Question

How does morality not need religion?

Answer 1

Religion doesn't decide your morality-

Most strict individuals think their morality originates from their religion. Also, profoundly strict individuals regularly wonder how skeptics can have any morality whatsoever.

I'm going to utilize Christianity as my model, not on the grounds that it's delegate of religion all in all, but since there's a great deal of exploration on Christians, and in light of the fact that numerous perusers will probably be acquainted with it. Christians will frequently reveal to you that their morality originates from their religion or from their folks' rendition of it. What's more, on the off chance that you get some information about what their religion enlightens them concerning what's good and bad, it will probably agree with their own thoughts of good and bad.

The first is this current: It's essentially the way that this test is a misrepresentation, which means it distorts at any rate the Christian case. Christians, for instance, are not asserting that non-strict individuals don't or can't have ethics. The genuine inquiry is, the means by which does an individual who doesn't have faith in God give an establishment to target morality, This, obviously, drives me to the second issue with this case. That is, if ethics are only a human innovation made by every individual or even by every general public, at that point it's unthinkable that ethics are objective, and by target ethics I mean something is correct or wrong free of whether anybody accepts that or not. For instance, subjugation is unbiasedly off-base. That implies possessing slaves isn't right in any event, when society trusted it was correct and passed laws to secure the option to claim slaves. Presently, for adherents to God, the misleading quality of bondage is grounded in God's perpetual norm, however in the event that there's no God, how is it conceivable that servitude is dispassionately off-base? Everything you can say is, "I think servitude isn't right, or society says subjugation isn't right." But on the off chance that you alter your perspective or society adjusts their perspective, at that point subjection can turn into an ethical decent. That implies ethics at last are relative, or we call that ethical relativism. Bondage at that point isn't intrinsically off-base, it's possibly off-base when society says it's off-base. So returning to the first test where they state, "You needn't bother with a religion to have ethics. In the event that you can't decide directly from off-base, at that point you need compassion, not religion." Well, in the event that by ethics they mean good relativism, at that point I concur with them. You don't eat religion for moral relativism. In any case, at that point their view says that nothing is naturally off-base, it's simply unacceptable on the grounds that society says so at that point, and that scarcely shows compassion.