CAN THERE BE MORALITY WITHOUT RELIGION?

BY

MATTHEW-MARY S. F. OKEREKE

BEING A PAPER SUBMITTED TO THE PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF THE DOMINICAN INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY, IBADAN, NIGERIA.

SAMONDA, IBADAN NOVEMBER, 2010

OUTLINE

1.0

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................3

2.0

MORALITY: A SEARCH FOR MEANING............................................................3 2

3.0

WHAT IS RELIGION?...............................................................................................5

4.0

DISTINCTION BETWEEN MORALITY AND RELIGION.................................7

5.0

RELIGION: A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE FOR MORALITY?...................7 5.1 THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY AND THE AUTONOMY THESIS.............................................................................................................8 NATURAL LAW..............................................................................................9 THE ANCIENTS AND MORALITY.............................................................9 PRE-RELIGION MORALITY.......................................................................9 DIVERGENCIES IN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS............................................10

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

SOME PHILOSOPHERS AND THEIR STAND ON THE POSSIBILITY OF MORALITY WITHOUT RELIGION.....................................................................10 5.6.1 JOHN LOCKE (1632-1704)..........................................................................11 5.6.2 IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804).....................................................11

6.0

CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................12 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.0

INTRODUCTION Religion permeates into all the departments of life so fully that it is not easy or possible

always to isolate it.1It has been a concomitant of almost every sphere of human activity from time immemorial.2 It is due to this great influence which religion has wrought on humanity that it is often difficult to reflect on other aspects of man without making any reference to religion. It is this reality that has in some way ignited the debate on the possibility of morality without religion. It is pertinent we state here that the theme of this paper, as we understand it, expects us to explore the possibility of morality without religion; if moral rectitude can be attained without any prerequisite influence from religion. Let us however assert here that the theme of this paper does not appear to us to be necessarily synonymous to the following themes: Should morality be separated from religion?; what role does religion play in what is called morality?; what are the advantages of allowing religion to be the guide and determiner of morality?, and themes of these kind. Since this is the case, it becomes obvious that the recently listed do not constitute the crux of our subject matter. Having noted all the above, let it be stated here that we are of the opinion that there can be morality without religion. In order to explain our stand, we shall labour to put forth some suitable definitions of the termsmorality and religion. It is only after these that we shall then attempt to show that there can be morality without religion using arguments like the categorical imperative, the divine command theory, the autonomy thesis, natural law and the likes of these. 2.0 MORALITY: A SEARCH FOR MEANING Before making any assertion here, it is apt we make a clarification. It has been observed that many a time, people use the terms morality and ethics synonymously. However, a
1 2

John S. Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy (London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd, 1988), p. 1. E. Bolaji Idowu, African Traditional Religion: A Definition (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1973), p. 1.

distinction can be made between the two. Morality is antecedent to ethics: it denotes those concrete activities of which ethics is the science.3 It may be defined as human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting.4 Having noted the above, we shall now consider the etymology and some other senses in which the term morality is used. The word morality can be said to have been derived from the word moral. The word moral is said to be the English equivalent of the Latin moralis, from mos, moris and means manner, custom, conduct.5 Because the etymology of a word does not sometimes carry all the possible concepts which a word connotes, we shall therefore investigate more into the term morality. Generally speaking, morality can be referred to in two principal senses: descriptive and normative. According to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, morality in the descriptive sense refers to a code of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for his or her own behaviour. Normatively, it refers to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.6 In his reflections on the meaning of morality, M. V. Murray defined it as a quality of human acts by reason of which some acts are called good and others bad.7 Furthermore, morality has been characterised by its function, and by its supremacy in relation to other deliberative conclusions. By its function: Morality is that set of convictions whose function is to promote human flourishing, to enable us to live together on terms of mutually beneficial cooperation - or whatever ones doctrine as to its function may be. By its
3 4

Cf. Micheal V. Murray, Problems in Ethics (New York: Henry Holt & Co, Inc, 1960), p. 7. Cf. Peter Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy, s. v. Ethics 5 Peter Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy, s. v. Moral 6 Cf. Bernard Geert(2010), The Definition of Morality Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ (31 Oct. 2010) 7 Micheal V. Murray, op. cit., p.150.

supremacy in relation to other deliberative conclusions: Morality is a subsystem of deliberation about what one ought to do, whose conclusions in principle override all others. To take an obligation as a moral obligation is to take it that one should fulfil it whatever else can be said against doing so.8 In addition to the above, the term morality has also been seen to carry some two other concepts, each of which gives a central position to one concept, though at the expense of the other.9 Of these two concepts, there are those who on one hand, hold that morality is or ought to be wholly or mainly a social concept. On the other hand, there are those who hold that morality is primarily an individual or independent concept. The implication of these is that while those who suppose morality to be a social concept will recommend submission to a tradition, those who suppose morality to be primarily an independent concept will recommend independent decisions. 3.0 WHAT IS RELIGION? The multiplicity of approaches in the attempt to delineate religion can be imposing and sometimes frustrating. However, discussions about widely differing approaches to this subject matter, give this study of religion its vitality. Actually religion as it is used today is a relatively modern concept. The ancient world had had no word for what we are calling religion, partly because religion blended so intimately with the rest of life and did not contrast sharply with profane or ordinary life the way it does today. It was not as noticeable, perhaps because it was so pervasive. It is our modern sense of a mundane or secular sphere that makes religious 5

8 9

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s. v. Morality and Ethics, Cf. Neil Cooper, Two Concepts of Morality, In The Definition of Morality, edited by G. Wallace and A. D. M. Walker (London: Methuen & Co Ltd., 1970), p. 72.

activity stand forth more obtrusively to us. We want to define and understand religion more carefully than religious people of the past would have been interested in doing.10 The word 'religion' is derived from the Latin noun religio. Religio is said to have come from the same root as the word 'ligament.' Ligaments connect muscles to bones. So this root word approximately means, 'to connect, to bind, to tie together.' Thus, religion can be said to literally mean, 'continuously tying it all together' or a relationship.11 Because religion crosses so many different boundaries in human experience as we have earlier noted and because most scholars who attempt to define it come from different backgrounds, it is notoriously difficult to define. However, while every theory has its limitations, each perspective contributes to our understanding of this complex phenomenon. Here are some of the ideas presented by scholars of religion. According to the theologian Paul Tillich, religion means ultimate concern, that is, that which concerns human beings ultimately to the exclusion of conditional concerns.12 Any finite concern, such as another person, a nation, or money which is elevated to the status of an ultimate concern, constitutes for Tillich idolatry.13 In his book, The Interpretation of Cultures, Clifford Geertz avers that religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.14 The Encarta Dictionary refers to religion as peoples beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and
10 11

John F. Haught, What is Religion? : An Introduction. (New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1989), p. 2. Cf. E. Bolaji Idowu, African Traditional Religion: A Definition (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1973), pp. 22-33. 12 Cf. Paul Tillich, Theology of Culture (London: Oxford University Press, 1959), pp.7-8. Religion, in the largest and most basic sense of the word, is ultimate concern. 13 Cf. Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), p. 44. 14 Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures, (Basic Books, 1973), p. 90.

divine involvement in the universe and human life. Alternatively, religion is seen as an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine. 15 It is seen as that which plays a fundamental role in bestowing meaning and significance on human existence. It marks off what is special and true, provides order and structure, and sets forth the projects and goals for humanity. 4.0 DISTINCTION BETWEEN MORALITY AND RELIGION Having presented some explanations on the terms religion and morality, we have deemed it fitting to show some kind of clear-cut difference between the two terms in this section. Morality or a moral system is at variance with religion in that the latter includes stories, usually about mystical beings, which are used to elucidate or justify the behaviour that it prohibits or requires. There is often a considerable overlap in the conduct prohibited or required by religion and that prohibited or required by morality, but religions always prohibit or require more than is prohibited or required by guides to behaviour that are explicitly labelled as moral guides. Sometimes morality is regarded as the code of conduct that is put forward by religion, but even when this is not the case, morality is thought by many to need some religious justification. However, just as with law, some religious practices and precepts are criticized on moral grounds, for example, discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Whereas, morality is only a guide to conduct, religion is always seen by many to be more than this. 5.0 RELIGION: A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE FOR MORALITY? While there is on one hand, the semi-sociological conviction of some religious believers that society would give way to moral anarchy were acceptance of religion to wane,16 on another hand stands those who argue that morality is not dependent on religion using an ancient
15 16

Microsoft Encarta Dictionary (2009), s. v. Religion William Bartley III, Morality and Religion (Glasgow: The University Press, 1971), p. 3.

argument, parts of which are found in Platos Euthyphro. In the Euthyphro, Socrates is seen asking Euthyphro something similar to this: Is x good because God wills it or does God will x because it is good? While Euthyphro asserts that x is good because God wills it (Divine command theory), Socrates argues that God wills x because x is good ( the autonomy thesis). Having read through many works centring on the above debates, and having ratiocinated on this issue, we are of the opinion that there can be morality without religion. We are of this opinion for the following reasons which we shall now treat under different headings 5.1 THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY AND THE AUTONOMY THESIS While the divine command theory assumes that that which is moral or good is that which is willed, desired and dictated by God, the autonomy thesis argues that God wills x because x is good. The divine command theory does not seem tenable for it will imply that God through religion can at any time redefine what is good and evil. A further implication of this stand is that it makes it meaningless to assert that anyone is good for that which is good now can become evil the next moment and vice versa. The autonomy thesis is tenable for God does not have the power to make murder, stealing and the likes of these into good acts any more than God can make a contradiction true, a round square, or 3+3=36. Since x is not good just because God wills it and since God wills x because x is good, it is possible to attain morality without religion. We assert this, because those who argue for the impossibility of morality without religion holds that it is only by coming to religion that human beings come to know that which God has willed to be good rather than the fact that the good which can be habitually done to make one moral can actually be known by the effort of human reasoning. 8

5.2

NATURAL LAW To further buttress the last point which we just made, Thomas Aquinas explanation of

the natural law is invaluable. For him, the natural law is the eternal moral law as knowable by sound human reason without the aid of supernatural revelation. If man can know the moral law without the aid of supernatural revelation, if the precept do good and avoid evil is naturally in man then it is not out of place to infer from here that there can be morality without religion. 17 Because the natural law is imprinted on the hearts of men, we can come to a basic awareness of the rightness and wrongness of certain actions without being introduced to religion. For example, even atheists know that murder is wrong. The idea of the presence of natural law is one strong argument that is used to counter those who hold that there can be no morality without religion. 5.3 THE ANCIENTS AND MORALITY To demonstrate that there can be morality without religion, a reference to the life of Socrates who lived during the ancient period of philosophy can be of help. In the account of his life that has come down to us, we are told of how he was condemned unjustly. Despite this unjust condemnation, Socrates was ready to die not because of any religious beliefs but because he ratiocinated that it would be immoral to go against the constituted authority of the state. 5.4 PRE-RELIGION MORALITY If it is true that religion is the harbinger of morality, then it will amount to a nonsensical utterance if one asserts for instance to an interlocutor who has not been initiated into religion that a third person is good. This dilemma is solved for experience shows us that one can actually accept that another person is good even without having initially been initiated into religion. An analogy may suffice here. Would it be out of place for a preacher who is trying to convert one
17

Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia IIae, q. 91, a. 2

who believes in no religion to claim that God is good and simultaneously expect his interlocutor to accept his statement? If the answer to this poser is NO, then, it follows that one can actually have a sense of good even before accepting religion since one needs a sense of the good before one can accept that God is good. Since some people get converted because they are told that God is good, it does not seem out of place to infer that such people have the concept of good before encountering those trying to convert them. Furthermore, if the above is permissible, it appears possible that some of them might have been living the good life so that it can be said that they have been practising morality even before their encounter with religion. 5.5 DIVERGENCIES IN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS If there can be no morality without religion, what we might actually have then would be a situation where religion will at best enthrone moral relativism. We assert this because not all moral principles are shared by all religious people. Worse still, there exist examples of conflicting moral principles held by religious people. If the aforementioned is the case, the idea of that which is moral becomes almost absurd since neighbours of different religious convictions may find it difficult to jointly identify that which should be praised or condemned because of the influence that their different religious affiliation would wrought on them. Since experience shows us that people of different or even conflicting credos can ratiocinate together and identify the moral and the immoral, it follows that morality can be identified and attained even without appealing to religion. 5.6 SOME PHILOSOPHERS AND THEIR STAND ON THE POSSIBILITY OF MORALITY WITHOUT RELIGION In this part of our work, we shall put forth the thought of some philosophers who have argued in favour of the possibility of morality without religion. 10

5.6.1 JOHN LOCKE (1632-1704) Despite the fact that John Locke was an empiricist, he subscribed to a rational foundation for the basic principles of morals rather than a totally religious foundation. He is quoted to have said, I doubt not, but from self-evident propositions, by necessary consequences, as incontestable as those in mathematics, the measures of right and wrong might be made out, to any one that will apply himself with the same indifferency and attention to the one as he does to the other of these sciences.18 A perusal of this quotation derived from John Locke shows that the measures of right and wrong might be made out with the use of reason 5.6.2 IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804)19 Among the many philosophers who have contributed to this debate on the conflict between morality and religion, Immanuel Kant is worthy of note. Immanuel Kant was highly religious, but he felt that morality need not be reliant upon God, but rather upon logic instead. After John Locke had given his view on the perceived conflict between morality and religion, his view was challenged first by the sentimentalists and later with much greater force by David Hume. It was the challenges of Hume that Kant took up. One of the things that Kant arrived at in his bid to solve the above challenges is called the Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative20 has been given in several formulations: Act only on the maxim through which you only do those things which you could rationally allow everyone to do at the same time if you were the universal law giver; I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law (the formula of the law of nature). So if we take lying as our maxim, and imagined a world in which everyone lied we would see that such a world would be impossible since if everyone lied, trust would be
18 19

11

Simon Blackburn, Ethics: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press Inc, 2001), p. 95. Pantaleon Iroegbu, Metaphysics: The Kpim of Philosophy (Owerri: International Universities Press Ltd), p. 181. 20 Cf. Simon Blackburn, op. cit., p.100

nonexistent and without trust it would be pointless to communicate and without communication we cannot lie. Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but at the same time as an end (the formula of Humanity).Which basically means do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Dont use people as tools alone to your own ends. So, act as if you were through your maxims a lawmaking member of a kingdom of ends which means pretty much the above two combined. Looking critically at the argument of the categorical imperative, it is evident that morality can be attained without religion. 6.0 CONCLUSION Having presented various connotations of the terms morality and religion and having studied keenly the arguments for and against the question: can there be morality without religion?, we have shown in this paper using the arguments of the Divine command theory, autonomy thesis, divergences in religious beliefs, Immanuel Kants categorical imperative, the argument of natural law amongst other argument to show that there can be morality without religion. We have shown that when morality is divorced from religion, reason can enable a man to recognize to a large extent the ideal to which his nature points. However, Newman admirably describe from a psychological point of view that the sense of right and wrong is so delicate, so fitful, so easily puzzled, obscured, perverted, so subtle in its argumentative methods, so impressionable by education, so biassed by pride and passion, so unsteady in its course, that in the struggle for existence amid the various exercises and triumphs of the human intellect, the sense is at once the highest of all teachers yet the least luminous.21 If we put this beautiful thought of Newman into consideration, it will be proper to conclude that though there can be morality without religion, religion has a place in the living of the good life.
21

12

Newman, "Letter to the Duke of Norfolk", in the section on conscience

BIBLIOGRAPHY Angeles, Peter. Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1981. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Trans. by The Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benzinger Brothers Inc., 1948. Bartley, William. Morality and Religion. Glasgow: The University Press, 1971. Blackburn, Simon. Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press Inc, 2001. Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, 1973. Cooper, Neil. Two Concepts of Morality, In The Definition of Morality, edited by G. Wallace and A. D. M. Walker. London: Methuen & Co Ltd., 1970. Geert, Bernard(2010), The Definition of Morality Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ (31 Oct, 2010) Haught, John. What is Religion? : An Introduction. New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1989. Idowu, Bolaji. African Traditional Religion: A Definition. London: SCM Press Ltd, 1973. Iroegbu, Pantaleon. Metaphysics: The Kpim of Philosophy. Owerri: International Universities Press Ltd. Mbiti, John. African Religions and Philosophy. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd, 1988. Murray, Micheal. Problems in Ethics. New York: Henry Holt & Co, Inc, 1960. Newman, "Letter to the Duke of Norfolk", in the section on conscience Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Version 1.0, London and New York: Routledge, 1998. Tillich, Paul. Dynamics of Faith. New York: Harper & Row, 1957. Tillich, Paul. Theology of Culture. London: Oxford University Press, 1959. Microsoft Encarta Dictionary, 2009. 13