Is Religion Needed For Morality? Are Secular Morality and Ethics Possible?

[LillyCaterina]

No. Religion is not needed for morality.

Practicing a particular kind of established religion doesn't necessarily make one a Christian. While good conduct should be maintained, being a Christian is not earned by good work. Salvation is by Grace alone. And this is an entirely personal matter.

[Alice]

No, because there are philosophical truths that can be known by reason alone. These moral norms can be known without recourse to religion.

[Chlodovech]

It's theoretically possible to have some basic morals without religion - enough to make you tolerable enough to be around. They're still ethics of a lesser nature and susceptible to change at a moment's notice depending on one's own interests/the latest trends/one's personal character - it makes you rather unreliable and unpredictable in an area of life in which one should be predictable. The irreligious can deny this all they want, but I don't believe they're the geniuses who figured out life and how to live by themselves and yet they all seem to make that claim on some level.

Is religion needed for high culture/art? Yes absolutely, the answer is much clearer than in the case of morality - there are examples of rather moral irreligious people, but not of irreligious societies cherishing beauty. The way religion is required for beauty, it is probably required for morality too, they're closely related anyway. Secularism gives us sculptures of dildos in city centers, but no Michelangelo. What goes for art and religion likely goes for religion and morality as well.

It's not that religious people don't mess up, but at least they're supposed to live up to a standard and can be held accountable when they don't, not so with those who lack religion - and hence a standard which can be easily defined. Which is a western disease.

Secular people are just as, if not more, moral than religious people.

That's how irreligious people delude themselves into thinking they're better than religious folks - and they don't even have to make any effort for it. And that's the main thing - they can do whatever they like AND be lazy AND still be morally superior (in their own eyes). I don't think so though. I don't see it. It requires making virtue out of vice - see the abortion/euthanasia epidemic - if you dress it up in moral language, you can present it as moral.

Another thing to consider is: tradition(alism) without religion is impossible - it's unthinkable and simply does not happen. What remains is hobbyism which can never catch on. If people stop adhering to religion, they also do away with tradition every single time.

[Siebenbürgerin]

In my view, religious morality is the root or base of any type of morality. While there can be morally virtuous atheists, their set of morals is in reality borrowed from religion. The most simple and basic set of morals are the Ten Commandments. For example, do not steal, do not lie, do not covet, do not murder, and so forth. The Ten Commandments is an example of absolute morality. In the absence of such a moral system and a God who decides such issues, every moral decision would be relative. To some person, lying would be acceptable under some circumstances, to another not at all, and to another morals wouldn't matter. We can see moral relativism in secular societies. The rise of certain directions which were previously considered immoral or even sinful, and now are considered acceptable or even promoted. Unfortunately, moral relativism leads to social decay. For morality to function in society, we need a system of absolute morality, established by an unquestionable, higher authority who are themselves the most shining example of morals (i.e. God).

[Terminus]

In my view, religious morality is the root or base of any type of morality. While there can be morally virtuous atheists, their set of morals is in reality borrowed from religion. The most simple and basic set of morals are the Ten Commandments. For example, do not steal, do not lie, do not covet, do not murder, and so forth.

That's absurd. First of all, by religious, you mean Jewish-Christian. Confucius and Buddha have been typically accused of being atheists by Christians. Second, biological morality is the root/basis of morality. Herbert Spencer was the first to anchor this idea in people's minds yet only Darwin is promoted. Why did Nietzsche go insane, despite his call for Europe to return to itself and his affinity with the pre-Socratic ancient Greeks?

Instinct is sympathy. Sympathy/altruism is promoted by Christians. Nietzsche's attack on this aspect of Christianity's ethics was a biological mistake.

All the commands you mentioned existed in previous civilizations and preceded Moses. Curiously, you've omitted to mention the precepts concerning the Sabbath and not serving other gods/images. What do these have to do with ethics?

The Ten Commandments is an example of absolute morality... such a moral system and a God who decides such issues...

That's exactly what Ken Spiro (Jew) said: "absolute moral standard that comes from that god". And therein lies the problem.

For instance, if "thou shalt not kill" (deliberate English mistranslation) was taken to it's logical extreme, everyone would be parasitized and preyed upon. A world where one would be forbidden from killing ants, wasps, moths, rats, hares, etc. would perish.

In the absence of such a moral system and a God who decides such issues, every moral decision would be relative. To some person, lying would be acceptable under some circumstances, to another not at all, and to another morals wouldn't matter. We can see moral relativism in secular societies.
The rise of certain directions which were previously considered immoral or even sinful, and now are considered acceptable or even promoted. Unfortunately, moral relativism leads to social decay.

Pragmatism is also found in Christianity, especially in the Jesuit sects.

Early marriage and polygamy offer Muslims incredible advantages over the Christendom. The monastic life tore Germans from reality. How can homosexuality be considered a "sin" if it's a mental condition and not necessarily a choice? It's even found among animals.

For morality to function in society, we need a system of absolute morality, established by an unquestionable, higher authority who are themselves the most shining example of morals (i.e. God).

I'll admit that I find theocracy to be attractive, but the latter have always been lacking. Christianity has no such representatives. Christians are the last to keep their teachings.

[schwab]

The 10 commandments are sure a good base for morality.
Just imagine what would happen if every human being would abide by them? The world would be a different place.

[SaxonPagan]

I don’t know of any societies where lying, stealing and murder are deemed acceptable.

Morality is man-made, just like religion, but there’s a far greater consensus across the world about morality than there is about ‘God’.

Personally, I have my doubts about folks who model their behaviour on instructions from a book or pulpit. I’d be far more reassured if I thought they’d worked this stuff out by themselves. I'm sure that many of them would - it really isn't that difficult!

[velvet]

Personally, I have my doubts about folks who model their behaviour on instructions from a book or pulpit. I’d be far more reassured if I thought they’d worked this stuff out by themselves. I'm sure that many of them would - it really isn't that difficult!

Indeed. Much of "morality" is simply a biological imperative for a herd animal like humans. Just because we go about this more "sophisiticated" doesnt change that it's a biological result. We live in groups, and for groups to function it would be insanely bad if everyone would kill everyone randomly. For a group to function trust is important, so if everyone lies or steals all the time, there would be no trust. No trust = no group. Cooperation and in-group altruism can be found across the animal kingdom, ants are even called civilisation for that reason, they've reached such a high level of in-group organisation that it warrants that term, same with bees. Meerkats have kindergardens, a wolf pack exists only to provide social security for the offspring of the alpha couple, all large herd animals protect the herd's young. None of them needs christianity to behave "morally" for their group.

It is Nature that creates the "morality" for a group to function, gods are merely the protectors of the social concepts that arise from Nature. A single god cannot fullfil this role alone, a single god creates a standstill, entropy that halts development. A dance of balance of various powers/gods, just like in Nature, is a more healthy approach to social, cosmic and religious matters.

Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in 'another' or 'better' life. Hatred of 'the world', condemnations of the passions, fear of beauty and sensuality, a beyond invented the better to slander this life.

[zoey]

I treat the question in itself as an offence although relevant. It tends to question the resting place of humanity and morality as religion. Its like asking if religion is needed for violence? Although religion has been a major cause of bloodshed and violent wars throughout history, religion is an ideology to exhibit violence. Benevolence and violence are innate to humans, and religion is no vehicle of morality. If the very fact of one being a humane rely on religions, then I find it pointless of being a human.

[Nordic Angel]

Is Religion Needed For Morality?

No it's not. There are atheists (also among the people I know personally) who are way more ethical than many religious people. Already very young children have an instinct of what's moral and what's not, this has been scientifically proven. So definitely not.