Our post-modern (particularly Western) society has seen a decline in religious conformity that has, in the last century been echoed throughout the world partly through advances in communication, travel and the subsequent mixing of cultures. This then raises the question of whether there has been a decline also in morality. Certainly there has been a tangible change in valued morals that could not have been predicted by Plato or Moses as he stood reading the Ten Commandments which simplified morality to ‘Do not steal’, ‘Do not lie’ etcetera. ‘Do not kill’ has been interpreted fairly loosely when concerning war, particularly religiously motivated wars, abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment. Society has evolved to partly accept many of these technically immoral acts. Discussions still surge onwards as to the moral implications of abortion and euthanasia and whether they can be justified. The morality of religiously motivated ideas such as the Spanish Inquisition; torture and death inflicted upon human lives in the name of God can be called into question, as can Bloody Mary’s burning of Protestants and the more recent increase in suicide bombers originating from the Middle East. Severe waste of human life has been inflicted in the name of several different Gods throughout history, not merely in the snapshot offered above. Perhaps it is not just a question of morality without God, but whether God imposes any real sense of morality in the first place. Certainly the Bible is open to interpretation, but it appears to have had an equally troublesome impact on humankind as it has beneficial. Correspondingly, non-religious members of society have not risen together in a revolution of anarchy as of yet. For these members of society who have chosen to live morally acceptable lives and yet relinquish any association with religion there must be reason for respecting moral codes, in particular the moral codes that have been set up by and accepted as religious orders. There is perhaps an even more virtuous aspect to atheists who obey moral laws when they have little or no motivation, which for religious believers comes in the form of an afterlife.
Without God, without reward and punishment, love of God, obedience to or fulfilment gained from adhering to God’s moral laws, atheists are still able to behave in a morally virtuous way. Why would this occur, when an atheist can steal, lie, commit adultery without threat of punishment from God? From birth, whether religiously or in a purely secular nature, morals are woven into learning and development. For example; when discovered lying a child may be reprimanded by its parents, therefore reinforcing a moral law that is commonly held in society as correct. Can it then be society that helps us to uphold moral laws? Secular law is a motivation to be considered. Founded by religion and only having limited coverage of moral laws such as ‘Do not steal’ and ‘Do not kill’, still created some incentive to do the right thing through a tangible punishment that occurs during ones lifetime, if found out. Society has also formed ways of protecting itself, for example; attitudes towards those who break ethical standards. An adulterer or murderers may be shunned by society or judged through that act. However, the question of where such ethical standards have arisen from hinders discussion. The idea of committing adultery is wrong because God deemed it so; if there were no God that provided the basis for secular law and these ideas now intrinsic in society, would it still been seen as morally wrong? Would there be a morally wrong? One argument centres round human compassion, that the act of adultery may cause suffering to one or more other people, and with that act of reasoning cannot be right. It is this idea of suffering that allows an atheist to take up a moral position through means of reasoned choice. Peter Singer adheres to the theory of society sustaining itself through choice “Presumably no society can survive if it allows its members to kill one another without restriction” (Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, Cambridge University Press, 1993), and by this same token, no one person presumably would choose to live in a society that promoted anarchy. If there were no God, morality may not be called morality, it may not be so clear cut and separated into the religious category but instead chosen as ideas on which to base a secure and sustainable society. Perhaps it is because humans have been bought up with these morals, perhaps it is far more difficult to answer this question from an objective point but the simplest answer seems to be that morals are common sense due to the fact they provide a healthy society that is more desirable to inhabit than that of an uncivilised anarchic society. Therefore even without a Bible, without an idea of God, similar morals perhaps with even fewer ambiguities attached may well have come into being. A common law, understood to be correct but not written as statute law is not an impossibility.
The argument that without God there would be no morality assumes that with God there is total morality. This is clearly not the case and it is not limited to modern society that everyday morality would benefit from a virtuosity associated with strict religious adherence. Morality can also be a very personal idea, changing from person to person, across countries and cultures but not necessarily right or wrong in either. There are instances where the Christian God and the morals offered up for humans to stand by has never been heard of. Tribal communities living fairly primitively with either loyalty to Gods unknown to us, or even none at all can still live what we would consider moral lives. Respect for fellow human beings enforced by a tribal leader, originating not from a set point in time, as with Christianity but through generations of learning and development of communities, encourages them not to kill or steal from their own tribe. The killing of other tribes is permitted and this may appear to be where they are lacking in morality, unless our moralised, civilised society recollects the many hundreds of wars in which our own country has killed inhabitants of another country. Substitute the word country for tribe and one notices far fewer differences in the idea of morality that appears to have been introduced without reference to the Ten Commandments or a Bible at hand. This is surely an example of morality without God and as such answers the question with one large yes.
A society with a total lack of moral values is a difficult idea to comprehend and could only really be achievable though a George Orwell ‘1984’ type vision of autocracy, a controlled immorality that feigned complete morality. This, although achievable is more likely to be bought about through a conscious decision as opposed to being a reference to human nature. It appears to be common sense that distinguishes morality from immorality and as seen in the case of people never exposed to Christianity or any large civilisation with a God, the same sentiments are still conveyed and held as beliefs. Loss of morality through choice is a far more reasonable suggestion than a complete lack of it if the idea of God has not come into existence. To therefore suggest that society would have no form of morality if there had been no God and no religion is as unsustainable an argument as a society with no form of morality.
Bibliography
Peter Singer, Chapters 4 and 7, Practical Ethics (2nd edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993
Bernard Williams, Chapters 7 and 8, Morality: An Introduction, Cambridge University, 1993, 2004
Plato, Book 1, Chapter 3, Plato: The Republic (2nd edition), Penguin Classics, 1974
George Orwell, 1984,
Philippa Young
Word count: 1636
