Can a person lead a moral life without a belief in God?

          Would you cheat on a test if you knew for certain that you would not get caught? If you found a wallet on a sidewalk, would you return it? If you did return it, would you look for any money that might be inside before returning the wallet? If you discovered that your friends spouse was cheating on them, would you tell your friend? Would you confront the spouse? These are some examples of moral dilemmas; each individual person would act differently if faced with these situations.

What makes a person moral or immoral? There has been much debate for centuries about moral motivation and whether the motivation is internal or external. Can one be moral and not believe in God? This essay will show that it is not necessary to have a belief in God in order to be moral. This will be shown by looking at what morals are, the different types of moral motivation, and
whether moral behavior is cognitive or conative. Every individual has a differing view of what is and is not moral.

            First let us look at what morals really are. Moral values are more than just knowing what is right and what is wrong; “Moral values are the standards of good and evil, which govern an individual’s behavior and choices” (All about Philosophy, n.d.). In other words, an individual may know that something is wrong and choose to do it anyway, this would be immoral. It is a well excepted rule that stealing is wrong; if an adult were to go into a convenience store and take a pack of gum without paying for it, would this be immoral? What if it were a child? If a four year old took a piece of candy off of a shelf and ate it (without his parents knowledge), would this be immoral? The difference here is that the adult knows that stealing is wrong, they know that taking the gum without paying for it is stealing, yet they did it anyway. In the case of the child, they may know that stealing is wrong, yet they may not understand that eating a piece of candy off of the shelf is stealing. Having moral values influences a person’s behavior and impedes them from acting immorally. Yet, is this motivation internal or external?

            In W.D. Falk’s 1947 paper “Ought and Motivation”, he describes moral internalism as “moral convictions [that] are intrinsically motivating” (as cited in The Free Dictionary, n.d.). This meaning that there is an internal force that connects knowing that something is wrong, and the motivation not to do it. For instance, the found wallet scenario mentioned in the opening paragraph; with moral internalism, the finder may open the wallet to look at the identification in order to return it. Upon opening the wallet, it is evident that there is quite a large amount of money in it. Knowing that it would be wrong to take even a small portion of the money, the finder returns the wallet and all the money without a second thought about it.

On the other hand, Falk’s description of moral externalism “claims that there is no necessary, internal connection between moral convictions and moral motives” (as cited in The Free Dictionary, n.d.). Meaning that if an individual knows something is the right thing to do, there is not necessarily an internal motivation to do it. If we use the same example of the found wallet, considering moral externalism, this case could be quite different. Moral externalism is saying that there is not a necessary connection between what is right and the motivation to do it, but that does not mean that the individual would not make the right choice. The finder could take money and leave the wallet, take the money and return the wallet, take some of the money and return the wallet, or take no money and return the wallet. Moral externalism gives more of a chance for individual reactions based on each person and their own moral values.

            If it were so that moral internalism is the motivation for all individuals, this could be moral standards set by God when humans were created. Yet, all individuals have differing perspectives of what is moral and immoral, and varying ranges of these behaviors. Some people think that it is morally acceptable to mass produce meat products in inhumane conditions, while at the other end of the spectrum, some people believe it is immoral to eat any meat or even byproducts from animals. Most individuals would likely be found somewhere in the middle of this range, nonetheless, one can see the wide variety of possibilities. Therefore, internalism cannot be the motivation for all individuals because there does not seem to be a standard for all; every individual is different. “There are considerable variations in how strong a tendency people have to think in moral terms, and in how such thoughts affects their decisions and actions” (Svavarsdottir, 1999).

            Moral externalism is more justifiable as a motivation for individuals because each individual would be gathering their thoughts and motivation from different sources, therefore providing different outcomes. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2006) describes that “there are no moral facts, no truths about what morality requires, forbids, or permits”; meaning that there are no set moral standards that apply to each individual. There is no handbook that says ‘this is morally acceptable’ or ‘this is immoral’. An individual’s moral values may be learned from many different sources: religion, society, family, friends, one’s self, and so on; the values that one see’s around them while young will likely be the values that they hold onto as they mature. Even so, people that come from the same background (the same family or the same religion) will likely have differing moral values as well; they may be similar, but not identical.

            As an example for differing perspectives from the same family, we could look at discipline. Is physical punishment morally acceptable in raising children? A prime example for this topic would be Krystal Steffensen, a University student, and the author of this essay. Steffensen grew up in a family of four (mother, father, and one older brother) where physical punishment was the prime choice of discipline. Now that Steffensen and her brother are grown and have children of their own, they both have the choice of deciding what kind of punishment to use with their children. While Steffensen believes it is immoral to hurt children in order to somehow teach them, her brother has embraced the moral behavior taught when he was young, and continues to use physical punishment. Although these two adults were raised in the same home, and continue to be a close family, the range of moral behaviors between the two are drastically different.

 

            Another question that often arises would be: Are moral behaviors cognitive or conative? Cognitive refers to thinking and reasoning. If moral behaviors are cognitive this would mean that the individual is thinking about the situation and determining what would be the morally correct behavior. While conative refers to impulse and desire. If moral behaviors are conative, than an individual would not have to think about whether an action was moral or immoral, it would be a natural reaction without thought, an impulse.

            Considering that moral behavior is not as prominent as it should be, one would come to the conclusion that moral behaviors are cognitive. If moral behaviors were an impulse, then more individuals would be doing the right thing. There has become a lack of willingness to stop and think about what should be done in a given situation, therefore moral behaviors may be cognitive, however individuals are not using their cognitive thoughts to decide what is moral.

            So now comes the question of whether moral motivation can exist without a belief in God. Quite possibly the most prominent argument relating God to morals would be that if an individual did not believe in God, than they would have no reason to be moral. When an individual has a belief in God, they are given reasons to behave in certain ways and “people would comply [. . .] from desire for reward or fear of punishment” (Van Den Beld, 2001). For instance, Christians have a set reason to live a moral life, for fear of going to hell, or desire to go to heaven. Yet this is not a singular motivation for moral behavior.

            An individual could have many different motivations for being moral. For instance, an individual may believe in Karma, but not necessarily in the idea of an all-powerful God. A good example for this, again, would be the author of this essay, Krystal Steffensen. Steffensen is agnostic, meaning that she does not dispute nor endorse the reality of God. Yet, Steffensen has very high moral standards. Believing that moral behaviors are cognitive and external, Steffensen has created moral standards from the people around her and the things that she has seen in her life.

            Unfortunately, some individuals are not exposed to proper moral behavior at a young age, and this could be a large part of the problems we have in our society these days. Although, in some cases such as Steffensen’s, a lack of proper moral values being taught at a young age, may in turn create a greater motivation to exercise moral behaviors. If morals were created by God as a standard for all individuals, than why would moral behavior be as scarce as it is today? There are many individuals who attend church regularly and claim to be devoutly religious; yet, when it comes to a decision of right and wrong, will they always make the correct choice?

            For instance, we could look at Gonxha (Agnes) Bojaxhlu, better known as Mother Teresa. She was a very devout Catholic recognized all over the world for her good deeds and moral character (Guntzelman, 1999). On the other hand, Catholic Priests are among what should be some of the most devout and morally centered people, yet there are hundreds of Priests who have been convicted of unspeakable crimes (Bishop Accountability, n.d.). If these moral standards were based on religious belief, how could there be such a difference between moral behaviors of high standing figures of the same religion?

            In conclusion, all individuals have differing views of what is moral and immoral. If everyone has a different view, than there cannot be a specific standard set by God. If God had set a specific standard, than all individuals would have to follow the same guidelines on a topic that seems to have no guidelines at all. Moral behaviors are externally learned and used cognitively by thinking about the outcome of our behavior and whether it ought to be done or not. Therefore, it is absolutely true that an individual may lead a moral life without a belief in God.

 

References

All about Philosophy. (n.d.). What are Moral Values? Retrieved from http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/moral-values-faq.htm.

Bishop Accountability. (n.d.). Database of Publically Accused Priests in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbylastName-A.html.

Guntzelman, J. (1999). A Retreat With Mother Teresa and Damien of Molokai: Caring for Those Who Suffer. American Catholic: Who Was Blessed Mother Teresa. Retrieved from http://www.americancatholic.org/features/teresa/whowasteresa.asp.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2006, October). Moral Motivation. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-motivation/

Svavarsdottir, S. (1999, April). Moral Cognitivism and Motivation. The Philosophical Review, 108(2), 161-219. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2998300.

The Free Dictionary. (n.d.). Internalism and Externalism. Encyclopedia: The Free Dictionary. Retrieved from http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Internalism.

Van Den Beld, T. (2001, December). The Morality System With and Without God. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 4(4), 383-399. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27504210.