Question I notice that many of the people asking questions on your site are atheists. I am an agnostic; however, I can understand that many people see their religion as a guideline for moral/ethical behavior. Can we be ethical/moral without religion? If a person does not see that an ethical life leads to "heaven," what is his/her rationale for goodness?

Accepted:
August 22, 2013

Comments

A familiar old question!

If the only reason I behave well is that I'm afraid I'll be punished if I don't or rewarded if I do, then my motives aren't moral motives at all. The fact that an all-powerful being commanded me to do something might give me a self-serving reason to do it, but by itself, it wouldn't provide a moral reason.

That we can be moral without religion is clear from the fact that so many non-believers have deep moral commitments. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that they're somehow confused, but the crucial point is this: if there's no basis for morality without God, then adding God to the story doesn't change things.

As for what the basis might be, there's a lot that could be said. But to take just one sort of consideration: I know that I don't like it when people treat me in hurtful ways. I also know that there's nothing special about me in this respect; my pain doesn't obviously count for any more than anyone else's. And I don't just know this intellectually; I'm capable of empathizing with other people—of imagining my way into their situations. Those sorts of facts often provide both reasons and motivations for doing the right thing.

You've asked a version of the very old philosophical question "Why be moral?" You may find something relevant to that question in the SEP entry linked here.

I'd like to point out an assumption underlying your question. You seem to assume that someone has a rationale for acting morally only if acting morally serves his/her prudential self-interest (otherwise I can't see why you'd suggest that heaven is relevant to leading an ethical life). But why should we accept that assumption? Why must the answer to "Why be moral?" invoke something that's (arguably) nonmoral such as prudence? Why think that the ultimate or overriding rationale for doing something must be one's self-interest?

In essence your question seems to be "Why does my doing the morally right thing always serve my long-term self-interest?" The answer, I'd say, is that there's no guarantee that it does. It might profit you in the long run to rob an innocent stranger if you'll never get caught; nevertheless, you morally ought not do it. Morality and prudence needn't always go together. Indeed, I think there'd be nothing to morality if morality and prudence couldn't come apart.

You describe yourself as an agnostic, and you ask, "Can we be ethical/moral without religion?" I'd be willing to bet, then, that your own case is evidence for the answer "Yes, while allowing for the moral imperfections that characterize people in general."