Does Morality Require Religion?

This philosophical issue has been analyzed more than the total number of rotations the four wheels of your most-used car has completed. The ordinary mind displays a predilection to ignore this question. This is fine. Not everyone needs to ponder abstractions. The underlying beliefs held by the members of a society affect how they behave and treat each other. Even if many don’t see this causality, moral understandings give form to the manner by which society operates. But again, does a clownfish need to know what water is to live a satisfying life? Perhaps the concrete triumphs over the ethereal.

Many people argue that the ability to define right and wrong requires religion, referencing text such as the Bible or Quran. Others argue the opposite. So, who is correct? I’d say the latter.

That said, many people who state that religion is not necessary for morality provide feeble reasoning.

***

Person A: “Do you believe that religion is required to know what is right or wrong?”

Person B: “Uhhhhh no I do not.”

Person A: “Would you care to explain why?”

Person B: “‘Cause you know, it’s just not needed. Like everyone knows what’s right and wrong.”

Person A: “How do you know if something is right or wrong?”

Person B: “It’s just something you know like, you’re taught it.”

***

🤨🥴😂

Lord…

This is intellectual laziness on behalf of Person B. One can make a valid argument that religion is not needed to decipher right from wrong, but saying “just cuz” is baseless.

A less groundless support for the position is the golden rule – treat people the way you want to be treated. However, for each scenario, not everyone would want to be treated like you would. You may not mind jokes being made at your expense. That doesn’t mean other people wouldn’t mind. You may not mind being in a noisy environment. That does not mean other people won’t become annoyed if you blast music from your car or talk to friends or relatives on speaker phone in a restaurant.

So, for the case that religion is not needed for morality, how can a solid argument be constructed? A valid starting point is the fact that humans are social animals. Unlike solitary animals – orangutans, platypuses, and jaguars, to name a few – humans rely on each other to survive. This has been the case for no less than 300,000 years. Humans have therefore formed tribes and clans to increase the likelihood of surviving the wilderness.

In order for tribe members to get along with each other, it’s imperative that they trust each other. Each member must, for instance, have absolute faith that no other member will kill them. After the men hunt the game, the meat is distributed among all the members of the tribe. After everyone gets their share, is it okay for one member to take the share of another? No, unless they want that member to die, which would, in turn, diminish the strength of the tribe against the elements. One less man means one less hunter; one less boy, future hunter; female, child bearer and berry picker. Thus, that killing needlessly and stealing is “wrong” is tied more closely to anthropology than strictly religion.

Now, at some point in our history, many tribes fought with other tribes, and some tribes got on well with neighboring tribes. Which do you think went on to later form cohesive, advanced societies – tribes that lessened their numbers through warfare, or tribes that strengthened their numbers by cooperation? When a termite colony ceases functioning as a unit and the members begin to kill and steal from each other, you can bet that colony will be destroyed. Even though these insects have barely any sentience, self-awareness, or cognitive capacity, they certainly have an ingrained standard of behavior – a crude variation of what we humans call “morality.”

Ultimately, that a decision is “right” and “wrong” can be determined by whether said choice, directly or indirectly, promotes the propagation of the human race or enables the destruction of said race. By this logic, abortion is wrong because such an act runs contrary to the goal of a social mammalian species to be fruitful. For the same reason, killing someone due to losing an argument is also wrong; on the flip side, killing a lunatic on a shooting spree is just because it prevents the death of the innocent. Sodomy is wrong because such an act is a vector for the spread of infections and disfiguration of anal sphincters. Adultery and divorce are wrong because of their potential to destabilize families, which are the building blocks of society. Ditto having children out of wedlock.

The monogamous family structure is indeed the building block of society. Such families form viable communities, which form stable societies. The following is stated in a PubMed Central article: “In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses.” Therefore, monogamy as a mating strategy is more virtuous than polygamy, polygyny, polyamory and polyandry.

Perhaps this argument isn’t perfect, but it is superior to “that’s just the way it is.”

Now here’s the twist: Although religion is not needed for the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, it is, from a pragmatic standpoint, nonetheless a useful tool to direct society. This is because a sector of people lacks sufficient inclination to conduct themselves ethically.

Certain qualities enable unenforced ethical conduct:

1. the ability to notice patterns
2. the ability or willingness to take a birds-eye perspective of a chain of events
3. the ability or willingness to entertain seemingly contradictory viewpoints
4. the ability or willingness to exercise counterfactual thinking

Exhibiting each of these qualities to a high degree leads to being compatible with an advanced, cohesive society. The first quality listed above helps link cause and effect. The second allows one to see second and third order consequences; that is, the consequences of the consequences, and the consequences of the consequences of the consequences. The third is appropriate for the joke and noise examples illustrated above. The fourth regards thinking about “what if” scenarios. “Whew, I almost forgot to turn the stove off since I was rushing to leave for work! Imagine if I forgot? The house or neighborhood could have been burned down.”

Those who excel at showcasing the four listed traits are on the far-right end of the continuum that represents moral inclination. However, other people are at the low (left) end of said gradient. Many of such people rot in our prisons. More people would be locked up if it weren’t for religion. People on the low end of the gradient are more susceptible to not questioning well-established doctrines. Suppose I told you that if you do anything wrong that a three-headed ghost with sharp teeth will chew on your soul for eternity once you die. This is obviously silly. Though, if enough people in a society fall for that trick, and violence and overall crime decreases, then the use of the fake ghost is justified. In terms of importance, whether it exists is ancillary to the lower crime rate.

Kings, emperors, presidents and other societal leaders understand this concept. Stating something that may or may not be true benefits society if it makes it more prosperous. And yes, everyone needs to be told this, even those who are more naturally inclined to behave ethically. This is the same as the K-12 teacher teaching to the lowest denominator. The lesson is so important that the “slow” kids need to master it before the class moves to a new subject, so everyone else is stuck listen to the same repetitive lecture.