Stand Alone Morality

Stand alone morality Can people live meaningful lives, become loving parents and be responsible citizens without being religious? Millions of Americans do not attend church and millions reject religious beliefs yet they behave responsibly. Although America’s founding fathers wrote, “One Nation under God”, Chinese, Japanese, and Indian cultures do not accept Western beliefs, yet the citizens of those societies can be as virtuous, kind, and charitable as Americans. Still there are people that believe in god or a higher being because that is something that helps keep them people grounded.
People should ask, can a person be truly ethical if he or she has not developed a caring moral conscience? Morals shouldn’t be based upon the fear or love of God, nor on obedience to his commandments, but rather on an internalized sense of right and wrong. Therefore most people learn morals from their parents, friends, neighbours, community leaders, authority figures, role models, laws, cultural norms, empathetic responses, social contracts… pretty much the same places and people we first learn basic living skills. America and the rest of the world has become a melting pot in which morality and respect for others needs to be considered with greater regard.
We live in a multicultural world with various religious and secular traditions (Briggs). Every civilized community, whether religious or secular, recognizes virtually all of what most people call the "common moral decencies" (Briggs). We should tell the truth, keep promises, be honest, kind, dependable, and compassionate; we need to be just and tolerant and, whenever possible, negotiate our differences peacefully.
The need today is to extend our ethical concern to all members of the world community and to find common ground with men and women of differing faiths and ideologies. Christians, Muslims, and Jews believe in the promise of eternal salvation for those who obey God's commandments. Humanists prefer to focus on life here and now, and they strive to develop the arts of intelligence to solve human problems (Noddings). They wish to rely on education, reason, science, and democratic methods of persuasion to improve the human condition. What is the goal of humanist ethics? It is to mitigate suffering and to increase the sum of human happiness, both for the individual and the community at large (Noddings). Although interested in social justice, humanists nevertheless emphasize the virtues of individuality. They wish to provide the opportunities for individuals to lead the good life on their own terms, though with sensitivity to others' rights. They believe in cultivating the conditions for moral growth. They validate that life is worthwhile and that it can be a source of bountiful joy. They believe in developing self-reliant persons, who are rational and responsible, who can discover and appreciate truth, beauty, and goodness, and who are able to share these stores of wisdom with others (Briggs).
Many moral dilemmas that we face in life are not between good and evil (a simplistic view of morality), but between two or more conflicting goods, or the lesser of two evils. Here there is no substitute for rational ethical inquiry in evaluating competing goods and rights. This does not imply a breakdown of morality. Surely religionists and atheists have moral principles and values in common (Noddings). Their application, however, depends upon intelligent reflective inquiry in concrete cases. Reasonable persons will draw upon objective criteria: the facts of the case, a cost-benefit analysis, weighing the consequences of alternatives, cherished moral principles, etc. It is especially important in our pluralistic democracy, where there are competing conceptions of the good life, that we justify our moral choices on rational grounds.
Sure, if I imagined that god were running the show this whole time and then imagined that he walked out of the control booth, I’d probably be very concerned that all of humanity would suddenly become lawless, hedonistic, sociopathic heathens. But this is the wrong way to consider how you can be moral without god.
Instead of imagining “god” followed by “no-god” as our brains our apt to do, try to go all the way back and imagine that god never existed in the first place (McGuire). Over time, they become more and more complex, until we get these vague notions of “good” and “bad”, “right” and “wrong”.
There are many people, which do not have any faith or belief in any personal god, one that dispenses grace, goodness, and/or miracles according to his/her 'will' (Briggs). Many people do not acknowledge any ‘supernatural’ agent or agency that intentionally intercedes in human affairs or selectively answers peoples' prayers. There are people who do not and cannot stomach any wilful divine being that plays with tornados, earthquakes or any other type of natural disasters. They do not support or promote any formal, organized religious notion or expression of any such 'god' (Bringgs). However, there are many who would totally disagree with these beliefs. Those who would disagree with these beliefs would undoubtedly argue these people must be immoral, and some may say that they represent evil. They would argue you cannot be moral if you do not believe in God. This is not correct. One who is moral but does not believe in god might believe, for example, there is only a creative principle at work in the Universe. They may also acknowledge a wish fulfilling inclination in the human mind, a desire to be part of some greater whole or purpose, which is the extension, or by-product, of our unique self-awareness and knowledge of our eventual death.
We, humans, do not need to belong to any religion in order to have a sense of moral right or wrong. Moral righteousness is natural, and not centered on supernatural faith. Morality is a product of social, not spiritual interaction. Unfortunately, the mistaken idea that humans cannot be good without professing a belief in the ‘supreme being’ or without belonging to a religion is one that is dominant in most societies across the world. This mistaken idea is largely responsible for lack of progress in those areas of human life where religions exercise moral authority.
Respecting people for who they are where they come from and what they posses and not be jealous is something that can be taught at home. Additionally, in recent history preachers and priests have been caught molesting kids. This type of behaviour is not expected from people that are supposed to have high morals.
Finally, the most important reason People don't need to believe in god to have morals is the way society has evolved. In today’s society, being gay is an accepted that was not accepted in the past. People that are the most critical usually preach religion and biblical terms. However those same people are the ones that you breaking public laws and at times involved in some sort of theft.
In the grand scheme of things, we got along just fine with the enforcement of basic laws that derived from the ‘Golden Rule’. We’re not perfect. There’s a lot of stuff we can do better. But this whole time we did it ourselves. We are 100% to blame for our mistakes and can take 100% of the credit for our successes. Indeed, while Believing in god or a higher being is something that helps keep us grounded, people don't need to believe in god to have morals. Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong) (Mcguire).

McGuire, Meredith B, (2008). Lived Religion: Faith and Practice in Everyday Life. Cary,
NC, Oxford University Press, USA
Briggs, Kenneth, (2006). Double Crossed : Uncovering the Catholic Church's Betrayal of American Nuns. Westminster, MD, Doubleday Religion
Noddings, Nel, (2002). Starting at Home : Caring and Social Policy. Ewing, NJ, University of California Press