Morality Does Not Require Religion

Contrary to my usual method, I will presently argue a rather moderate position-but one absolutely essential to the preservation of a free, civil, and tolerant society. My purpose here is not to refute any religion or religion-based system of ethics. Nor is my purpose to dissuade anyone from adhering to a religion or religion-based system of ethics. On the whole, I consider ethics based on religion to have beneficial consequences in this world, and I have found the individuals today who genuinely practice a religious morality to be decent, respectable, trustworthy, and upright persons. Such people are my friends and neighbors, and I consider quality of life in the world to be substantially improved by their presence.

Nor will I contend that the abundance of hypocrites, charlatans, cynics, manipulators, and politicians who pretend to adhere to a religion-based system of ethics in any manner negates the genuine merits of such a system. Hypocrisy is not limited to the religious sphere-and I hypothesize that one can find it among adherents of every ideology in fairly equal proportions, provided that the ideology is remotely practicable. If it is not practicable, then everyone adhering to it is a hypocrite-which might then even be a good thing. It is better to insincerely follow a set of ideas incompatible with life on earth than to follow them fully and consistently. An ideology whose impracticability leads to universal hypocrisy among its adherents is an ideology that can be rejected for just that reason, but I do not consider the majority of historical or current mainstream religious moralities to be of that nature. In short, the hypocrite is immoral-but his immorality is not defined in relation to whatever ethical system he claims to hold. It is a more general immorality and can seldom comment on the merits or demerits of any ethical system per se.