Josh Toles

English 220-007
Jennifer Gammage
25 April 2014

An Argument For Non-Religious Morality
Before you begin reading this paper, take a moment to answer the following
questions: Why dont you steal the things you want? Why dont you kill the people
you dont like?
The majority of people will answer these questions with because its wrong.
This is a valid answer as it is definitely wrong to steal things and kill people, but why
are those things wrong? This question is not arguing for the morality of theft and
murder but rather inquiring as to what makes you be a good person? In other
words, where do you get your morals? Perhaps you get your morals from your
parents, or from your religion, or maybe you feel theyve always been engrained
inside you. The majority of the world (84% in-fact) believes that morality comes
from a supernatural source. They look to their churches to tell them what is right
and wrong in the eyes of whatever god they worship. Because of this many religious
people view the non-religious as having no basis for morality. I assert that there are
intrinsic benefits to living a moral, ethical life without being a theist or subscribing
to a specific set of values designated by a religious organization. This paper will
serve as an argument for that claim by discussing the origins of morality as well as
the flaws in the religious morality system.
I have already thrown around the word morality quite a bit and before we go
any further, I want to properly define it so there is no confusion later on. Morals are
principles concerned with the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad
character
Theists claim to get their morals straight from God. However even the most
devout religious people will admit that no god has ever descended from the sky to
announce his or her definition of right vs. wrong. So in actuality, most theists get
their morals from their religions holy book and from their church. The argument I
am about to make pertains to all religions but for the sake of simplicity, I am going
to use modern Christianity as that is the one I am most familiar with.
Christians claim that their bible is the direct word of God. However all 6
denominations of Christianity and most of the 33,000 sub-sects interpret the bible
differently when it comes to morality. Everyone has heard of the 10
commandments, but did you know that the bible actually has 613 commandments?
You never hear about the other 603 because most of them are completely ridiculous.
Christians cherry-pick the biblical laws that they want to follow such as do not
steal, murder, or have homosexual relations and they ignore the ones that they dont
want to follow such as laws against eating shell fish, trimming your beard, wearing
mixed fabrics, or getting tattoos. Religious apologists are quick to counter this
argument with claims that Jesus coming in the New Testament makes all Old
Testament laws irrelevant. However the 10 commandments are in the Old
Testament, as are the verses you see on picket signs at anti-gay protests. If they are
irrelevant, how can you still claim them as law? You cannot reinterpret the bible as
you see fit while at the same time claiming it is the spoken word of God.
Quite ironically, many Christians who cite the bible as their moral source
have never actually read it. These people get their morals through a middleman: a
preacher. Every Sunday, these men get up on a podium and tell their congregations
how God wants them to live their lives. Preachers are seen as father figures and wise
religious leaders (especially the mega-church preachers on TV). So why is it that an
alarming number of these religious leaders dont actually live by the moral code
they teach? In 2007, the Roman Catholic Church had to settle over 500 cases of child
sexual abuse by priests. Christian preachers are no better. A few examples are
Marcus Lamb who cheated on his wife, Creflo Dollar who assaulted his daughter, Jim
Bakker who stole 158 million dollars from his followers, Jimmy Swaggart who was
caught with a prostitute twice, Ted Haggard who was caught with a gay prostitute
and methamphetamine, and Eddie Long, who raped young boys in his congregation.
Just a few weeks ago there was a mega-church preacher in Florida by the name of
Bob Coy who resigned because of adultery. The point I am trying to make is when
even the leaders of your faith lack morality, how can you claim a monopoly on
morality? Religion does not correlate to morality or ethics. This knocks out the
argument that religious people are morally superior to non-religious people and
makes the apologists appeals to authority even more fallacious than they already
were.
Now that we have highlighted some of the flaws in religious moral arguments
lets move back to morality itself. Where does it come from if not from a god? To
answer that, we must first find what we base morality on. It is not power. A man
with a gun can impose his wishes but this tells us nothing about his principles. It is
not majority preference. If the majority of people enjoy watching human sacrifice,
this does not make human sacrifice right. It is not tradition. The fact that something
has been practiced for generations tells us nothing about its virtue. It is not law.
Although what is written in law may largely reflect what a society deems right or
wrong, laws can be unjust and they do not determine morality.
The simple truth is that our morality is based off survival and improving
quality of life. It is a result of natural selection. Societies in which individuals
coordinate their different talents and develop effective ways of promoting
harmonious living while minimizing conflict and needless suffering will tend to be
happier, more peaceful, and more productive. To put it simply, morality eases the
challenges of coexistence. Because our ancestors lived with a moral code they
survived to pass that code down the generations just as we impart that morality
onto our children. The existence or non-existence of a deity is simply not a factor
when it comes to morality. It is an intrinsically beneficial human construct.
I recently heard a Christian argument about morality and the meaning of life.
The shorthand of the message was something along the lines of if you dont believe
in a god or an afterlife, being a moral person during your life will not matter at all in
the end. This bothered me because I also remembered reading a passage of The Gay
Science where Nietzsche suggested that because there is no god, there are no
transcendent values, no transcendent morals, and no transcendent purpose. Both
the Christian man and Nietzsche are essentially equating agnosticism and atheism to
nihilism. Is it fair to say that because someone does not believe in a deity, their life
has no meaning and they should just mope about all day not caring about anything?
Absolutely not! Whether you are religious or not, there is no preplanned grand
scheme or ultimate purpose for your life. It is up to you give your own life meaning,
and the better you do that (i.e. being a moral person), the more you will enjoy living.
In conclusion, the notion that religion somehow entails morality is
hypocritical and unfounded. Our morals are simply a device used to strengthen
communities and make coexisting with our fellow humans easier. You most
certainly do not need to subscribe to a religion to be a moral person; the inclination
to do good is engrained in all of us. It is this instinctive quality that allows us to be
good without gods.


















Works Cited

Flaccus, Gillian. "L.A. Catholic Church to Pay $13 Million to Settle 17 Sex Abuse
Lawsuits." The Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor, 18
Feb. 2014.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. The Gay Science. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications,
2006

Evans, Justin J. "The Facts and Stats on 33000 Denominations: World Christian
Encyclopedia (2001, 2nd Edition)."

Hill, Dave. "76 Things Banned in Leviticus (and Their Penalties)." Dave Does the Blog
RSS. N.p., 13 June 2012.