Is Religion Necessary for Morality to Exist?

 

Many consider knowledge between what is good and bad for all impossible without the existence of God. This is commonly referred to as the theistic belief in which all morality originates from God. This belief gave rise to the establishment of Religion, effectively giving certain people the authority over others, acting as judges over the proper procedure throughout life.  

The Divine Command theory states that all morality is decided by God. All obligations to it are also decided by this Supreme Being in a supernatural manner unbeknownst to mankind. For example, one of the leading philosophers for the argument of the existence of morality being more than just a social construct is Immanuel Kant. He argues that there is a need for a belief in a God in order to rest in the hope that there is more in the afterlife instead of an oblivious end after a pitiful mortal life (Austin 2020). Thus, a belief in a God warrants optimism in a life after death.


“Creation of Adam” by Michelangelo, found at the Sistine Chapel.


Consider the aspect of morality; is the desire for more than just this life the sole inspiration behind the act of morality? Is the typical man solely driven to do what is right or wrong simply because they wish to spend an eternity in either a Utopia or a Dystopia? Immanuel Kant himself abandoned his religion yet many still consider him the father of the philosophy of Morality (Kant 1949). Although most of his perceptions were based off of his religious understanding of either good or bad, he conceived a deeper understanding of the dichotomy through philosophy rather than religion.

Watch Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGPMCwrm99o



Consequentialism is the theory that the outcome of any situation depends on the probability that something is either good or bad. There are two theories of Consequentialism that will be delved further into in this essay; the first of which is Utilitarianism. The theory states that an action is only morally right if it maximizes on the good; this is where the total amount of good for all outweighs the total amount of bad for all. For instance, in the year 2014, the Prime Minister of Fiji (Frank Bainimarama) announced that secondary and primary school education would be provided free of charge for all Fijian citizens. There were those in the Opposition Party who assumed that this decision would prove detrimental to the national budget, but in spite of these allegations, the act was passed in favor of the good of all being greater than the bad (Sinnott-Armstrong 2019). So, a Utilitarian would argue that the good of all is far more important if it exceeded the bad for all (Radio New Zealand 2013).

The previous example being mentioned is an act of ‘Separation of Church and State’; this is where the affairs of the Government are carried out without the influence of a single religion to cater for the others. Also, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Utilitarianism demands too much (Sinnott-Armstrong, Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2019). Picture this; it would not seem practical to give up money spent on new shoes if it would utilize the maximum good for an individual to give the money away for charity instead. Yet this decision between buying a new pair of shoes and giving it away to charity does not require religion at all.


A quote by Thomas Jefferson

The second theory of Consequentialism is the Harm Principle. The theory states that an individual is free to make any moral decision they please; as long as it does not harm anyone else in the process. To paint this picture, a study was conducted by Douglas Diekema to try and evaluate the amount of say a minor had in their medical treatment when opposed by their parents who wanted otherwise. A minor could refuse to accept medicine and consider this act moral because it harms no one else, the state would even enforce this decision by law. However, these distress the parents who oppose the state for the benefit of their own children (Diekema 2004). Thus, an act that is only considered moral if not harmful, according to their personal understanding, may still prove harmful to others.

A relativist would argue that there is no absolute truth and that truth is a matter of perspective. This stance carries its own set of fallacies yet it is still bears the potential for morality. In this case, the deciding factor lies within the realm of personal opinion and not religion. Nonetheless, this principle is lacking in terms of what the majority readily accepts as harmful. What one person considers abusive, another may consider miniscule. The lack of a universal definition of what is considered harmful prevents this theory from becoming absolute (Holtug 2002).

Watch Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hACdhD_kes8


Governance is the system by which an organization operates and whose people are held accountable. There are two approaches to Governance that will be discussed further in this essay; the first of which is Self-Governance. This is where an individual operates independent of external forces. Unfortunately, this theory cannot be fully exercised if the autonomy of the people is challenged (Skorupski 2004). For example, Guam is considered an unincorporated state; this is where the United States is free to carry out any military action in the territory of Guam without having to grant them full citizenship. In this situation, due to the Organic Act of 1905, the indigenous people of Guam are limited in their freedom so they cannot claim to be a self-governing nation (Tressa P. Diaz 2019). Therefore, morality is limited in an environment where its people cannot make a choice that is truly free of outside causes.


Governance

Religion is not necessary for one to make a moral decision. In the territory of Guam, there are people who are protesting against the injustice of being an unincorporated state. They are fighting for either the status of an independent state or a recognized state of the US, instead of being stuck somewhere in the middle. The protests are held and organized by non-religious organizations (Bevacqua 2017). Historically, the problem arose out of a racially driven desire to segregate the natives from the “whites” and is presently being challenged by non-whites; all this is without the influence of religion. Alas, there is no necessity for religion if an individual or a group was to make a truly autonomous decision.

Watch Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5NHYkTO3tU


The second approach to Governance is Family Governance. This approach is where a closely related group of people make a collective decision for the benefit of the family’s vision (JuliaSuess 2014). To illustrate, consider a typical religious family sending their eldest child to a university. Once there the child opens his mind to the science of Evolution then converts from being a theist to an agnostic then finally becoming an atheist. The sense of morality that the hypothetical child had was that of the family’s but not truly his own. Thus, an individual’s sense of morality is not decided by his family, but it could be influenced by them.

An atheist could argue that some people, who claim to make a moral judgment due to religion, only do so because they witness those whom they care about do the same in similar situations. If so, then the judgment cannot truly be moral if not personal. To illustrate, if a child were forced to attend a church service by his parents from an early age, is he truly regarded as a church going person? It is possible that the child simply desired to escape corporal punishment from his conserved parents. Then is he responsible for every decision that he makes or is he just parroting those around him? Hence, the authenticity of a moral judgment is rendered questionable if it is being governed by others.

Unfortunately, because religion is the single greatest defender of the Divine Command Theory, many assume that morality originated from it and is intrinsically linked to it. Perhaps, awareness on the fact that morality has been practiced in many cases without the use of established religion could help aid an individual in understanding why it is not necessary for morality. Personally, I would not negate the fact that religion plays a vital role in helping one understand morality deeper than if they tried to without it.

Comments