First, you must define terms. In general, Ethics or Morality can be defined as: The Judging of Human Behavior, by the actions of every individual. Each Action is either considered to be “Good” or “Desirable” and should be Universally acted upon by all Reasonable People, or “Evil” and “Immoral” and should not be committed by Rational Human Beings.
Now, if we accept that, how do we derive a source for what is “Good” Behavior or the opposite “Immoral” Behavior.
Religion(s)- Again, in general, is the belief in a Supernatural Force that may Create, Control, Affect, or Direct Certain Events that occur in our Natural Universe. The Major Aspect of every Religion is the Degree of “Blind Faith” that is required of its adherents. To this, we often find that proper or “Good” Behavior, as defined by each religion or faith, is often a non-negotiable rule. If you desire acceptance into a particular form of worship, you must agree to behave in a particular manner. There is no acceptance of “HUMAN REASON” negating the teachings of the faith.
Pure Reason, Intellectual Reflection, and Critical Thinking- All basically mean the same thing: That Human Beings have the Intellectual Ability to Judge, on their own, the “Rightness” or “Wrongness” of all Actions and Behaviors. It would be far beyond the scope of this post to go into every single Theory of Ethical/Moral Behavior that has been postulated over the past 1,500 Years or so, of recorded Human History. However, here are a couple of differences between an Ethical Code being grounded in Religious Faith, and one that uses Human Reason as its basis.
- Are Moral Judgements based on faith Universally Applied? Am I allowed to commit actions that are Justified Morally by my Faith, but if members of other faiths commit the same acts they are sinful or immoral? In other words, “MY FAITH PERMITS THE ACT, FOR THE FURTHER GLORY OF MY GOD.” How many Religious Conflicts Have been based on such MAXIMS, ISSUED BY ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY
Human Reason tells us that this is little more than Moral Relativism, dressed up to seem spiritual. Adopting such Rules Universally would lead to ETHICAL ANARCHY.
However, If we say that all ACTIONS are judged as to how it would allow Humanity to live and work together in a way that results in the greatest individual autonomy, then FAITH IS NOT NEEDED.
- Now, you may say, “MY GOD DOES NOT ALLOW SUCH BEHAVIOR(S), YOU CANNOT FORCE ME TO BEHAVE CONTRARY TO MY FAITH.”
There are two answers to this statement that are often overlooked by those seeking to create a LEGAL SYSTEM BASED ON RELIGIOUS DOGMA.
Human Reason alone understands that there is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN…
…LEGALLY SANCTIONED Moral Decisions made by the individual that are free from GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT DISRUPT OR HARM SOCIETY IN SPECIFIC OR GIVEN SITUATIONS…
…AND…
…Laws or Rules that Criminalize Moral Decisions made by the individual that do not take into account the negative influence such actions have on others, or society as a whole.
Again, if we allow Individual Faith to be the sole goal of how we judge anothers actions, then you are left with a society of “MIGHT MAKES RIGHT,” WHERE THE MORAL STANDARDS ARE LEFT TO THOSE WHO CAN IMPOSE THEIR POWER ON OTHERS. (TRUMPIANS AND THE GOP)
Take for example the idea of organized prayer in a public school: Since Prayer is an act of Religious Faith, for Public Officials to decide When, Where and, How it should be done violates the Moral Code of Government not becoming involved in the manner of Individual Private Worship.
WHAT DOES HUMAN REASON SAY?
Does that mean prayer is banned in public schools? NOT AT ALL. NO ONE IS STOPPED FROM PRAYING ON SCHOOL GROUNDS, AS LONG AS IT IS DONE VOLUNTARILY, AND DOES NOT DISRUPT THE NORMAL OPERATION OF EDUCATING THE STUDENTS PROPERLY. FURTHER, THERE IS NO NEED TO SET ASIDE TIME FOR PRAYER, THAT IS LEFT TO THE INDIVIDUAL. THERE MAY BE GUIDELINES ON HOW PRAYER IS PERMITTED, ( VOLUME, TIME AND PLACE, DELIBERATELY PROVOCATIVE), BUT PRAYER ITSELF IS NOT UNALLOWABLE.
Contrary to what RELIGIOUS FASCISTS HAVE BEEN CLAIMING FOR YEARS.
Personal Observation- I attended VALDOSTA STATE COLLEGE,(NOW UNIV.), IN THE 1980S. I often saw fellow students saying a prayer before a meal in the cafeteria. Although this was something new to me, I was not offended. They neither bothered nor coerced others to join in, AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, THERE WAS NO COLLEGE OFFICIAL STANDING UP AND SAYING: “TIME FOR THE LUNCH PRAYER, WHO WOULD LIKE TO LEAD IT?” THAT WOULD HAVE OFFENDED ME, AS IT WOULD ANYONE WHO BELIEVED THAT INDIVIDUAL MANNER OF WORSHIP SHOULD NOT BE PART OF THE GOVERNMENTS RESPONSIBILITY.
