Does morality need religion?

The impacts of Buddhist teachings and the worshipping of individuals in the buddhist community, enabled those in society to reflect upon their ethics. This notion is evident through the buddhist ethical teachings that governs our morals, decisions and actions established as a result of the Dalai Lama’s philosophical teachings of peace, which is further supported by the notion of “Puja”, the act of devotional attention and offerings.

Religion is defined as A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual being (Mifflin). It is known that many of our behaviours are determined by the presence of religion in one's life. Religion implants its principles in a person and their attitudes, personality, morals and ethics and alters it to a great extent. This

In the minds of many people, the terms morality and religion signal two related but distinct ideas. Morality is thought to pertain to the conduct of human affairs and relations between persons, while religion primarily involves the relationship between human beings and a transcendent reality. According to Wikipedia "Mortality and religion is the relationship between religious views and moral. Many religions have value frameworks regarding personal behavior meant to guide adherents in determining between right and wrong. Which include the triple gems of Jainism, Judaism's halacha, Islam's Sharia, Catholicism's Canon Law, Buddhism's Eightfold path, and Zoroastrianism's"good thoughts, good words, and good deeds" concept, among others." These frameworks

In examining the relationship between religion and morality, there are many equally important topics that should be considered. One topic, nonetheless, that I think is essential in beginning to discuss the philosophy of morality in the context of religion is that which is concerned with whether religion has a significant role in the definition of morality. Religion does have a significant role in the defining and understanding of morality, and this is important for ethics. The aim of this paper is not to argue whether it is possible for one to be moral without being religious, for this I assume is more or less evidently possible, but rather whether a general concept of religion and God is needed in the proper interpretation of morality. I will refer to Plato’s Euthyphro and its focus on piety and the dilemma it generates, in guiding this discussion.

Religion is the set of beliefs of a person, including the rituals one would engage in according to their religion. According to Google’s Dictionary, it is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Matthew Arnold once said, “The true meaning of religion is thus not simply morality, but morality touched by emotion.” Morality is a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society. In other words, it is the belief of whether something is right or wrong. Arnold here is stating that true religion is not just beliefs of what is right or wrong, but more so beliefs of what is right or wrong after taking into account ones emotional standpoint on the subject. For example, religion is not just believing smoking is wrong, but rather believing smoking is wrong as you believe that it harms yourself and the people around you. Arnold’s quote may come across as blatantly obvious to some; to others it may just confuse them. “We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.” This quote from Jonathan Swift also discusses the topic of religion. Swift here is stating that those with religion have enough of it to make them hold distaste for things in the world, but not enough to love and appreciate others. Most religions in the world preach loving and respecting others, while striving to achieve the best version of ourselves. However, in our modern

The belief that morality requires God remains a widely held moral maxim. In particular, it serves as the basic assumption of the Christian fundamentalist's social theory. Fundamentalists claim that all of society's troubles - everything from AIDS to out-of-wedlock pregnancies - are the result of a breakdown in morality and that this breakdown is due to a decline in the belief of God. This paper will look at different examples of how a god could be a bad thing and show that humans can create rules and morals all on their own. It will also touch upon the fact that doing good for the wrong reasons can also be a bad thing for the person.

Religion and morality, and the divine command theory claim that morality relies on religion, except that claim is problematic.

Religion has influenced societies on an epic scale for millennia. Even the mostprimitive people on the planet created gods to worship and use their teachings toform the basis of their society going back as far as the Paleolithic period wheremother earth was worshiped as a goddess. Through time people have stayedtrue to a belief or a religion. Individuals can seldom be without a society or faction. Conforming to a religion provides strengths in society and provides moralguidance as well as strong communities. Conformance is defined as a voluntaryimitation which regulates the behavior

Ara Norenzayan article about religion and morality really put perspectives on actual morality. He states that people that attended weekly service are 91 percent more likely to donate to charity, while only 66 percent of people who attend service yearly donates. This does mean religious people are more charitable, whether than “doing good” it more of “appearing good”. Religion have effect on people during religious days as well, they are more likely to give to charity on Sundays, 3 times more likely. While on normal days religious and non- believer have the same chance of donating to charity. Norenzayan quotes Dr. Schlessinger about how religion can make people have more morals, “it’s impossible for people to

obligation. In 18th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant believed that religion and morality were terrible when paired. He believed that they should be kept apart. He argued to determine what is right you can use reason and a sense of consideration for other people. Kant believed morality was constant, like

“Morality as Anti-Nature” is a piece written by a German philosopher by the name of Friedrich Nietzsche. A majority of Nietzsche’s works attacked the idea of religion, especially that of Christianity. He believes that humans are essentially good, that morals are instinctive, and we have a natural process of learning how to be moral without the rules put in place by religion. In his piece “Morality as Anti-Nature” he makes his point that religion is an unnecessary oppressor that is only for the weak willed. He discusses how religion specifically attacks “passions” and how religion strives to eliminate them completely. I believe that Nietzsche has a point that yes there are negative aspects of religion, but religion is important to the development of morals and the eradication of it would leave the world spiraling downward into a chaotic mess.

In order to fully understand how religion and spirituality are different, as well as how religion is exploited, one must first have an effective definition of the two terms. Religion is a certain mode of orientation towards reality (Howerth, 1983). This definition encompasses many things, and therefore personal beliefs cannot make up the whole of religion. Oftentimes, religion is seen as a moral standard for humans to evaluate their lives against. However, if one looks deeper into the reasons behind moral values, one finds that values that are virtuous are those that contribute to the development of society, and values that are dishonorable are those that impair the development of society. Religion consists of organized bodies that congregate with the purpose of creating social order (Bharati, 1971). When one looks at any religion, one can see this, but a blatant example is the religion of Hinduism. An integral part of this religion is the caste system. From an outside perspective, the caste system seems very cold and uninviting – the exact opposite of what the general public takes religion to be. However, the caste system served the purpose of organizing a society for many years (Mathur, 1974). According to the working definition of religion, the caste system of Hinduism is

Does religion imply morality? Not exactly, according to research. Contrary to popular belief, non-religious persons are not evil and do have morals. In fact research shows that people associated with no religion may be more moral than those who are religious. Furthermore, the irreligious do good deeds for the sake of being a good person, while religious people tend to do it for recognition or because someone or something tells them to. The origin, the truth, and the perpetuation of this stereotype are all important in understanding why this stereotype still continues in our modern society today and why it should be eradicated.

Morality is the root of all that is good, and the beginning of all that is evil. It can be found in the mightiest of rulers, and the smallest of children. It is what separates man from animals. It is what makes humans, human. Religion, as a whole is not needed to make a man moral, but it does have a huge part in the world. Before we discover why we can be moral without religion, we must first understand what morality is, and where it begins. There is absolutely no doubt that morality is something we are born with. From childhood, we know the difference of what humans perceive as right and wrong. Humans are born with three distinct features programmed into us. The first is our instinct. It is the one trait we are born with that we share

The question of morality without God begins with the assumption that morals were inherently created by God himself. This assumption neglects to acknowledge the possibility that God is simply a messenger for morality, rather than a creator. While a Theist may believe everything God commands to be good, are his commands good because he proclaims them to be good, or does he proclaim them because they are good? If the latter is true then that opens up the possibility for the existence of morals before God, or without God. Religion was once thought to be the cause of everything in existence and the root of life itself. We have progressed to have an understanding of life that opens up the possibility of forces other than God as an explanation for creation. Similar to this, God is no longer requisite for understanding moral beliefs, allowing us to explore alternative explanations. Looking past religion into the very depths of what makes an individual human, that is where the basis of morality is found.