An Argument for Politico-Moral Systems Rooted in Nontheism
By Selina Li
Renowned atheist and neuroscientist Sam Harris once stated, “The person who is truly ethical is the one who does what is good for goodness’ sake, not because they are constrained to do it by belief in a god or fear of punishment.” Because I agree with Harris, and because secular systems are better suited to encourage moral behavior from our increasingly diverse world, in this essay, I argue that moral systems rooted in theism are preferable to non-theistic moral systems.
But before we begin, it’s important to define our terms. A moral system, as one might predict, is defined by the University of Texas at Austin as “a framework of rules, values, and beliefs that a person or group uses to determine what is right or wrong, and how to act.” Politico-moral systems, in particular, refer to the overarching political, social, and governmental moral structures of a society. And preferable is defined, as per the Cambridge Dictionary, as “more desirable or suitable.”
But what does it mean for something to be “more desirable or suitable?”
According to Associate Professor Nicholas Smyth of Fordham University, “many philosophers now tell us that the function of morality is to reduce social tensions and increase group stability.”
Since this argument hinges upon moral preferability, I argue the term “preferable” ought to be defined as “better suited to uphold the function of morality”—in other words, the preferable system should be the one which leads to greater social cohesion and better fulfills deontological and teleological evaluations.
With that being said, non-theistic systems are better suited for a modern, changing world
In 1882, controversial philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche declared “God is dead and we have killed Him.” At a first glance (and maybe still after multiple glances), this seems like a terrible thing to be remembered for saying. To this day, even a century after Nietzsche’s own death, the quote still remains a topic of heated debate and reason for many to avoid his philosophy like the plague.
But after examining it in full context, Nietzsche doesn’t so much as mean that we literally have divine blood on our hands, but rather, that in an increasingly secular Europe, and an increasingly secular world, state authority and morality founded in religion has become unreliable. For the increasing number who scarcely attended Church and had minimal conviction in their faith to yet proclaim themselves Christians, Nietzsche argued that their hypocritical behavior signaled that God was no longer a solid basis for a system including variegated perspectives, backgrounds, and beliefs.
Although I’m not expressly endorsing nihilism, this particular quotation offers valuable insights into our modern society.
Non-theistic moral systems are better equipped to adapt to the complexities and challenges of the modern world. Ancient writings intended for ancient societies frequently form the basis for moral laws found in theistic systems. When these strict, unalterable principles are applied to problems that were unthinkable centuries before, like genetic engineering, climate change, or artificial intelligence, they can lead to serious conflict.
These moral systems may find it challenging to respond to novel ethical conundrums in a way that is both compassionate and logical due to their rigid commitment to principles that date back thousands of years. On the other hand, secular governments are dynamic. They can change as science, psychology, and sociology provide new insights. For instance, we now have a better understanding of empathy and moral judgement thanks to our knowledge of psychology and the human brain.
Advocates of theistic politico-moral systems may argue that this strict conception of morality is actually positive, because it points to an objective standard of “goodness” or moral behavior, but this is simply false. As Oxford graduate Alex O’Connor rightly points out, different religions adhere to differing, and sometimes contradictory, moral guidelines. In situations of conflicting principles, how do we determine which religion “got it right?” Even if we concede that we can, we’d still have to be evaluating their differences through some standard of goodness external to the two religions. So even this “objective morality” is still subject to subjective human interpretation.
Non-theistic politico-moral frameworks like utilitarianism or deontology can integrate new developments to improve our ethical decision-making. This flexibility in governmental systems allows for moral progress, as we have seen with the widespread rejection of slavery and the expansion of women’s rights, alongside respect for freedom of religious practice on an individual level.
More problematically is that theistic systems provide a “divine cover” for harm. Human epistemic fallibility makes theistic systems just as—if not more—dangerous than secular systems. Theistic systems aren't stable, but are the primary source of irreconcilable conflict. According to the World Economic Forum, religious violence is undergoing a revival. The past decade has witnessed a sharp increase in violent sectarian or religious tensions. These range from Islamic extremists waging global jihad and power struggles between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the Middle East to the persecution of Rohingya in Myanmar and outbreaks of violence between Christians and Muslims across Africa. And according to Pew Research, in 2018 more than a quarter of the world's countries experienced a high incidence of hostilities motivated by religious hatred, mob violence related to religion, terrorism, and harassment of women for violating religious codes.
Under a secular system, we can debate using shared tools like reason, data, and logic. But under theistic systems, if two groups claim "God commanded X" and "God commanded Y," there is no room for compromise. Because each group’s respective authority is viewed as "absolute," the conflict becomes “eternal” until one side falls.
We can look to historical conflicts between the ancient Canaanites and Israelites, the Crusaders and the Ottoman Empire, violent, inter-communal disputes in Sri Lanka and Myanmar, the Schmalkaldic War, the Eighty Years’ War, and more as evidence.
Furthermore are the atrocities committed by Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Kim Jong-Un, who built pseudo-theocratic societies around their cults of personality. No country has historically waged war out of their staunch belief in secularity—however, religion and theism provide a unique moral justification for massive harm and slaughter.
Overall, non-theistic moral systems augment group stability and provide a “lower common denominator” that prevents the justification of holy wars and promotes the minimization of harm. And though religious practice is a beautiful, sacred thing, it’s largely because of our secular political systems that varying practices have been allowed to flourish in proximity to one another.