Does Morality Need Religion

A detailed Summary of Does Morality Need Religion

In this paper I will be comparing and contrasting C. Stephen Layman and John Arthur's papers on religion and morality. I will then let you in on my own personal view. Layman states that morality cannot exist without religion while Arthur is stating that the two are not connected. Throughout the paper we will be discussing their agreements as well as their differences on the subject "Does Morality Need Religion".

In Layman's paper he states that without religion morality cannot essentially exist. Without religion or more appropriately without God there is no reason to be moral for morality's sake. He discusses this by asking "does morality pay"(p 31). How does morality pay? If you are a theist and believe that all your good deeds will be rewarded in an afterlife of one sort or another, then the answer is yes morality pays. If you are an atheist and believe that your life is over when you die and your self worth is measured by what you accumulate in earthly goods such as money, family etc, then you would have to agree that is does not always pay to be moral. He states that "if I can break the rules in secret, I will not cause any social disharmony"(p 32) but, if God is

always watching then there is no way to secretly be immoral. The atheist on the other hand is in no way obligated to be moral if there seems to be no payoff. Layman sites the following case. "Suppose A has borrowed some money from B, but A discovers that B has made a mistake in his records. Because of the mistake, B believes that A has already paid the money back. B even goes out of his way to thank A for prompt payment on the loan." Now if B is wealthy and will not miss the money, should A repay the loan?"(p 32) According to the secularist view that earthly goods are all that can be acquired in ones life, then why pay back the loan at all. Why not keep the money and have all the more earthly goods? But the theist is bound by the belief that morality is paid off in the afterlife and that immorality is punished. If immorality is not punished in the afterlife then what of the "moral freeloaders"(p 32) who "maintain an appearance of decency, but are in fact highly manipulative of others?"(p 32) Those people seem to find there lives amply rewarding. So Layman concludes secularism lacks the "metaphysical resources"(p 35) for making a guarantee that morality pays and that without religion there would be no true payoff for being moral.

We will now discuss some similar points of view that the two authors agree on. Starting off with the idea that morality involves cost to the individual. If you are moral all of the time it is assumed that you will have to go without in some circumstances. If you are bound by morality not to lie, cheat, or steal then it is safe to assume that you will get in trouble, not pass an important test, or be unable to have something you want. Both authors agree that being moral doesn't always have an immediate payoff. Even though both agree that by being moral does have some payoff. For example the secularist would be moral because it would make them feel better about themselves, while the theist would also likely feel better about themselves, they would be moral more for the payoff to be received in the afterlife. They will also that there is a connection between religion and morality. While Layman states that the two go hand in hand. Arthur will concede that religion

Some common words found in the essay are:
Religion Layman's, Dewey Conscience, Juedo-Christian God, Granted God's, God Christian, John Arthur's, God Noah, Noah Ark, Command Theoryp, Christian God, religion morality, moral payoff, morality religion, moral god, lie cheat steal, morality pays, morality god, revelation god's, god likes, agree moral, believe god,

Approximate Word count = 1513
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)

Category: Religion