. The
moral life involves risk as it is the risk to follow one’s own personal judgements and inner God,
hence the despair.
The predominance of moral weakness also leads us to be untrusting of the moral powers
not only of ourselves but also others. People have been on a constant struggle for as long as we
can remember to promote the goodness in the world and prevent evil. But is there any evidence
that good is increasing and evil is decreasing? Or is it all just relative? If I were certain that my
judgement about what is good and how to attain it were true, the doubt about my moral efficacy
would leave it rational to act on my moral judgment and take the risk of being ineffective. If
doubt about the judgement itself is added to doubt about my ability to act on it effectively, a high
degree of skepticism occurs. This makes it irrational in many cases to accept the sacrifices it will
take in the quest of being moral. Is our belief in God able to help give us that extra push to act
morally even if we know we will be unaccepted and ineffective such as campaigning? I am
unsure whether people follow their ethics based on God or just survival as it pertains to the law.
I agree that certain moral codes should be followed such as respect for life, regard for
others rights, being truthful, and compassionate. How these virtues reflect in our actions should
be left to each individual. As we grow in self-awareness, we must also become more aware of
our relations with other people and how to allow for the flourishment not only of ourselves but
also others. I believe that the foundation for morality is based off of the capacity for choice. The
basis of morality is knowledge and freedom. We are limited however in our actions due to
parenting, social pressures, and fears/compulsions.
I agree that the reason to be moral is different for many people, whether it is to obey the
law, lead us to our ultimate happiness, promote our growth, strengthen our faith, or even to
facilitate our service to humanity. When we our putting our moral knowledge into practice we
feel as though we are living in our highest truth. The author of morality is the human mind,
reflecting on human experience, not God but the belief in who he/she is. Moral rules are just our
attempt to make sense of the human experience and not have people running around murdering
people and committing theft in the name of moral subjectivity. I believe it our job to make sure
our morals are in alignment with sustainability, meeting the needs of the present without
compromising the needs of the future.
I do believe that imposing one’s own moral onto another is linked in some small way to
the narcissistic God complex. For many people the voice of consciousness is linked with the
voice of God, making everyone believe that their way of thinking is the right way. God is not the
author of moral rules but the author of creation. Humans are made in their divine likeness and it
is the creativity of the human being that the discovery of moral principles comes from. We are all
artists, reflecting and expressing the creativity of God. Our conscience is achieved through
education in a broad sense, meaning everything we see, hear, taste, and smell. God, just like right
and wrong is whatever your understanding of that is.
Works Cited
Davies, Jim. “Religion Does Not Determine Your Morality.” The Conversation, 30 Apr. 2019,
theconversation.com/religion-does-not-determine-your-morality-97895.
Richard W. Miller in "Ways of Moral Learning," Philosophical Review XCIV, 4, (October
1985). See esp. pp. 507-509, 548-556, and fn. 33, p. 539.