Time for the latest in my Morality series, which can be found among a range of discussions on religion. This has been inspired by a discussion TikTok of all places (let it be said that TikTok is not a great medium for conversation).
The idea under discussion is that followers of religion do not murder because their holy texts command them not to. The irreligious are merely ‘indoctrinated’ into not killing.
Interesting… indoctrination is one of organised religion’s defining qualities. It does not matter which religion I refer to, they are all designed to sway a person’s thinking and lifestyle via ceremony – and also fear. ‘Universal morality’ is the idea – that religion has a standardised concept for everyone to follow (of course, there are many religions and they all have differing ideas, so which is the standard form?), and punishment awaits those who do not obey the rules.
Here’s the thing – if you have to be told that murder is wrong and if you believe you’ll commit murder unless directed otherwise by religion, your sense of morality is quite weak. If the threat of punishment is the only thing preventing you from going on a killing spree, that speaks more about you than it does anything else. It is also worth noting that religious beliefs have never stopped people from killing (some have even used their beliefs to justify it), just as the absence of religious beliefs does not make someone a murderer.
2
0
20
I’m always bothered by the idea that ordinary people not involved in war* should need an external force beyond social engagement convincing them to not kill other people. The whole doing unto others as you want done unto you thing is almost universal across cultures, though some phrase it differently, and the basic idea is that we’re a fiercely social species who need our societies, and if we expect others to function properly within that environment, we need to do the same. And so anti-social behaviors like killing, stealing, harmful lying, and other seriously harmful behaviors, are just obviously very bad ideas. Parents understand to teach this to their children. That the writers of some holy books or creators of well-tended oral traditions thought this whole idea was really important is not at all surprising. It doesn’t mean any deities were actually involved.
*War (using the broadest reasonable definition) and oppression of one group by another seriously muddy the ethics. Unfortunately, religion only ever seems to make the troubles worse.
You’re right – and our nature as a social species is instinctive. We evolved with it, it’s hard-wired into us, and religious texts have merely co-opted what we already know. I also agree that religion tends to make things worse. I will say that I’ve had some good experiences in religious communities, but then, they’ve not been the fundamentalist types, but rather moderates.
I also have had good experiences in moderate religious communities. When I assert that religion tends to make conflicts worse, it is based on my observation that fundamentalists (a very broad term covering versions of many religions) feel obliged to muddy the waters of the conflict with declarations that their deity/deities support one side or the other, and thus encourage the conflict to continue. People whose religion either inspires them to live and let live, or to help the victims within the conflict meet basic needs, are seldom a problem.
If you believe that being excellent to one another is the right thing to do, and try to live up to that value, it really doesn’t matter if you believe that you’re following a religious mandate or a secular humanist one. Religious conflict aggravators don’t believe in that kind of behavior, or else believe in it with a big asterisk that says it only applies to coreligionists or those who might be used if you’re nice to them.