One of my all-time favorite topics is whether humans need God as a basis for moral philosophy. Fun stuff.

I was very pleased to see an article on this topic in the Global Times, which certainly does cover an eclectic selection of topics (I like to think I do too). I’ve been running around non-stop for the past 16 hours, so this probably won’t be a long post. So just a few excerpts and a comment or two from me.

The author of the piece attended a local “morality class” in Changzhou, Jiangxi Province that was organized by village/local level organizations. The class sounds sort of like a Bible study group, but was completely secular and focused on issues like corruption.

While this morality class project has been beneficial to society, some accuse the class of being a copycat of Christian church, and even dismiss the idea by arguing that only religion can cure society.

It is true that religions can cultivate people’s values and help them stick to moral principles.

[ . . . ]

An idealized vision of China as a harmonious and peaceful country, based partially on the astonishing scale and sophistication of early Qing (1644-1911) culture, inspired many Enlightenment philosophers to non-religious visions of morality.

So morality building isn’t a patent that solely belongs to religions in modern society. It can also be achieved through civil-orientated lectures. Monotheistic religions build their moral systems around God, so that humanity actually has a passive role.

In a civil moral system, where the core is humanity, people can exercise good deeds not to receive divine forgiveness, but for the sake of others and the harmony of the society. They will not force their values upon the others since they all share the common values that originate from their hearts.

Nicely done, and I couldn’t agree more. I would only add that as an atheist, I see religion as just another man-made system, often created to give a foundation for society’s rules. Religion introduces an outside motivator, referee, and judge into the mix, and elevates the rules to a level where they can no longer be criticized (theoretically, at least).

The non-religious moral philosophy, or system of ethics, is simply an honest admission that rules are man-made, derived from a variety of sources (custom, logic, etc.), that can change over time based on what the group deems fit.

Why do we have rules at all? Why do we have concepts like right or wrong? Because we want to live in a certain type of society that, for example, doesn’t condone murder, or rape, or property theft. If the group decides it’s important, then over time that decision can be viewed as “right” and the opposite “wrong.” I’m over-simplifying this very potent topic, of course, but you know, time/energy constraints.

So I like most of the article. I don’t, however, particularly agree with this bit:

The Chinese society now suffers a moral decline mainly because its intellectuals have been denying the country’s old traditions in favor of Western religions. Their advocacy that China is helpless due to a lack of faith has confused the public and society.

We should stay calm and have confidence in our culture, which can ensure good social ethics.

Just when this article was doing so well, the author has to go and say something ridiculous like that. Blatant nationalism (it is the Global Times after all). Blaming China’s moral failings on Western religion is laughable for a variety of reasons. Of more interest, though, is the reliance on cultural tradition.

Why must conservatives always hearken back to the “Good Old Days” when discussing morality? Happens in every country.

Do we need a cultural tradition thousands of years old to convince us not to engage in corruption or insider trading? Just like we don’t need God to tell us what is “wrong,” we don’t need to look at what rules were deemed appropriate a few thousand years ago to tell us how society today should operate. We can study those teachings and discuss the conclusions, but adopting them wholesale just because they are “traditional” seems almost as irrational as religion.

If we want a harmonious society here in China, shouldn’t we look to ourselves and our current situation first to figure out how we should treat one another? Instead of only relying on religion or culture for answers, how about focusing on the income gap, poverty, conspicuous consumption, environmental degradation, land disputes and other relevant issues and then, between government rule-making and private behavior, reorder ourselves accordingly?

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: harmonious society, moral philosophy, religion