Morality

==Religion==
{{Main|Ethics in religion|Morality and religion}}
{{See also|Divine command theory|Divine law|Religious law|Secular ethics|Secular morality}}

Religion and morality are not synonymous. Morality does not depend upon religion although for some this is "an almost automatic assumption".<ref>{{cite book|editor1-last=Rachels|editor1-first=James|editor2-last=Rachels|editor2-first=Stuart|title=The Elements of Moral Philosophy|publisher=McGraw-Hill|edition=7th|year=2011|location=New York|page={{page needed|date=December 2019}}|isbn=978-0-078-03824-2}}</ref> According to ''The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics'', religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other. Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides."<ref>{{cite book|editor1-last=Childress|editor1-first=James F.|editor2-last= Macquarrie|editor2-first=John|title=The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics|publisher=The Westminster Press|year=1986|location=Philadelphia|page=401|isbn=978-0-664-20940-7}}</ref>

=== Positions ===
Within the wide range of moral traditions, religious value systems co-exist with contemporary secular frameworks such as [[consequentialism]], [[freethought]], [[humanism]], [[utilitarianism]], and others. There are many types of religious value systems. Modern [[monotheistic]] religions, such as [[Islam]], [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and to a certain degree others such as [[Sikhism]] and [[Zoroastrianism]], define right and wrong by the laws and rules set forth by their respective scriptures and as interpreted by religious leaders within the respective faith. Other religions spanning [[pantheistic]] to [[nontheistic]] tend to be less absolute. For example, within [[Buddhism]], the intention of the individual and the circumstances should be accounted for in the form of [[Merit (Buddhism)|Merit]], to determine if an action is right or wrong termed.<ref>Peggy Morgan, "Buddhism." In {{cite book |title= Ethical Issues in Six Religious Traditions |edition= Second|editor1-first=  Peggy|editor1-last= Morgan|editor2-first= Clive A. | editor2-last= Lawton|year= 2007|publisher= Columbia University Press|isbn= 978-0-7486-2330-3 |pages= 61, 88–89}}</ref> A further disparity between the values of religious traditions is pointed out by [[Barbara Stoler Miller]], who states that, in Hinduism, "practically, right and wrong are decided according to the categories of social rank, kinship, and stages of life. For modern Westerners, who have been raised on ideals of universality and [[egalitarianism]], this relativity of values and obligations is the aspect of Hinduism most difficult to understand".<ref>{{cite book |title= The Bhagavad Gita: Krishna's Counsel in Time of War |last=  Miller|first = Barbara Stoler|year = 2004|publisher= Random House|location= New York|isbn= 978-0-553-21365-2 |page= 3}}</ref>

Religions provide different ways of dealing with moral dilemmas. For example, there is no absolute prohibition on killing in [[Hinduism]], which recognizes that it "may be inevitable and indeed necessary" in certain circumstances.<ref>Werner Menski, "Hinduism." In {{cite book |title= Ethical Issues in Six Religious Traditions |edition= Second|editor1-first=  Peggy|editor1-last= Morgan|editor2-first= Clive A. | editor2-last= Lawton|year= 2007|publisher= Columbia University Press|isbn= 978-0-7486-2330-3 |page= 5}}</ref> In monotheistic traditions, certain acts are viewed in more absolute terms, such as [[abortion]] or [[divorce]].{{Ref label|A|a|none}} Religion is not always positively associated with morality. Philosopher [[David Hume]] stated that, "the greatest crimes have been found, in many instances, to be compatible with a superstitious [[piety]] and devotion; Hence it is justly regarded as unsafe to draw any inference in favor of a man's morals, from the fervor or strictness of his religious exercises, even though he himself believe them sincere."<ref>[[David Hume]], "The Natural History of Religion." In {{cite book|title=The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever|title-link=The Portable Atheist|editor-last=Hitchens|editor-first=Christopher|editor-link=Christopher Hitchens|year= 2007|publisher=Da Capo Press|location=Philadelphia|isbn=978-0-306-81608-6|page=30}}</ref>

Religious value systems can also be used to justify acts that are contrary to contemporary morality, such as [[massacre]]s, [[misogyny]] and [[slavery]]. For example, [[Simon Blackburn]] states that "apologists for Hinduism defend or explain away its involvement with the caste system, and apologists for Islam defend or explain away its harsh penal code or its attitude to women and infidels".<ref>{{cite book |title= Ethics: A Very Short Introduction|last= Blackburn|first= Simon|author-link=Simon Blackburn|year= 2001|publisher= Oxford University Press|location= Oxford|isbn= 978-0-19-280442-6|page= 13}}</ref> In regard to Christianity, he states that the "[[Bible]] can be read as giving us a carte blanche for harsh attitudes to children, the mentally handicapped, animals, the environment, the divorced, unbelievers, people with various sexual habits, and elderly women",<ref>{{cite book |title= Ethics: A Very Short Introduction|last= Blackburn|first= Simon|author-link=Simon Blackburn|year= 2001|publisher= Oxford University Press|location= Oxford|isbn= 978-0-19-280442-6|page= 12}}</ref> and notes morally suspect themes in the Bible's [[New Testament]] as well.<ref>{{cite book |title= Ethics: A Very Short Introduction|last= Blackburn|first= Simon|author-link=Simon Blackburn|year= 2001|publisher= Oxford University Press|location= Oxford|isbn= 978-0-19-280442-6|pages= 11–12}}</ref>{{Ref label|E|e|none}} [[Elizabeth S. Anderson|Elizabeth Anderson]] likewise holds that "the Bible contains both good and evil teachings", and it is "morally inconsistent".<ref>[[Elizabeth S. Anderson|Elizabeth Anderson]], "If God is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?" In {{cite book|title=The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever|title-link=The Portable Atheist|publisher=Da Capo Press|year=2007|isbn=978-0-306-81608-6|editor-last=Hitchens|editor-first=Christopher|editor-link=Christopher Hitchens|location=Philadelphia|page=336}}</ref> Christian [[apologists]] address Blackburn's viewpoints<ref name="colley1">{{cite web|last=Colley|first=Caleb|title=Is Christianity a Threat to Ethics?|url=http://espanol.apologeticspress.org/articles/240427|publisher=Apologetics Press|access-date=3 May 2012}}</ref> and construe that [[Halakha|Jewish laws]] in the [[Hebrew Bible]] showed the evolution of moral standards towards protecting the vulnerable, imposing a death penalty on those pursuing slavery and treating slaves as persons and not property.<ref name="enrichmentjournal1">{{cite web |url=http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201102/201102_108_slavery.htm.cfm |title=Does the Old Testament Endorse Slavery? An Overview |publisher=Enrichmentjournal.ag.org |access-date=2012-05-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181005034831/http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201102/201102_108_slavery.htm.cfm |archive-date=2018-10-05 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Humanists like Paul Kurtz believe that we can identify moral values across cultures, even if we do not appeal to a supernatural or universalist understanding of principles – values including integrity, trustworthiness, benevolence, and fairness. These values can be resources for finding common ground between believers and nonbelievers.<ref>See Weber, Eric Thomas. "[http://www.ericthomasweber.org/Weber-RPRH.pdf Religion, Public Reason, and Humanism: Paul Kurtz on Fallibilism and Ethics] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131014235128/http://www.ericthomasweber.org/Weber-RPRH.pdf |date=2013-10-14 }}." ''Contemporary Pragmatism'' 5, Issue 2 (2008): 131–47.</ref>

=== Empirical analyses ===
Several studies have been conducted on the empirics of morality in various countries, and the overall relationship between faith and [[crime]] is unclear.{{Ref label|B|b|none}} A 2001 review of studies on this topic found "The existing evidence surrounding the effect of religion on crime is varied, contested, and inconclusive, and currently, no persuasive answer exists as to the empirical relationship between religion and crime."<ref name = baier/> Phil Zuckerman's 2008 book, ''Society without God'', based on studies conducted during 14 months in Scandinavia in 2005–2006, notes that [[Denmark]] and [[Sweden]], "which are probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world", enjoy "among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world".<ref>{{cite book |title= Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us about Contentment|last= Zuckerman|first= Phil|publisher= New York University Press|location= New York|isbn= 978-0-8147-9714-3|page= 2|date= October 2008}}</ref>{{Ref label|C|c|none}}

Dozens of studies have been conducted on this topic since the twentieth century. A 2005 study by [[Gregory S. Paul]] published in the ''Journal of Religion and Society'' stated that, "In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies," and "In all secular developing democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows" with the exceptions being the United States (with a high religiosity level) and "theistic" Portugal.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html |journal=Journal of Religion and Society|title=Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look|first=Gregory S.|last=Paul|location=Baltimore, MD|year =2005 |volume =7|pages=4–5, 8, 10|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111214113448/http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html |archive-date=2011-12-14}}</ref>{{Ref label|D|d|none}}  In a response, Gary Jensen builds on and refines Paul's study.<ref name="Jensen">Gary F. Jensen (2006) Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University [http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2006/2006-7.pdf "Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look'"],  ''Journal of Religion and Society'', Vol. 8, {{ISSN|1522-5658}}</ref> he concludes that a "complex relationship" exists between religiosity and homicide "with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it". In April 2012, the results of a study which tested their subjects' [[Prosocial behavior|pro-social]] sentiments were published in the ''[[Social Psychological and Personality Science]]'' journal in which non-religious people had higher scores showing that they were more motivated by their own compassion to perform pro-social behaviors. Religious people were found to be less motivated by compassion to be charitable than by an inner sense of moral obligation.<ref>[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120430140035.htm "Highly Religious People Are Less Motivated by Compassion Than Are Non-Believers"]. ''Science Daily''</ref><ref>Laura R. Saslow, Robb Willer, Matthew Feinberg, Paul K. Piff, Katharine Clark, Dacher Keltner and Sarina R. Saturn
[http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/04/25/1948550612444137.full.pdf+html "My Brother's Keeper? Compassion Predicts Generosity More Among Less Religious Individuals"]</ref>