Is religion necessary for a sense of ethics or morality?

[_Tal Bachman]

(This is long).

In a number of his posts, Plutarch wonders what system of morality someone who did not follow any particular religion might have. The question might be put this way: What meaning would the concept of "morality" even have to someone who was not religious?

Perhaps one way of answering this is to ask my new bud Plutarch himself whether he believes he would be an amoral human being if, like many of his friends, he hadn't been raised as a devout member of any particular religion, or wasn't one now. Would you now be a sociopath? Would have no sense of "fair play" or honour or decency or compassion? My guess, for what it's worth, is that you would most likely be overall a very decent human being, just like many of your not-particularly-religious friends and neighbours.

The light of Christ idea discussed in the Book of Mormon of course has a very ancient provenance, and is widely believed in - and felt - though under different names. Some readers might remember from school reading "The Apology", Plato's account of Socrates' trial. In it, Socrates - obviously, not only not a Mormon, but if religious at all, a total pagan - mentions an "inner voice" which guides him in all he does. And the truth is, it is not only Mormons who feel that "inner voice", but former Mormons, and Catholics, and Baptists, and atheists and agnostics and Jews, and they have felt it for as long as we have record. Catholic natural law theorists have written extensively about it for centuries, for example.

Perhaps the best modern defense of something like an innate sense of morality by a religious writer is C.S. Lewis's "The Abolition of Man". There, Lewis, a devout Christian, argues that this sense is present among all peoples and all great religions. And he worries about just what life might be like if humans stepped outside "The Tao", the great cosmic moral order which almost all of us seem not only to feel, but to feel bound by.

Two more recent explorations of that "inner voice" are Michael Shermer's "The Science of Good and Evil", and Marc Hauser's "The Moral Mind" (which I only just started reading). Shermer argues that we have an innate sense of right and wrong because it is conducive - or rather, necessary - to survival, so that those ancients born with a moral sense survived to propagate, etc., and it's wound up as an evolutionarily-mandated component of the human psyche.

Whether an innate moral sense is "the light of Christ", or an attribute conferred by millions of years of evolution, or something else, I think the relevant point is that all human beings, save for a few genetic freaks, have it. Basically, everyone talks about, and acts on their conception of, right and wrong. We all might argue about what exactly each is, but we all believe in it. That sense is just part of being human, and doesn't come into existence because we join a particular religion (though dogma can certainly shape that sense in various ways, not all of them beneficial), nor does it vanish if we come to believe that our religion wasn't "the only true religion in the world".

But I understand where Plutarch is coming from, since I myself was born in the church, and was the most devout member of it I think I could have been for thirty years. I remember talking to a friend once who told me he was struggling with his testimony, and I said to him in all sincerity, "But Doug, if you leave the church, how would you know right from wrong?". At the time, that seemed like a very good question. But now, it seems almost sad, some testament to just how much my own conscience had been subsumed into what even Gordon B. Hinckley essentially acknowledged is a loyalty cult (see his "Loyalty" General Conference talk, 2003).

After all, there is no allowance within Mormonism for "righteous disobedience". It does not exist. Canonized church doctrine (see the Manifesto page in the D & C) specifically states that the Lord will not permit the prophet to lead the church astray. And so, if the prophet came to you and said, "I am speaking to you as a prophet. The Lord has commanded me to command you to do X", there is no allowance for declining in righteousness - for if you were to pray about it and get a "no, you shouldn't do it", theologically, that would just mean that you hadn't heard the Holy Ghost properly - since "we already know the prophet cannot lead us astray". But really, how could you even get that "answer", when you'd already pre-committed to believing that the Lord would never let a prophet lead you astray, and that very prophet had just assured you he was indeed speaking as a prophet and not leading you astray?

In the case just mentioned, an innate sense of morality - an individual conscience - has in a sense been subsumed into a "meta-conscience" of sorts; but that meta-conscience, in the end, is really just the consciense of just one man. He may claim it is really the conscience of Jesus himself. Is it? No matter - we have pre-committed to believing it is, and to reject that proposition, is to reject the religion, the cosmology, the identity, the social group, our hopes, our heritage, everything, in toto. And this is why when Joshua says kill, you kill, and it is why when Rev. Jones says drink, you drink, and when Joseph says, "Let me have your wife", you hand over your wife: "morality" has become "what the prophet says as a prophet", and "what the prophet says as a prophet" has become "morality". They have become totally synonymous.

And to be honest, it is hard to imagine this phenomenon, in the end, as any kind of "morality" at all, other than one very prone to turn quickly, at any moment, into total immorality. Not to put too fine a point on it, the surrender of individual conscience to some authoritative super-conscience has facilitated some of the worst atrocities the world has ever known. And of course, the authority doesn't have to be religious. The same thing can happen when people surrender to any fuhrer, whether religious or irreligious.

The truth is that no human being can, or should, be deferred to, to such an extent. And "feeling" we should is not a good enough reason when the stakes are so high. Neither is one human being claiming that God will not permit him to lead others astray, a good enough reason to surrender our own consciences. It is not. It was not in Jim Jones' case, nor was it in Wilford Woodruff's case, or in any other mortal's case, notwithstanding anyone's stirring claims to be God's regent. The Old Testament records many acts which, if committed today by an Arab dictator, we would all say merited condemnation; but for some reason, when we view ourselves as belonging to that same pack, just its modern incarnation, we can very easily shrug our shoulders and say, "Well, God commanded it". Really? Are you sure about that? Are you 100%, absolutely certain, that it was GOD, supposedly the embodiment of all mercy and love in the cosmos, and NOT a mistaken mortal, who commanded the Israelites to take SEX SLAVES? Really? 800 other tribes 3,000 years ago all did the same thing. But in 799 cases, it was bad, but in our case, we're all of a sudden 100% positive that it was GOD who was the sex-slave-taker?

Well, if we are 100% certain "because God has revealed it to us, and we know that because we feel it", it must be admitted at least that no outsider could ever distinguish a difference between our explanations of "how we achieved certainty", allowing for superficial differences in terminology, and that of jihadists, kamikaze pilots, or suicidal Heaven's Gate members.

There is such a thing as morality. I believe it asks us to be kind to our neighbours, to forgive, to speak out against what we perceive to be injustice, be honest, etc. Such a sense does not seem to have anything to do with any particular religion or ideology. I would say that religions at least provide a story of what morality is, and perhaps that is more appealing than just sitting there, like I'm doing right now, saying, "I can't really explain where it comes from, but I know it is there". But despite this, simply telling a story or myth about where it comes from, does not necessarily make that story true, nor does it mean that the object being explained by the story would cease to exist if the story didn't. The truth is, is just does. It's part of us.

I also think it is clear that once our moral senses become co-opted by an ideology, one that finds incarnation in a group of people devoted to obeying a reputedly "infallible when speaking as such" prophet or Hitler-like man/god, that the potential for that sense's distortion becomes very great (feeling another post coming on about the Milgram experiments). It could lead us to doing the most immoral things, like flying planes into a building, or killing people under flag of truce in cold blood, because we thought "the prophet" wanted us to.

T.

[_CE_Digger]

Well here's my feeling. If everything in the universe had no beginning, then all systems of morality are equally viable. Mormonism readily lends itself to existentialism through the uncreated intelligence.

But Mormons also believe that the organization and order in the universe comes from obeying God's law. The funny thing is that Mormons are also moral relativists in the immediate sense:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another. God said thou shalt not kill, at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy.... Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

Of course the relativism disappears when the ultimate law "obeying God" appears, but it does seem crazy that the former polygamists are the ones always running around decrying the moral relativism of the day.

Anyway, those are some rambling thoughts of mine

[_Roger Morrison]

Good old question which leads to another: Are religious folks necessarily moral or ethical? Maybe easier :-) NO they are not!! Or, we wouldn't find them ever in jail, but we do!

This could lead one to consider IS there really is a connection between all 3, which i guess is what the question poses.

To answer this, I think we have to see "religion" in its originating forms: Superstition, animism, mysticism, polytheism etc.... Non of which bears in any way on morals or ethics. Except possibly as justifications contived in their time and place to defend and protect the established collective. Such being the case an inconsistancy of morals and ethics over time, and in places is readily observable. I respectfully suggest, it remains somewhat the same today. Pick a culture, any culture to test my hyposthesis. I choose Abramic times in the Arabian Desert.

There is ample historical evidence, if we believe the stories, that to any and everyone out side of Abraham's tribe, that Ab and his tribe were everything but moral and ethical. Even within his tribe there are questions of honesty. Isaac's wife comes to mind.

That religion has become synonymous with morals and ethics is more to the credit of ecclesiastics than to moralists. The latter often having to fight against religious tradition and influence to disestablish such things as child labour, prejudices and discriminations that "kept things tidy and manageable".

The question is a good one. I think it deserves honest admission of historical reality and how that might have in fact impacted the world more negatively than we religious types have the morality and ethics to admit.

However i gotta pack and head south so can't theorize any longer. One question that really troubles me though, is how to control "Font Size". I don't think i'm doing it right???

I'll try to tune-in along the way until hooked up in the sunshine. Warm regards, Roger

[_truth dancer]

Hi Tal,

My father is the best example there could be, of a man who lives his life with integrity. He has a strong sense of morality, decency, and honesty. He is also agnostic. So, of course in my opinion, one certainly does not need to rely upon religion to be a decent, moral human being.

Here was the delimma for me. I grew up in a home where racism, sexual intimacy with someone other than one's partner, and male privilege were condemned. Yet, as a child I converted to a religion where these were not only allowed but honored (nay, commanded) as God's will.

So, how does one reconcile God's will, that seems immoral, with the whisperings of one's heart (innate sense of right/Light of Christ/conscience)?

For me, I gave up trying to make, what I felt was wrong, appear right. (It just never worked). I came to a place where I had to let go of the struggle and follow what was in my heart; be true to that which seems healthy and holy.

I'm certainly not saying my own way is the right one or even a good one for anyone else but for me.

Having said this, I frequently hear members suggest that if they didn't believe in the church or have a prophet to follow they would be horrible, immoral people. If this is the case then perhaps it is a good thing they have found a structure that provides the rules necessary for them to survive and find meaning.

Yet, I wonder if by giving up one's own sense of right and wrong, or by following another's ideals/truths, some may feel they do not have the ability on their own to find that innate sense? I do observe a phenomenon in some who let go of the belief in the church to at times, flounder for a bit as they reaquaint themselves with their own sense of right and wrong.

Just a few thoughts.... It is an important topic!

:-)

~dancer~

[_Runtu]

Tal,

Were I still a believing Mormon, my response would be that each member of the church has a responsibility to have the Holy Ghost confirm the rightness of counsel they receive from their church leaders, but on a practical level, there is, as you said, no such allowance for contrary spiritual counsel.

Here's what Ezra Taft Benson had to say about this:

"The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

"President Wilford Woodruff stated: "I say to Israel, The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God." (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, selected by G. Homer Durham [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946], pp. 212-213.)

"President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident, which happened to him:

I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home....Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: "My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it." Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, "But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray." [In Conference Report, October 1), p. 78]"

And we've seen from the statement you quoted from Joseph Smith that the prophets themselves do not believe in an absolute morality other than "whatever God tells us is right." So, it's a little odd to be lectured on codified ethics and morality by someone whose morality is simply what the leadership tells him it is.

[_rcrocket]

In a number of his posts, Plutarch wonders what system of morality someone who did not follow any particular religion might have.

Not really. I think my posts are focused and to the point, yet you and others simply want to read in arguments I never make. I do not argue that one must be a Christian to have a sense of ethics or morality.

What "standard" or "rule of ethics" do you follow which tells you that polygamy in the 19th Century was wrong? That marrying teenage wives in the 19th century was wrong?

You say that it is wrong. But, you seem to make it an a priori judgment.

Why is it wrong? Should I look to the Bible for my answer? If not, where?

P

[_Runtu]

In a number of his posts, Plutarch wonders what system of morality someone who did not follow any particular religion might have.

Not really. I think my posts are focused and to the point, yet you and others simply want to read in arguments I never make. I do not argue that one must be a Christian to have a sense of ethics or morality.

What "standard" or "rule of ethics" do you follow which tells you that polygamy in the 19th Century was wrong? That marrying teenage wives in the 19th century was wrong?

You say that it is wrong. But, you seem to make it an a priori judgment.

Why is it wrong? Should I look to the Bible for my answer? If not, where?

P

I find it interesting that you separate the polygyny and the marrying of 14 year olds, when it's not the two separated, but combined that most people object to. Marrying 14 year olds was not uncommon, as you said. Polygamy was less common and certainly more disdained by society. But it's the combination, coupled with Joseph's insistence that the family's exaltation was at stake if they didn't consent to the marriages (I'm thinking specifically of 14 year old Helen Kimball and 16 year old Sarah Ann Whitney). And then you add the fact that Joseph's legal wife was unaware of these marriages, and you have a whole host of angles from which to consider his behavior "wrong," both in terms of the social milieu, but also in terms of Judeo-Christian values and Biblical pronouncement.

[_rcrocket]

I find it interesting that you separate the polygyny and the marrying of 14 year olds, when it's not the two separated, but combined that most people object to. Marrying 14 year olds was not uncommon, as you said. Polygamy was less common and certainly more disdained by society. But it's the combination, coupled with Joseph's insistence that the family's exaltation was at stake if they didn't consent to the marriages (I'm thinking specifically of 14 year old Helen Kimball and 16 year old Sarah Ann Whitney). And then you add the fact that Joseph's legal wife was unaware of these marriages, and you have a whole host of angles from which to consider his behavior "wrong," both in terms of the social milieu, but also in terms of Judeo-Christian values and Biblical pronouncement.

I don't separate anything, but you sure want to throw in lot more.

I gots my Bible with me. Where can I read in the Bible to see a condemnation of marrying a teenage wife in polygamy in the 19th century?

I don't know what "social milieu" might be; is that like "conventional wisdom?" [I cite Jenn Kamp Galbraith in response].

"Judeo-Christian values:" I don't think Bachman subscribes to them, but that seem pretty subjective to me. I can certainly figure out the evangelical view of Mormons pretty easily.

P

[_Runtu]

Of course morality is subjective. As Foucault would say, "morality" is a product of a host of discourses occurring in time and space. The reaction to Joseph's polygyny cannot be separated from the time and place in which it occurred, nor can it be detached from the whole of the practice (for example, your insistence on limiting the discussion to two of many facts). One factor is indeed the Biblical prohibition of adultery.

It's almost sad to hear that one must have a codified moral system to have values at all.

[_Runtu]

Of course morality is subjective. As Foucault would say, "morality" is a product of a host of discourses occurring in time and space. The reaction to Joseph's polygyny cannot be separated from the time and place in which it occurred, nor can it be detached from the whole of the practice (for example, your insistence on limiting the discussion to two of many facts). One factor is indeed the Biblical prohibition of adultery.

It's almost sad to hear that one must have a codified moral system to have values at all. And it's particularly bizarre to be told that by someone who supports a religion that explicitly denies anything other than a situational morality.