Under the religious paradigm, it’s often the case that doing the bidding of a divine figure is considered synonymous with living an ethical life. I respectfully reject this notion.
In Christianity and numerous other faiths, the idea of an “objective morality” is key. Without a black-and-white view on the acceptability of human actions, the lists of moral commandments contained within most religious scriptures are rendered moot. If there is ever a time when it’s acceptable to, say, covet your neighbor’s donkey, then a religion prescribing not to do so loses some of its power.
So was born the idea that morality must be objective. But if there is such a thing as a divine figure who dictates moral behavior, “morality” means nothing. It means whatever the deity wishes it to mean, and it could change at any time, based on a whim.
I personally think the idea that morality is subjective makes more sense. This would explain why what is considered ethical varies by region and society and culture. If ethics were dictated, they would be universal.
To me, the idea that ethics have evolved makes more sense than what we’ve been taught: that morality is concrete, and handed down from on high. Contrary to that teaching, it has grown from the tribal nature of our species, and our need to cooperate in order to flourish.
I say we discard the archaic concept of a morality that is written in stone.
When you etch your moral code in stone, you have no room for editing. You leave open the possibility that, as our ethical views evolve, your code becomes less relevant. You could find yourself with four of ten divine moral laws describing how to treat God and zero that prohibit rape or slavery.
Stay Reasonable!
David