Does Morality Come from Religion?
It is a commonly held preconception that having, or practicing a certain (as those who hold this conception tend to attribute it to one specific form) religion or belief system is the foundation for the makings of a good person. Although this is not a thesis that can be wholly and conclusively disproved, due to the fact that it deals with issues of belief, rather than knowing, I believe that it can be shown that this conception is highly improbable and, in fact, this very preconception has led to 'immoral' acts in the past. For one, if, say, one religion holds an immutable belief that sexual relations are immoral and will cause one to face severe consequences of some sort, while another religion holds an equally strong belief that sexual relations, in the correct context, are holy and are an intrinsic part of worship for them—then there seems to be a direct conflict between the two beliefs. If these two hypothetical belief systems—let's assume that they are equally prevalent and equally strongly believed by similar population segments—are taken as being true, and it seems that we cannot deny that they are at least true to their believers, then either one belief system is true and the other is not, neither are true, or the preconception that practicing a certain belief system gives one morality is untrue. These seem, at least at initial thought, to be the only possibilities.
The first option seems improbable. While believers of one system may be very attached to their own belief system, their reasoning behind their beliefs seems to come from within that system itself, thus rendering it invalid. Keeping this in mind, it makes sense that very different and even opposing beliefs can be justified in such similar manners. Since the reasoning for religious belief systems almost always comes from within the belief system, the arguments for why a certain act or belief is right or wrong can follow a very similar format and come to very different conclusions by simply pulling whatever evidence is needed into the argument from within the lore of the belief system. Taking this into account, it appears to the unbiased observer that choosing a 'right' belief system is quite arbitrary and thus it's not very likely that the solution to the above mentioned conflict lies in one or the other belief system being truly 'right.'
The second option, that neither are true, implies that no one organized belief system is true. This would seem to imply that there is no morality, since morality, when traced, seems to come from organized belief systems. For example, if an individual was asked, “Why do you believe that you are a good person?” it would not seem unusual for them to reply that they go to church every Sunday, they are loyal to their family, or that they give money to the poor. However, it would be hard to argue with a reply that stated that a person was good because he spent his Sundays working to help others, that abstains from having a family because he is aware of his incapability personally to support one, and who prefers not to give money to the poor because he believes that it demeans them. It seems that each of these individuals has an organized belief system that guides their actions and allows them to believe that they are 'good' human beings. They both seem to be right, at least in the sense that following their personal belief systems does lead them to qualify as 'good' people based on their belief systems. However, their belief systems are contradictory although they both seem to appeal to some sense of 'morality.' It doesn't seem fair to condemn them both to being untrue and it seems that the flaw may come from the belief that morality does come from organized belief systems. This leaves the third possibility—that the preconception that morality comes from certain belief systems is untrue. This would mean that all the beliefs detailed thus far could simultaneously exist and be a part of morality without contradiction. They would not necessarily all be 'good'--the decision of what is good is a separate discussion and brings many more complexities to the table—but they could each be evaluated separately and could compose multiple personal morality's without contradiction.
You cover a lot of interesting territory in this post, Naomi, and I won't attempt to comment on all of it--though I do hope some others will chime in. I'll just make a few points.
ReplyDeleteFirst, even though the view that morality is tightly bound up with religion, and perhaps even comes from religion, is somewhat popular, it is in fact highly questionable. It is not a common view amongst philosophers--Plato questions it in his dialogue, Euthyphro. It is of course true that many people hold the moral beliefs they hold because of the religious system they accept, but it does not follow that their moral beliefs are completely determined by those systems, nor does it follow that every moral belief is given by some religious system. Indeed, I wonder whether historical evidence would reveal the influence to run the other way: peoples' religious systems adjust to incorporate their moral beliefs. But I offer that as pure speculation here, nothing more.
The second point I'd make is that you make use of the idea of something's being "true for someone (but perhaps not for someone else)". I'm not sure what this could mean other than that it is a belief the person (or group) firmly holds, or something they insist is true. But of course, it is completely possible for someone to firmly believe something that is false. Many people firmly believed that the earth did not move. They were wrong. If someone can be wrong about whether the earth moves, I don't see why that can't be wrong about a particular religious belief.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMm, interesting. Here's hoping that I'm not completely misinterpreting your arguments.
ReplyDeleteCould you clarify what you mean when you say that "this would mean that all the beliefs detailed thus far could simultaneously exist and be a part of morality without contradiction." (last paragraph) If moral objectivism is true, then I don't see how, if some morals are 'true' and some aren't, two contradictory moral theories can exist simultaneously; that is to say, if some moral statement p can be assigned a truth value, then p and not p is a contradiction regardless of where morals come from. On the other hand, if we reject objectivism and instead vouch for relativism or subjectivism, that statement sounds like an immediate consequence of that, again regardless of the origin of morals. So I am confused about how the misconception of where morals come from has anything to do with the truth of the above claim.
Also, a response to both of them seeming to be right (last paragraph again.) If we have to belief systems with different core 'facts' (people might call them axioms), then I think it is undeniable that they can both be right _relative to their belief systems_. From a logical point of view, if p -> q and not-p -> not-q, then a system with p as an axiom can validly assert q and a system with not-p can validly assert not-q; we then just go back to checking which of p or not-p is true. So I an not sure whether both of them being good people within their belief system is a substantial (though interesting) statement.
And why is it unfair to condemn both of them as being untrue? :) If we go with moral objectivism, then at least one of them is untrue as a matter of assumption. It's not exactly nice to tell the two that one of them is flat-out wrong, but it's true. And of course if we believe relativism or subjectivism, then we _can't_ condemn that they're both untrue because we can't have objectively untrue moral beliefs (and by extension untrue moral belief systems that are self-consistent.)
You guys raise very interesting points! As far as what Morgan said about firmly believing that something is false, I think that that actually does make much more sense in the context of what I was trying to say. I referred to truths but I it seems to me that the meaning that makes more sense is beliefs--things that people believe to be true.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the idea of 'them being good people within their belief system,' I was (obviously only somewhat successfully =P) trying to say that they were or were not good people depending on which belief system they were held up to. The truth or morality of the belief system is fairly irrelevant to that statement.
I think that near the end I was trying to reach for a sense of some things really being moral or immoral--for example, whether drug usage is immoral could be debatable (it is considered bad or good depending on what culture one belongs to), but it seems to me much less debatable whether it is immoral to kill a young child for no reason. That seems to be a more far-reaching moral. I'm still definitely in the process of thinking about this topic though--probably always will be!