schweblog

The grand tradition of western religion typically sees our “loving” deity issuing a series of ethical guidelines by which the adherents of any given faith should behave. Sometimes it’s on a giant stone tablet, other times it’s through disciples or kings, but it’s usually straightforward. These guides for action become a serious damper, though, when people feel it necessary to impose the values of their adopted religion on their fellow populace at large (a la gay marriage, school prayer, etc.).

Some people–atheists, even–have cited religion’s positive force in the universe as its one saving grace. The charity, social structures, and stability offered by a religion give the cultural trend a positive connotation. After a recent discussion, though, I’ve decided that I strongly disagree with recognizing this as a “positive” trend. Even when the wheat (positive value systems, etc.) is separated from the chaff (the mystical elements, etc.), the religious adherent still ends up shortchanged in the long run.

Any typical religious code is commandment-based–that is, entity X ordered Y, therefore you must Y. If a person wants to remain in good standing with the entity X, they must adhere to Y. Very rarely is a reason given to abide by the edict, outside of the fact that it is an “abomination” to act otherwise. Independent of the relative benefits to society of the behavior of the agent him/herself behaving under the commandment, you’re left with an empty, morally crippled individual who lacks any moral compass whatsoever.

In short, you’re creating a moral agent that, upon encountering a situation that is not addressed in their holy book, will be incapable and inept (one might argue that so many Christians’ support for the war in Iraq would prove this–I won’t go that far). Admittedly, any sort of traditional study of ethical systems (consequentialism, deontology, etc.) will not yield solid answers for every situation. Complications arise. Theories fail. If you ascribe to any one of them, you will eventually be left on shaky ethical ground without a plausible solution in sight.

Except one. When you study modes of ethics, you are not being fed doctrines and edicts–you’re being equipped with a series of tools to address the sticky, not-so-obvious situations that you will inevitably face in your lifetime. After studying ethics in any sort of comprehensive manner, one is left with a multitude of ways to judge something. Sometimes one tool will be appropriate to deal with a situation; other times it will be completely useless. The point is, you have several tools at your disposal…and a knowledge of their limits.

In a lot of ways, ethical systems are to your life in the way duct tape and bailing wire are to mechanical problems. They won’t always be appropriate to the problem you’re having, but they will give you some options to hold you over until you have more information at your disposal and maybe the advice of someone else with more experience than you. Those ascribing to “religious ethics”, however, are given one tool for the job. If it works, good for society. It it doesn’t work, there are typically a lot of casualties when the zealots try to fit the square peg into the round hole.

It’s a cost that I think outweighs the benefits. If religious groups around the world were genuinely concerned about the well-being of their fellow man, they would stop preaching adherence to a blind, dysfunctional morality and start equipping their adherents with the tools necessary to deal with contemporary problems in a practical way.