Question I accept that one does not need a religious belief to be 'moral'. But is there any good reason, in the absence of religious belief, why one should want, need or have to be 'moral' as opposed to being immoral? In case this should lead to a debate about the meaning of the word 'moral' or a diversion into the law, neither of which are behind my question, may I arbitrarily focus on morality being confined to the single simple example of not stealing and that the being (or the fear of being) caught be ignored.

Accepted:
December 17, 2007

Comments

In Mere Christianity (don't let the title prejudice you), C.S. Lewis has some insightful things to say about why one should be moral. Without morality, which he characterizes as "rules for operating the human machine," we tend to do damage to others, damage to ourselves, and fail to realize our purpose. He uses (among others) the analogy of a fleet of ships. In order for the fleet to sail well, three things have to happen: (1) Each individual vessel must be seaworthy; (2) The vessels have to avoid colliding with one another (and Lewis notes that these conditions are mutually necessary: if the ships are not seaworthy, they will probably collide, and if they collide, they will probably not remain seaworthy for long); and (3) it must arrive at the port it was intended to reach.

Where religious belief serves morality best is by providing the "port." In Lewis' case, of course, the port was fixed by Christian religious belief. But others have fixed it in other ways: Kant used the principles of rationality, Aristotle the highest ideal of human virtue. Machiavelli and Nietzsche used power. Clearly, what morality requires -- even in the single simple example of not stealing -- is going to vary depending on the "port", or purpose of human life, that is assumed. It doesn't have to be religious, but I think it's difficult to argue reasons for being moral if there isn't one at all.

Click here for my response to a similar question.