Frederick Douglass
How are we Moral?
The belief that religion is essential for morality is a point that seems so obvious it is never questioned. We believe that religious schools teach good moral values and we ensure our children attend church and Sunday school for the same reason. To be “God fearing” is seen as a positive attribute that we instill into children. Religious texts seem to contain so many moral teachings that no one would dispute this.
Religion is highly important to Ghanaians and Ghana is a very religious country; yet why do people complain that morality is on the decline?
We therefore need to ask, do we really need religion in order to be moral and is religion the best way to encourage morality?
At first it seems confusing. Without religion or belief in a God, what incentive would there be to be good? Without the reward of heaven and punishment of hell why should anyone bother? If we don’t get our morality from God, where do we get it from?
Where does morality come from?
Morality works on the principle that we shouldn’t harm others and that we should work for the greater good. It is rooted in our relationships with other people. Moral behavior has been observed in animals. It’s clear that if we did not behave morally most of the time, by showing cooperation, empathy, a sense of fairness, we would have gone extinct a long time ago. Do we really not kill and rob each other just because religious texts tell us they are wrong?
Morality is not fixed
Humanists believe morality is something we work out and should be flexible to respond to new situations. It is an ongoing project and we believe
we are adult enough to handle it. Morality is not fixed but changes as we grow as a species. Once, slavery was thought to be moral and based on a view of God’s natural order of things. But brave people, such as Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison, stood up against the prevailing orthodoxy and reshaped our moral understanding.
Fear does not work
Fear is not discipline. Acting out of fear is an instinctive response based on self-preservation. It means you react to protect yourself from punishment from an external source. Is fear of punishment the reason why so many people find it hard to admit their mistakes?
If you control people with external sources of fear – God, beating, etc. – you have to ensure that source is always present to continue monitoring and punishing individuals: and that’s not possible.
The alternative is to nurture an inner discipline based on moral values, showing why it is pleasurable to do good things and to take a personal pride in doing good. We believe in personal responsibility based on the unique qualities human beings posses such as the ability to reason and empathy with others.
Acting out of Reward and punishment is not moral
If you saw someone in an accident why would you stop to help them? If you only did it because you were told to or because you wanted a reward or were scared of punishment, how moral is this choice? If you acted for no other reason than you felt compassion and empathy towards another member of our species, it seems to me that this is the true, selfless moral act. Acting with no expectation of reward.
Is more religious morality the answer?
In our history, morality was reinforced by religion and was very effective. But it only works when we all agree on the same religion, the same religious values and on absolute authority. In an increasingly pluralistic society, in which tradition and authority are no longer obeyed without question, this is no longer the case. We can no longer make everyone think the same way and prevent inquiry. Instead of invoking the past, we need to move to the future.
Conclusion
There has been a lot of criticism of religious people who behave immorally. How could this be if belief in God is the only thing needed to be moral? To say these people are not religious enough skirts the issue.
But as times change and new issues present themselves we must be responsive enough to handle them. Religious morality worked when everyone accepted one religion and didn’t question authority. Education means that this has changed. We cannot hang onto something that no longer works. It’s time to be brave, as we’ve always been, and move to humanism.
Related articles
- morality does not mean christianity (dimitrisnowden.wordpress.com)
- Responding to Christian moderates at Think Christian about the gays (skepacabra.wordpress.com)
- Are atheists immoral people?
- Frans de Waal: Moral behavior in animals (video on TED.com)
Critical Point 
Our culture and society sets the standard for morality, this may very well have been developed by theists, but things have evolved just as they will continue to do so.
Can we have morality without a moral law? Can we have a moral law without a moral law-giver? If we move to humanism, what about those who don’t believe in the “new morals” put out to them by a “responsive” society? Why should they abide by the “new morals?”
This is the old theological argument rejected by many theists. It shows linguistic confusion regarding the word “law”. There is no moral law in the way there are laws of nature, therefore there is no law maker. The simplistic, narrow understanding of morality passed down through Bronze Age religious texts is no longer sufficient for our modern age. People are already rejecting it and which religions morality do we follow in a pluralist world? It clearly no longer works. So do we continue to pretend our morals came from the gods now people are wise enough to see they don’t? Or do we reason with people, to show the naturalistic basis of morality. Clearly societies are becoming more moral. We no longer tolerate child abuse from “prophets” and priests, we would not accept the torture and murder of “heretics”, or condone the killing of old ladies accused of being witches. We understand racism, sexism and homophobia are wrong. Our morality has grown up as we have too and it wil continue to evolve with us.