A large part of religion is about following a specific moral code which is usually set out in the scriptures of every religion but a “natural morality” can be shown to exist that is apart from any particular doctrine. Different religions share many common moral values but few religions share exactly the same set of morals with others. Anglicans have no restriction on what meats they may eat but both Jews and Muslims may not eat pork and Hindus don’t eat cows.
It is easy to see that some religious moral codes have developed for logistical reasons. Dairy products are many and a cow’s value over its lifetime is more than the immediate value of the meat. Pork spoils very quickly in high temperatures and is hard to preserve without refrigeration.
There are many horrible moral practices in both the Old and New Testament’s but modern-day Christians do not follow the most abhorrent ones. Instead they cherry-pick the “good” ones and then call their whole moral code “Christian” when this is patently not true.
Surely in order to cherry-pick one must use a moral code that is separate from that of the religion; a moral code that might be called a “natural” one. Otherwise what determines which values are kept and which are discarded.
An article in the Telegraph published in May of this year suggests that animals have morals but if religion were the only moral compass wouldn’t animals have to have religion for that to be true? I somehow doubt that any animals have religion so where do they get their sense of moral values from? Is there a way of behaving that could be called “natural”?
“Experiments with rats have shown that they will not take food if they know their actions will cause pain to another rat.”
“Experiments with domestic dogs, where one animal was given a treat and another denied, have shown that they posses a sense of fairness as they shared their treats.”
“A laboratory experiment trained Diana monkeys to insert a token into a slot to obtain food. A male who had grown to be adept at the task was found to be helping the oldest female who had not been able to learn how to insert the token. On three occasion the male monkey picked up tokens she dropped and inserted them into the slot and allowed her to have the food. As there was no benefit for the male monkey [it could be argued] that this is a clear example of an animal’s actions being driven by some internal moral compass.”
There is also evidence to show that morals can cross species divisions:
“In 2003, a herd of 11 elephants rescued antelope who were being held inside an enclosure in KwaZula-Natal, South Africa. The matriarch unfastened all of the metal latches holding the gates closed and swung the entrance open allowing the antelope to escape.”
Man is the only animal that kills for pleasure and that kills its own kind purely because of disagreement (i.e. politics). Yes, other animals do kill their own kind but only when there is an overall good survival reason to do so. However, even those humans who kill other humans have an in-built knowledge that killing other human beings is wrong. They may justify their killing with flimsy reasoning but they still normally have a sense that what they have done is wrong. The only exception to this is when brain damage has occurred (as in the case of abnormal sociopathic or psychopathic behaviour).
I would argue that not only do we not need religion to tell us what is right or wrong but that some moral values of religion itself can cause normal human beings to override their natural sense of morality. It is this mechanism that is responsible for a suicide bomber believing that he is somehow doing a “good thing” when he pushes his trigger button.
In the same way that anything else is discussed why is it not considered important for the peoples of the Earth to come together and agree on common moral values using their natural sense of morality as a basis? We could reach consensus for all the important “big” stuff while still leaving room for individual local “by-laws”.
See:
“Animals can tell right from wrong” (Telegraph 23.05.09)
Related posts:
“Atheist morals. Are atheists “bad people” just because they are atheists?” (TEWNC 17.08.09)
The Emperor Wears No Clothes 
Recent Comments