Religious Ethics

A difficult question parents ask is whether they will raise their kids with religion.  When considering such a question we should consider how religion shapes a person’s character.  This has been the subject of numerous sociological studies:

A study at UNC of 2500 adolescents revealed that those with religious influence are less likely to engage in risky behaviors such as drugs, violence, shoplifting, vandalism, and robbery.  Another study of 1600 Canadians found that those who believe in God value interpersonal virtues — such as patience, forgiveness, and friendship — more than atheists.   Another study of 1000 adults found that evangelicals were less likely to engage in profanity, pornography, lying, adultery, and other questionable behaviors.

These studies indicate that religion can mold our ethical character.  Perhaps the reason why is because religions emphasize deontological ethics – or in other words – rules to follow despite the consequences.  These rules include the 10 commandments, but also other religious ideals such as forgiveness, humility, tolerance and the golden rule.  The religious are taught to act a certain way regardless of consequences.  Thus the biggest obstacle to such lofty aspirations is ourselves.  This sets the groundwork for a life of personal introspection and reformation – the hallmark of a religious lifestyle.

These principles are difficult to arive at from a secular viewpoint.  Why should one antagonize themselves?  Especially if there is no obvious connection to personal benefit. While being religious or non-religious does not determine our moral character, the studies suggest that growing up around religion fosters a higher moral standard – something parents should think about.

Peter Singer’s Speciesism

Throughout history humanity has struggled with various forms of unjust discrimination – racism, sexism, ageism, classism, ableism, homophobism etc. In the struggle to overcome these prejudices we have invoked the ideal that all human beings are equal by nature of being human. This is a lofty and attractive ideal employed by many religious and civil rights leaders.

Yet this ideal falls short in helping us overcome a new type of prejudice known as speciesism – the discrimination of one species by another species (i.e. human discrimination on animals). Speciesism assumes that all species have rights; but on what basis do they have rights?  To tackle speciesism we need a new standard for rights. Secular philosophers have already taken on the task. Peter Singer, the eminent bioethics professor at Princeton, claims the standard for rights is a combination of sentience, self-awareness and rationality; sounds good except this invites a whole host of new problems.

By adopting this new progressive standard we diminish the old standard of equality. If rights are granted on the basis of sentience instead of humanity than the handicapped, the elderly, and the newborn are losing rights. Sure enough Peter Singer has argued that certain animals have a higher moral position than infants. Furthermore Singer has defended the right for parents to euthanize their infants. Is this a slippery slope of ethics we are approaching? Can you imagine how Helen Keller would respond? Yikes.

In the insatiable quest for progress let’s be careful to not progress humanity off a cliff. In fact why don’t we leave humanity on the pedestal for now. And if we discover aliens – we can revisit the standard.