ethics - Is religion necessary for the good life? - Philosophy Stack Exchange
(How) Can morals exist without religion?
There is no morality without religion
CMV: there can be no morality without religion
From a Deontological point of view, I think that ethics are naturally approximated by virtue of reason alone, that is : There is something in us humans that belongs to our nature, and that has this ability to approximate what is right, what is wrong and what might be suspected to be wrong.
How can you identify what is morally right without the help of religion? Doesn't morality depend on religion?
I think not, consider this thought experiment :
Suppose that Joe is an atheist (who was raised without any religion) and he wants to convert to Islam, Christianity or Hinduism (let us call it Religion R).
All Joe cares about is ethics, since he wants to convert to Religion R, he needs to verify whether the religion itself sets deontologically true moral laws or not.
As Joe started to read the Holy Book of R, he stumbled upon a verse : 30. Lo! Ye shalt not steal, for stealing is wrong.
Now, what reference should Joe use to verify whether the Book of R tells the truth? Does he just have to accept the claim, given the premise Morality depends on religion is true?
But remember that Joe is in the process of verifying religions and comparing them to find which is morally better
What if Joe were to choose between two religions R and S : R asserting that stealing is wrong, and S asserting that it is right? Which one can this unfortunate atheist choose? and on what basis?
From the previous thought experiment : it is obvious that whether we love a religion or hate another based on morals and ethics, is based on a deeper deontological level of ethics, and not on religions themselves.
It is also clear that if religions were the ultimate reference of ethics, Joe should accept any religion without a second thought, even if he is unlucky enough to meet a preacher for religion S (which states that stealing is right).
Edit
If morality depends on religion, then it follows that Joe cannot convert to any religion based on ethical comparisons and moral judgements, since he would not have any moral system to rely on to judge which religion provides the best moral system.
So, If MORALITY_DEPENDS_ON_RELIGION then JOE_CANNOT_COMPARE_RELIGIONS
Since Joe can reasonably compare and distinguish right from wrong religious ethics, it follows that the consequent in the previous conditional (i.e JOE_CANNOT_COMPARE_RELIGIONS) is false.
Therefore, using Modus Tollens, it follows that the antecedent is also false : MORALITY_DEPENDS_ON_RELIGION is false.
One secular philosophical principle ethics can be derived from is the principle of humanism.
There is quite a lot of literature about humanism, but the concept of humanism can be grossly oversimplified as "The world would be a better place when everyone would be nice to everyone else, so we should generally all try to be nice people". Humanists consider actions morally right when they cause more good than harm and morally wrong when they cause more harm than good to everyone affected by the action.
This might seem a bit vague compared to the more concrete moral advice provided by religious dogma. While a religion might provide simple and easy to understand rules, like for example "Thou shalt not commit adultery", the answer to the question "Is it morally acceptable to have an intimate relationships with a person I am not married to?" is a lot more difficult for a humanist. The humanist needs to estimate how it would make them feel, how it would make their lover feel, how it would affect potential other people they or their lover have interpersonal relationships with, the good and bad consequences of having an illegitimate child, the risk and consequences of spreading sexually transmitted diseases, etc. A humanist needs to look at the consequences of every decision they make and then make a judgment call if the potential benefits outweigh the potential suffering or not. Depending on the circumstances, the humanists could come to the conclusion "I am single, they are single, we are both consenting adults, the risk of pregnancy and STDs can be largely mitigated if we use condoms, so let's have fun!" or "I am married to a very jealous person who would divorce me if they find out and drag our children through a stressful divorce and my lover might not really want it anyway but only do it to spite their partner who has anger management problems and does martial arts. This is a very bad idea!".
That makes moral decisions a lot more difficult for humanists than for religious people. While a religious person only needs to follow the dogma of their religion, a humanist needs to constantly evaluate all the consequences of their actions and is then responsible for making the ideal decision not just for them but also for the world around them. But on the other hand, giving that much responsibility to the individual also protects the world from actions which might be moral according to religious dogma but only have negative consequences in practice. A holy book cannot cover every possible situation in life, so following its advice might lead to suboptimal results in some situations.
I've recently left Christianity, and this is the main question I'm grappling with. Take what are, at least in my opinion, the two basic "moral" standards most people hold: the golden rule and justice/fairness. From a religious perspective, actions in line with these principles are objectively good because they please god. But without religion, are there any real grounds for saying that a just act is somehow better than an unjust one? Or that serving others is better than serving self? Couldn't these principles be reduced to modes of behavior people tend to like? I am familiar with plato's argument in the republic that justice is beneficial to the individual and society as a whole, but I don't really find it all that convincing (as grounds for cleaning that justice is "good" and injustice is "bad"), so I am more interested in theories that don't rely on self-benefit (Or perhaps something more convincing than plato).