The Illogic of Rejecting Morality without God

I believe that a person can be moral without embracing a religion or believing in God.

This is not, however, a polemical attack against organized religion or faith in God. The whole point of this piece is, in fact, that these are two distinct entities and that embracing a religion or having belief in God is not a necessary condition for moral behavior, even though a religion may provide a moral doctrine to guide an individual.

Many years ago, when I was a college student, I was having a discussion with a fellow student who argued that there is no reason why anyone should be moral unless he believed in God. I asked him why he thought that. His response was that the person who behaves morally will be rewarded by going to heaven, whereas the person who does not will be punished by being sent to hell. I found his argument to reflect a very low order of morality based on a self-centered core of egoism. This is not to deny the reality that many people are so motivated and if that is what it takes to keep them virtuous, then it is all to the good.

Morality encompasses primarily knowing right from wrong, possessing a sense of fairness in interpersonal relations, empathy, a respect for other people's rights, and a reverence for life. Essential to these elements is translating them into action in one's everyday life for virtuous behavior to be manifest. Life is a complex affair and a clear path to moral behavior is not always evident. I find it useful to think of morality in terms of minimal morality and peak morality. For example, are we morally obligated to risk our lives by running into a burning building to save another's life or to diving into rapid waters to save the life of a person who is drowning? I would say that we are not, but that doing so requires the addition of courage and consummate compassion such that ultimate peak morality is achieved when doing so. Weak, but important, morality consists of refraining from such transgressions as conning another, stealing, and murder. This calls for restraint and discipline when there is temptation to do so. Of course, there are also lesser offenses such as cheating during an exam, lying for personal gain, and not returning overpayment when the cashier gives you too much money back, although these are moral offenses, nevertheless.

The highest order of morality is based on principled beliefs and behavior. During the Second World War many Christians risked their own lives by hiding Jews in their homes or barns. Afterward, when asked why they took such risks for people they didn't even know and had been exposed to propaganda urging them to hate, most were found to reply simply, "It was the right thing to do." No mention of religion, God, or personal reward in an afterlife entered the picture. In my own novel, Silent Battlefields, there is a family, admittedly a religious one, who hid two parents and their daughter in their home. Unfortunately, when found out, they did pay the ultimate price of death. The book is replete with moral dilemmas woven into the fabric of the narrative and at times the choice was that of preserving one's own life at the expense of another innocent individual's life. The moral dilemmas in the book are often complex and the "right" thing to do is not always clear. The resolutions to the conundrums are predicated upon moral reasoning, and often even immediate visceral reactions, as well as empathy, but not the embracing of religion or a belief in God. I concede that the book being fiction, it does not prove anything.

The late Lawrence Kohlberg, formerly of Harvard University and long regarded as the preeminent pioneer and leader in the field of the development of moral reasoning, conducted chronological research - over decades - and cross-cultural research, as well. He started with very young children and followed them through to their early twenties. The data was not correlated to religious beliefs, but was universal regardless of faith or lack of it. Based on his research he constructed a theory of six invariable developmental stages. Space limitations do not permit a complete exposition of them. It is important to recognize, however, that not everyone manages to navigate his way through all six stages. In fact, the majority of people in most societies end their maturational journey at stage four.

Stage four is not to be dismissed lightly, for it is based on an appreciation of the social system and the laws emanating from the government. The person at this stage feels an obligation to adhere to these laws without deviation and has a well-developed conscience.

At stage five there may be a conflict between the law in pure form and the rights of the individual. It is necessary that a just procedure, for example, be brought to bear to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of an alleged criminal. Short of that, the law has not been applied fairly. There is a utilitarian aspect to this stage, so that if capital punishment cannot be proven effective as a deterrent, then it shouldn't be permitted, but if it can be proven effective it is permissible for the good of the greater welfare. Unjust laws should be changed through the democratic process at this stage and not blindly adhered to.

Stage six is the highest principled stage, permitting civil disobedience in the face of an unjust law. At stage six "One's own conscience dictates that compliance with an unjust law is not morally required and...active resistance to it is ethically defensible." (Rosen, H., The Development of Sociomoral Knowledge, N.Y., Columbia University Press, 1980)

I submit that moral thinking and behavior can be found amongst atheists, agnostics, and the religious, just as immorality can cut across all three categories.