Hubbry Logo
Ethics in religionEthics in religionMain
Open search
Ethics in religion
Community hub
Ethics in religion
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Ethics in religion
Ethics in religion
Ethics in religion
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Ethics involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.[1] A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is simply satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than traditional moral conduct.[2]

Most religions have an ethical component, often derived from purported supernatural revelation or guidance. Some assert that religion is necessary to live ethically. Simon Blackburn states that there are those who "would say that we can only flourish under the umbrella of a strong social order, cemented by common adherence to a particular religious tradition".[3]

Buddhist ethics

[edit]
Main article: Buddhist ethics

Ethics in Buddhism are traditionally based on the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings who followed him. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics.[4]

According to traditional Buddhism, the foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is the Pancasila: no killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, or intoxicants. In becoming a Buddhist, or affirming one's commitment to Buddhism, a layperson is encouraged to vow to abstain from these negative actions. Buddhist monks and nuns take hundreds more such vows (see vinaya).[citation needed]

This approach avoids basing Buddhist ethics solely on faith in the Buddha's enlightenment or Buddhist tradition, and may allow more universal non-Buddhist access to the insights offered by Buddhist ethics.[5]

The Buddha provided some basic guidelines for acceptable behavior that are part of the Noble Eightfold Path. The initial percept is non-injury or non-violence to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans. This precept defines a non-violent attitude toward every living thing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism, but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[6]

Theravada monk Bhikkhu Bodhi has observed:

Buddhist ethics, as formulated in the five precepts, is sometimes charged with being entirely negative. ... [I]t has to be pointed out that the five precepts, or even the longer codes of precepts promulgated by the Buddha, do not exhaust the full range of Buddhist ethics. The precepts are only the most rudimentary code of moral training, but the Buddha also proposes other ethical codes inculcating definite positive virtues. The Mangala Sutta, for example, commends reverence, humility, contentment, gratitude, patience, generosity, etc. Other discourses prescribe numerous family, social, and political duties establishing the well being of society. And behind all these duties lie the four attitudes called the "immeasurables" – loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity.[7]

Christian ethics

[edit]
Main article: Christian ethics
See also: Biblical law in Christianity, Sermon on the Mount, New Commandment, and Ministry of Jesus

Christian ethics is a branch of Christian theology that defines virtuous behavior and wrong behavior from a Christian perspective. Systematic theological study of Christian ethics is called "moral theology".

Christian virtues are often divided into four cardinal virtues and three theological virtues. Christian ethics includes questions regarding how the rich should act toward the poor, how women are to be treated, and the morality of war. Christian ethicists, like other ethicists, approach ethics from different frameworks and perspectives. The approach of virtue ethics has also become popular in recent decades, largely due to the work of Alasdair MacIntyre and Stanley Hauerwas.[8]

There are several different schema of vice and virtue. Aquinas adopted the four cardinal virtues of Aristotle (justice, courage, temperance and prudence), and added to them the Christian virtues of faith, hope and charity (1 Corinthians 13). Other schema include the Seven Deadly Sins and the Seven virtues.

Confucian ethics

[edit]

Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism emphasize the maintenance and propriety of relationships as the most important consideration in ethics.[9] To be ethical is to do what one's relationships require. Notably, though, what you owe to another person is inversely proportional to their distance from you. In other words, you owe your parents everything, but you are not in any way obligated towards strangers. This can be seen as a recognition of the fact that it is impossible to love the entire world equally and simultaneously. This is called relational ethics, or situational ethics. The Confucian system differs very strongly from Kantian ethics in that there are rarely laws or principles which can be said to be true absolutely or universally.

This is not to say that there has never been any consideration given to universalist ethics. In fact, in Zhou dynasty China, the Confucians' main opponents, the followers of Mozi argued for universal love (Chinese: 兼爱; pinyin: jiān ài). The Confucian view eventually held sway, however, and continues to dominate many aspects of Chinese thought. Many have argued, for example, that Mao Zedong was more Confucian than Communist. Confucianism, especially of the type argued for by Mencius, argued that the ideal ruler is the one who (as Confucius put it) "acts like the North Star, staying in place while the other stars orbit around it". In other words, the ideal ruler does not go out and force the people to become good, but instead leads by example. The ideal ruler fosters harmony rather than laws.

Confucius stresses honesty above all. His concepts of lĭ (Chinese: 理), yì (Chinese: 義), and rén (Chinese: 仁) can be seen as deeper expressions of honesty (Chinese: 誠; pinyin: chéng; lit. 'sincerity') and fidelity (Chinese: 孝; pinyin: xiào) to the ones to whom one owes one's existence (parents) and survival (one's neighbours, colleagues, inferiors in rank). He codified traditional practice and actually changed the meaning of the prior concepts that those words had meant. His model of the Confucian family and Confucian ruler dominated Chinese life into the early 20th century. This had ossified by then into an Imperial hierarchy of rigid property rights, hard to distinguish from any other dictatorship. Traditional ethics had been perverted by legalism.

Buddhist influence

[edit]

Buddhism, and specifically Mahayana Buddhism, brought a cohesive metaphysic to Chinese thought and a strong emphasis on universalism. Neo-Confucianism was largely a reaction to Buddhism's dominance in the Tang dynasty, and an attempt at developing a native Confucian metaphysical/analytical system.

Germanic Neopagan ethics

[edit]

Germanic Neopagans, including followers of both Asatru and Theodism, try to emulate the ethical values of the ancient Germanic peoples (Norse or Anglo-Saxon).

Hindu ethics

[edit]
Main articles: Hinduism, Yamas, and Niyamas
Ahimsa – non-violence in action, words and thoughts – is considered the highest ethical value and virtue in Hinduism.[10] Above: non-violence sculpture by Carl Fredrik Reutersward in Malmo, Sweden.

Ethics is called Nitisastra (Sanskrit: नीतिशास्त्र)[11] in ancient texts of Hinduism.[12] Ethics and virtue are a much debated[13] and an evolving concept in ancient scriptures of Hinduism.[14][15] Virtue, right conduct, ethics and morality are part of the complex concept Hindus call Dharma – everything that is essential for people, the world and nature to exist and prosper together, in harmony.[16] As P.V. Kane, the author of the History of Dharmasastra said, the term "Dharma" does not have a synonym in English language. While it is often interpreted as meaning "duty", it can mean justice, right, moral, good, and much more.[17]

Ethics are explained in Hindu philosophy as something that cannot be imposed, but something that is realized and voluntarily lived up to by each individual. For example, Apastamba explained it thus: "virtue and vice do not go about saying – here we are!; neither the Gods, Gandharvas, nor ancestors can convince us – this is right, this is wrong; virtue is an elusive concept, it demands careful and sustained reflection by every man and woman before it can become part of one's life.[18]

Ethics that constitute a dharmic life – that is a moral, ethical, virtuous life – evolve in Vedas and Upanishads. Ethical subjects and questions are debated by various schools of Hinduism, quite extensively, in numerous texts on what is right conduct, when, how and why.[12] Over time, new virtues were conceptualized and added by ancient Hindu scholars, some replaced, others merged. For example, Manusamhita initially listed ten virtues necessary for a human being to live a dharmic life: Dhriti (courage), Kshama (forgiveness), Dama (temperance), Asteya (Non-covetousness/Non-stealing), Saucha (inner purity), Indriyani-graha (control of senses), dhi (reflective prudence), vidya (wisdom), satyam (truthfulness), akrodha (freedom from anger).[19] In later verses, this list was reduced to five virtues by the same scholar, by merging and creating a more broader concept. The shorter list of virtues became: Ahimsa (Non-violence), Dama (self restraint), Asteya (Non-covetousness/Non-stealing), Saucha (inner purity), Satyam (truthfulness).[20][21]

The Persian historian Al Biruni who visited and lived in India for 16 years in the early 11th century, describes the concept of ethics and virtuous behavior among Hindus of his times. Of ethical mandates among Hindus, a literal translation of his Persian language manuscript includes (1) A man shall not kill; (2) nor lie; (3) nor steal; (4) nor whore; (5) nor hoard up treasures.[22] These correspond to five Yamas of ancient Hindu ethics: Ahimsa (non-violence), Satya (truth, non-falsehood), Asteya (non-stealing), Brahmacharya (celibacy if unmarried and non-cheating on one's partner if married), and Aparigraha (non-possessiveness).[23] In addition to these five negative things to abstain from, Hindu ethics also recommends five positive things to strive for as Niyamas: Śauca (purity in body, speech and mind), Santosha (contentment, acceptance of circumstances with optimism), Tapas (perseverance, meditation, austerity), Swadhyaya (lifelong learning) and Pranidhan (right attitude, contemplation).[23][24] An ethical life in Hinduism is essential for a liberated life, one without craving, one that is content, attained through knowledge and by abstaining from evil.[25]

Hindu literature variously discuss ethics as one or more of four topics: (1) Gunas that is inner tendencies of conduct found in every individual (in large measure, psychology); (2) Purushartha that is proper aims of life for every individual for self-development and happiness (dharma, artha, kama and moksha); (3) Ashramas that is ethics for an individual in different periods of one's lifetime (ethical expectations for a child are distinguished from those for adults, old age); and (4) Varnasramas that is ethics and conduct for every individual in relation to society.[12] Ancient literature at the foundation of various Hindu traditions primarily discuss the first three, while the last has attracted greater attention since the 18th century. Some early 20th century literature wondered if ethics was ever a serious topic of study in Hinduism.[26] Later studies have yielded the above four approaches to ethics in different schools of Hinduism, tied together with three common themes:[12][26][27] (1) ethics is an essential part of dharma concept,[28][29] (2) Ahimsa (non-violence) is the foundational premise without which – suggests Hinduism – ethics and any consistent ethical theory is impossible,[30][31] and (3) Ethics cannot always be dualistically or non-dualistically reduced from first principles, ethics is closely related to moksha (self realization and spiritual freedom) with Vivekacudamani stating, "individuals with self knowledge and spiritual freedom are inherently self examining and ethical" and "ethics, freedom and knowledge require each other".[28][32] In addition to the above four topics in Hindu ethics, scholars[33][34] state that the karma doctrine of Hinduism is part of its ethical theory compendium.

The Bhagavad Gita – considered one of the epitomes of historic Hindu discussion of virtues and an allegorical debate on what is right and what is wrong – argues some virtues are not necessarily always absolute, but sometimes relational; for example, it explains a virtue such as Ahimsa must be re-examined when one is faced with war or violence from the aggressiveness, immaturity or ignorance of others.[35][36][37]

Islamic ethics

[edit]
Main article: Islamic ethics
See also: Halal and Haram

The foundational source in the gradual codification of Islamic ethics was the Muslim understanding that mankind has been granted the faculty to discern God's will and to abide by it. This faculty most crucially involves reflecting on the meaning of existence, which, as John Kelsay in the Encyclopedia of Ethics phrases, "ultimately points to the reality of God." Therefore, regardless of their environment, humans are believed to have a moral responsibility to submit to God's will and to follow Islam (as demonstrated in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, or the sayings of Muhammad [Quran 7:172-173]).[38]

This natural inclination is, according to the Qur'an, subverted by mankind's focus on material success: such focus first presents itself as a need for basic survival or security, but then tends to manifest into a desire to become distinguished among one's peers. Ultimately, the focus on materialism, according to the Islamic texts, hampers with the innate reflection as described above, resulting in a state of jahiliyya or "ignorance".[38]

Muslims believe that Muhammad, like other prophets in Islam, was sent by God to remind human beings of their moral responsibility, and challenge those ideas in society which opposed submission to God. According to Kelsay, this challenge was directed against five main characteristics of pre-Islamic Arabia:[38]

  1. The division of Arabs into varying tribes (based upon blood and kinship). This categorization was confronted by the ideal of a unified community based upon Islamic piety, an "ummah";
  2. The acceptance of the worship of a multitude of deities besides Allah – a view challenged by strict Islamic monotheism, which dictates that Allah has no partner in worship nor any equal;
  3. The trait of muruwwa (manliness), which Islam discouraged, instead emphasizing on the traits of humility and piety;
  4. The focus on achieving fame or establishing a legacy, which was replaced by the concept that mankind would be called to account before God on the day of resurrection;
  5. The reverence of and compliance with ancestral traditions, a practice challenged by Islam – which instead assigned primacy to submitting to God and following revelation.

These changes lay in the reorientation of society as regards to identity and life of the Muslim belief, world view, and the hierarchy of values. From the viewpoint of subsequent generations, this caused a great transformation in the society and moral order of life in the Arabian Peninsula. For Muhammad, although pre-Islamic Arabia exemplified "heedlessness", it was not entirely without merit. Muhammad approved and exhorted certain aspects of the Arab pre-Islamic tradition, such as the care for one's near kin, for widows, orphans, and others in need and for the establishment of justice. However, these values would be re-ordered in importance and placed in the context of strict monotheism.[38]

Furthermore, a Muslim should not only follow these five main characteristics, but also be more broad about his morals. Therefore, the more the Muslim is applying these rules, the better that person is morally. For example, Islamic ethics can be applied by important verses in the Quran. The most fundamental characteristics of a Muslim are piety and humility. A Muslim must be humble with God and with other people:

“And do not turn your nose up to people, nor walk pridefully upon the earth. Surely Allah does not like whoever is arrogant, boastful. Be moderate in your pace. And lower your voice, for the ugliest of all voices is certainly the braying of donkeys.”

— Surah Luqman 31:18-19

Muslims must be in control of their passions and desires.

A Muslim should not be vain or attached to the ephemeral pleasures of this world. While most people allow the material world to fill their hearts, Muslims should keep God in their hearts and the material world in their hand. Instead of being attached to the car and the job and the diploma and the bank account, all these things become tools to make us better people. Morality in Islam addresses every aspect of a Muslim's life, from greetings to international relations. It is universal in its scope and in its applicability. Morality reigns in selfish desires, vanity and bad habits. Muslims must not only be virtuous, but they must also enjoin virtue. They must not only refrain from evil and vice, but they must also forbid them. In other words, they must not only be morally healthy, but they must also contribute to the moral health of society as a whole.

You are the best community ever raised for humanity – you encourage good, forbid evil, and believe in Allah. Had the People of the Book believed, it would have been better for them. Some of them are faithful, but most are rebellious.

— Surah Al Imran 3:110

Muhammad summarized the conduct of a Muslim when he said: "My Sustainer has given me nine commands: to remain conscious of God, whether in private or in public; to speak justly, whether angry or pleased; to show moderation both when poor and when rich, to reunite friendship with those who have broken off with me; to give to him who refuses me; that my silence should be occupied with thought; that my looking should be an admonition; and that I should command what is right."

Islam is a way of life and it does not work in isolation. In a business practice for example, the Muslims are call to adhere good business ethical values, does not cheat, and does not charge interests to the buyers. Research has also observed how Islamic religiosity influences work ethics[39] and business ethics.

Attempts to reestablish ethics and re-conceptualize Islamic ethical theory had emerged during the 20th century by figures like: Muhammad Abdullah Draz, Muhammad Iqbal, Alija Izetbegović, and Taha Abdulrahman who developed a religious contractarian theory of ethics.[40]

Jain ethics

[edit]
Main article: Ethics of Jainism
Nishidhi stone, depicting the vow of sallekhana, 14th century, Karnataka

Jainism teaches five ethical duties, which it calls five vows. These are called anuvratas (small vows) for Jain laypersons, and mahavratas (great vows) for Jain mendicants.[41] For both, its moral precepts preface that the Jain has access to a guru (teacher, counsellor), deva (Jina, god), doctrine, and that the individual is free from five offences: doubts about the faith, indecisiveness about the truths of Jainism, sincere desire for Jain teachings, recognition of fellow Jains, and admiration for their spiritual pursuits.[42] Such a person undertakes the following five vows of Jainism:

  1. Ahiṃsā, "intentional non-violence" or "noninjury":[42] The first major vow taken by Jains is to cause no harm to other human beings, as well as all living beings (particularly animals).[42] This is the highest ethical duty in Jainism, and it applies not only to one's actions, but demands that one be non-violent in one's speech and thoughts.[43][44]
  2. Satya, "truth": This vow is to always speak the truth. Neither lie, nor speak what is not true, and do not encourage others or approve anyone who speaks an untruth.[43][41]
  3. Asteya, "not stealing": A Jain layperson should not take anything that is not willingly given.[42][45] Additionally, a Jain mendicant should ask for permission to take it if something is being given.[46]
  4. Brahmacharya, "celibacy": Abstinence from sex and sensual pleasures is prescribed for Jain monks and nuns. For laypersons, the vow means chastity, faithfulness to one's partner.[43][41]
  5. Aparigraha, "non-possessiveness": This includes non-attachment to material and psychological possessions, avoiding craving and greed.[41] Jain monks and nuns completely renounce property and social relations, own nothing and are attached to no one.[47][48]

Jainism also prescribes seven supplementary vows, including three guņa vratas (merit vows) and four śikşā vratas.[49][50] The Sallekhana (or Santhara) vow is a "religious death" ritual vow observed at the end of life, historically by Jain monks and nuns, but rare in the modern age.[51] In this vow, there is voluntary and gradual reduction of food and liquid intake to end one's life by choice and with dispassion,[52][53] In Jainism this is believed to reduce negative karma that affects a soul's future rebirths.[54]

Jewish ethics

[edit]
Main article: Jewish ethics

Jewish ethics may be said to originate with the Hebrew Bible, its broad legal injunctions, wisdom narratives and prophetic teachings. Most subsequent Jewish ethical claims may be traced back to the texts, themes and teachings of the written Torah.

In early rabbinic Judaism, the Oral Torah both interprets the Hebrew Bible and delves afresh into many other ethical topics. The best known rabbinic text associated with ethics is the non-legal Mishnah tractate of Avot, popularly translated as Ethics of the Fathers. Generally, ethics is a key aspect of non-legal rabbinic literature, known as aggadah, and ethical teachings are found throughout the more legal (halakhic) portions of the Mishnah, Talmud and other rabbinic literature. This early Rabbinic ethics shows signs of cross-fertilization and polemical exchange with both the Greek (Western philosophical) ethical tradition and early Christian tradition.

In the medieval period, direct Jewish responses to Greek ethics may be seen in major rabbinic writings. Notably, Maimonides offers a Jewish interpretation of Aristotle (e.g., Nicomachean Ethics), who enters into Jewish discourse through Islamic writings. Maimonides, in turn, influences Thomas Aquinas, a dominant figure in Catholic ethics and the natural law tradition of moral theology. The relevance of natural law to medieval Jewish philosophy is a matter of dispute among scholars.

Hellenistic influence

[edit]
See also: Hellenistic Judaism

Ethics in systematic form, and apart from religious belief, is as little found in apocryphal or Judæo-Hellenistic literature as in the Bible. However, Greek philosophy greatly influenced Alexandrian writers such as the authors of IV Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, and Philo.

Much progress in theoretical ethics came as Jews came into closer contact with the Hellenic world. Before that period the Wisdom literature shows a tendency to dwell solely on the moral obligations and problems of life as appealing to man as an individual, leaving out of consideration the ceremonial and other laws which concern only the Jewish nation. From this point of view Ben Sira's collection of sayings and monitions was written, translated into Greek, and circulated as a practical guide. The book contains popular ethics in proverbial form as the result of everyday life experience, without higher philosophical or religious principles and ideals.

More developed ethical works emanated from Hasidean circles in the Maccabean time, such as are contained in Tobit, especially in Chapter IV. Here the first ethical will or testament is found, giving a summary of moral teachings, with the Golden Rule, "Do that to no man which thou hatest!" as the leading maxim. There are even more elaborate ethical teachings in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, in which each of the twelve sons of Jacob, in his last words to his children and children's children, reviews his life and gives them moral lessons, either warning them against a certain vice he had been guilty of, so that they may avoid divine punishment, or recommending them to cultivate a certain virtue he had practised during life, so that they may win God's favor. The chief virtues recommended are love for one's fellow man, industry, especially in agricultural pursuits, simplicity, sobriety, benevolence toward the poor, compassion even for the brute and avoidance of all passion, pride, and hatred. Similar ethical farewell monitions are attributed to Enoch in the Ethiopic Enoch (xciv. et seq.) and the Slavonic Enoch (lviii. et seq.) and to the three patriarchs.

The Hellenistic Jewish propaganda literature made the propagation of Jewish ethics taken from the Bible its main object for the sake of winning the pagan world to pure monotheism. It was owing to this endeavor that certain ethical principles were laid down as guiding maxims for the Gentiles, first of all the three capital sins, idolatry, murder, and incest, were prohibited (see Sibyllines, iii. 38, 761; iv. 30 et seq.). In later Jewish rabbinic literature these Noachide Laws were gradually developed into six, seven, and ten, or thirty laws of ethics binding upon every human being.

Judeo-Christian ethics

[edit]
Main article: Judeo-Christian ethics

The concept of Judeo-Christian ethics has played a role in American politics, law, and moral discourse, tracing back to efforts in the 1930s and 1940s to highlight shared values amid rising antisemitism and societal divisions.[55] Rooted in both Jewish and Christian traditions, this idea has garnered support from leaders across the political spectrum, including Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson. Roosevelt, in his inaugural address, invoked these values to unite the nation, emphasizing social justice and caring for one's neighbor as principles upheld by both faiths.[56] Similarly, Johnson strategically employed appeals to Judeo-Christian ethics to rally support for civil rights legislation in the 1960s, framing discrimination as contrary to the moral principles shared by Jews and Christians.[57]

While the concept of a Judeo-Christian tradition has influenced American discourse and policymaking, scholars and theologians caution against uncritical usage, stressing the importance of acknowledging and respecting the distinct theological differences between Judaism and Christianity.[58][59] The validity of the concept of Judeo-Christian ethics has been called into question, but remains a popular taking point. [60]

Scientology ethics

[edit]
Main article: Scientology ethics and justice

According to Stephen A. Kent, Scientology's ethics is "a peculiar brand of morality that uniquely benefitted [the Church of Scientology] ... In plain English, the purpose of Scientology ethics is to eliminate opponents, then eliminate people's interests in things other than Scientology. In this 'ethical' environment, Scientology would be able to impose its courses, philosophy, and 'justice system' – its so-called technology – onto society."[61]

Secular ethics

[edit]
Main article: Morality without religion
See also: Secular ethics

Secular ethics is a moral philosophy in which ethics are based solely on human faculties such as scientific reason, sociobiological composition, or ethical intuition, and not derived from purported supernatural revelation or guidance. Secular ethics comprise a wide variety of moral and ethical systems including consequentialism, freethinking, humanism, secular humanism, and utilitarianism, among others.

The majority of secular moral concepts are based on the acceptance of natural rights and social contracts, and on a more individual scale of either some form of attribution of intrinsic value to things, Kantianesque ethical intuitionism or of a logical deduction that establishes a preference for one thing over another, as with Occam's razor.[citation needed] Approaches such as ethical egoism, moral relativism, moral skepticism, and moral nihilism are also considered.

Shinto ethics

[edit]
Main article: Shinto

Shinto beliefs start with an assumption of the inherent goodness of humans as descendants of the kami.[62] By the 6th century CE, Shinto had drawn from a Chinese idea that good people will adhere to societal norms, and emperors have a divine mandate to bring about the "desirable and required order".[62] Shinto adherents are to "realize and carry out the will of the kami and the ancestors in the family, the community, and the nation".[62]

Although State Shinto reinforced subordination to the emperor and the state, Shrine Shinto is a situation-based ethical system that emphasizes right actions toward others, versus adherence to a specific belief system.[63] Shrine Shinto also stresses gratefulness for "blessings of the kami", and maintaining harmony with the emperor and the world.[63]

Taoist ethics

[edit]

Laozi (Lao Tzu) and other Taoist (Daoist) authors argued for an even greater passivity on the part of rulers than did the Confucians. For Laozi, (Lao Tzu) the ideal ruler is one who does virtually nothing that can be directly identified as ruling. Clearly, both Daoism and Confucianism presume that human nature is basically good. The main branch of Confucianism, however, argues that human nature must be nurtured through ritual (li 禮), culture (wen 文) and other things, while the Daoists (Taoists) argued that the trappings of society were to be gotten rid of.

Taoist ethics ask for a greater sense of being and less identification with the act of doing. Taoist passivity nurtures, cultivates and prepares an atmosphere that allows the majestic and the real to shine, which influences society for the better.

"If you want to awaken all of humanity, then awaken all of yourself; if you want to eliminate the suffering in the world, then eliminate all that is dark and negative in yourself. Truly, the greatest gift you have to give is that of your own self-transformation." – Lao Tzu

Wiccan ethics

[edit]
Main article: Wiccan morality

Wiccan morality is largely based on the Wiccan Rede: "An' it harm none, do what ye will" – old-fashioned language for "as long as you aren't harming anyone, do as you wish". While this could be interpreted to mean "do no harm at all", it is usually interpreted as a declaration of the freedom to act, along with the necessity of thinking through and taking responsibility for the consequences of one's actions.[64]

Another element of Wiccan Morality comes from the Law of Threefold Return, which is understood to mean that whatever one does to another person or thing (benevolent or otherwise) returns with triple force.[65]

Many Wiccans also seek to cultivate a set of eight virtues mentioned in Doreen Valiente's Charge of the Goddess,[66] these being mirth, reverence, honour, humility, strength, beauty, power and compassion. In Valiente's poem they are ordered in pairs of complementary opposites, reflecting a dualism that is common throughout Wiccan philosophy.[citation needed]

Zoroastrian ethics

[edit]
Main article: Zoroastrianism

In Zoroastrianism, the purpose in life is to become an Ashavan (a master of Asha) and to bring happiness into the world, which contributes to the cosmic battle against evil. Zoroastrianism's core teachings include but are not limited to:

  • Follow the Threefold Path of Asha: Humata, Huxta, Huvarshta (Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds).[67]
  • Charity is a way of maintaining one's soul aligned to Asha and to spread happiness.[68]
  • The spiritual equality and duty of the genders.[69]
  • Being good for the sake of goodness and without the hope of reward (see Ashem Vohu).

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Ethics in religion

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Ethics in religion encompasses the moral frameworks articulated by religious traditions to guide , typically deriving authority from divine commands, sacred scriptures, or cosmological principles that posit as intrinsic to spiritual order and . These systems contrast with by grounding obligations in transcendent sources, such as God's will in Abrahamic faiths or (cosmic duty) in Indic traditions, thereby framing moral violations as offenses against the divine rather than merely societal contracts. Central to religious ethics across major is the principle of reciprocity, exemplified by formulations akin to the —do unto others as you would have them do unto you—which promotes virtues like , , and restraint to foster communal and cosmic harmony. Variations abound: Jewish and emphasize covenantal laws such as the Decalogue prohibiting murder and theft; Islamic ethics stress submission to through sharia-derived duties; Hindu and Buddhist traditions prioritize non-violence () and karma's causal consequences for rebirth; while Confucian ethics, though quasi-religious, integrate ritual propriety (li) with benevolence (ren) for social order. These principles have historically shaped legal codes, from ancient Near Eastern law codes influenced by Yahweh's statutes to medieval canon law's integration into European governance, yielding enduring societal impacts like prohibitions on or emphases on charity that preceded modern welfare concepts. Notable achievements include religion's role in advancing moral universality, as seen in prophetic critiques of and exploitation that elevated human dignity, yet defining controversies persist in reconciling scriptural endorsements of practices like , , or divinely sanctioned warfare with empirical evidence of their harms, prompting debates over whether religious ethics inherently promote prosociality or enable that excuses . Empirical studies indicate mixed causal links between and moral behavior, with some data suggesting religious priming enhances in lab settings but historical analyses revealing that attributed to often stems from political or conflicts misframed as theological. Such tensions underscore ongoing scholarly scrutiny of source texts' contextual historicity versus timeless claims, informing contemporary dialogues on , , and interfaith pluralism.

Foundational Concepts

Definition and Distinction from Secular Ethics

Religious ethics refers to the branch of moral philosophy that derives normative principles from the doctrines, scriptures, and traditions of religious systems, positing that ethical obligations stem from divine commands, sacred revelations, or a transcendent cosmic order. These principles often emphasize duties toward a , communal rituals, and personal , as articulated in texts like the , , or , where moral authority is attributed to supernatural sources rather than human derivation alone. For instance, in Abrahamic faiths, ethics frequently operates under , wherein actions are right because they align with God's will, as evidenced by commandments such as the Decalogue's prohibitions on and . In contrast, secular ethics constructs moral frameworks through autonomous human reasoning, empirical observation, and philosophical methods untethered from theistic assumptions, drawing on traditions like —which maximizes aggregate happiness based on calculable outcomes—or Kantian , which prioritizes categorical imperatives derived from rational consistency. Secular approaches, as developed by thinkers such as in his 1863 work Utilitarianism, evaluate actions by their foreseeable consequences or adherence to universalizable rules, without invoking eternal divine sanctions or repercussions. This foundational divergence leads to differing justifications for similar proscriptions; for example, opposition to lying in religious ethics may rest on violating divine truthfulness, whereas secular variants cite harms to trust and social . The distinction extends to epistemological grounds: religious ethics claims warrant from or prophetic authority, often deemed infallible within the tradition, while demands verification through debate, evidence, and , reflecting a naturalistic that excludes entities. Scholars observe that religious systems integrate teleological ends like eternal reward or punishment—such as Christian eschatology's final judgment detailed in Revelation 20:12-13—imbuing ethics with ultimate stakes absent in , which focuses on terrestrial flourishing. Empirical studies, including cross-cultural analyses, indicate that religious ethics correlates with higher reported among adherents, contrasting with secular tendencies toward contextual , though overlaps occur in practical domains like . Despite potential convergence in outcomes, such as shared condemnations of gratuitous , the meta-ethical reliance on versus reason underscores irreconcilable worldviews, with critiques from secular philosophers like Nietzsche arguing religious morality stifles through otherworldly priorities.

Primary Sources and Authorities

Primary sources in religious ethics primarily comprise sacred scriptures and the direct teachings attributed to foundational figures, which establish moral imperatives derived from or enlightened insight. These texts often integrate ethical directives with cosmology, ritual, and metaphysics, serving as the bedrock for normative behavior within their traditions. For instance, in Abrahamic faiths, ethical authority stems from prophetic revelations recorded in canonical writings, emphasizing covenantal obligations and divine commands. In Dharmic traditions, ethics emerge from discourses on karma, , and liberation, articulated in ancient oral transmissions later compiled into texts. Authorities, typically founders or prophets, are viewed as conduits for these principles, with their pronouncements holding binding force absent empirical verification beyond communal acceptance and historical continuity. In Judaism, the Torah—comprising the first five books of the —forms the core primary source, detailing ethical laws such as the Ten Commandments and prohibitions against , , and theft, attributed to divine revelation at around 1312 BCE. The , compiled between the 3rd and 6th centuries CE, expands on these through rabbinic interpretations, blending legal reasoning with ethical narratives to guide conduct in daily life. serves as the paramount authority, credited with receiving and transmitting the Torah, establishing a framework where ethical duty aligns with obedience to God's will rather than autonomous reason. Christian ethics draws from the , with the Gospels recording of Nazareth's teachings circa 30 CE, such as the , which elevates internal dispositions like mercy and peacemaking alongside law. Paul's epistles, written in the mid-1st century CE, further systematize virtues like and as fulfilling the law. is regarded as the ultimate ethical authority, embodying divine commands through his life and , shifting emphasis from ritual purity to relational ethics grounded in imitation of his example. Islamic ethics originates in the , revealed to between 610 and 632 CE, which prescribes justice, charity (), and prohibitions on and as direct divine mandates. The collections, compiling 's sayings and actions from the 8th and 9th centuries CE, provide contextual applications, reinforcing ethical conduct through prophetic precedent. functions as the final authority, sealing revelation and modeling submission to God (islam), with ethics framed as adherence to sharia derived from these sources. In , primary ethical sources include the (composed circa 1500–500 BCE) and , which outline as context-dependent duties tied to , life stage, and cosmic order, alongside texts like the (circa 2nd century BCE) advocating selfless action (). No single founder dominates; ethical authority resides in rishis (seers) and avatars like Krishna, whose teachings prioritize detachment from outcomes while fulfilling social roles. Buddhist ethics relies on the Pali Canon, compiled post-5th century BCE from Siddhartha Gautama's (the Buddha's) discourses, emphasizing the Noble Eightfold Path—including right speech, action, and livelihood—to mitigate suffering via the precepts against harming living beings. The Dhammapada, a key anthology, distills these into verses on mindfulness and non-attachment. The Buddha, enlightened around 528 BCE, is the central authority, deriving ethics from insight into impermanence and interdependence rather than theistic decree. Jain ethics centers on the Agamas, texts attributed to (circa 599–527 BCE), prescribing extreme non-violence (), truthfulness, and to achieve liberation from karma. These derive from tirthankaras (ford-makers), with as the 24th and final authority in the current era, enforcing ethical vows through rigorous self-discipline and rejection of material attachments.

Core Theories and Frameworks

posits that moral obligations arise directly from the commands of a divine being, such that an action is right if and only if it is commanded by God. This framework, prominent in Abrahamic traditions, grounds ethics in the sovereign will of God, implying that moral standards are not independent of divine decree but derived from it, with rewards and punishments often tied to obedience in an . Proponents argue this provides an objective basis for morality, as God's unchanging nature ensures stability, though critics, tracing back to Plato's articulated around 399 BCE, question whether morality is arbitrary if solely based on divine whim or if God merely endorses pre-existing goods. Natural law theory, systematized by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, complements or contrasts divine command approaches by asserting that moral principles are inherent in the rational order of creation, discernible through human reason as participation in God's eternal law. In Christian thought, this framework holds that actions align with human nature's teleological ends—such as preservation of life, procreation, and pursuit of truth—making ethics accessible via natural faculties rather than solely scriptural revelation, though ultimately rooted in divine reason. Aquinas integrated Aristotelian philosophy with theology, arguing in Summa Theologica (1265–1274) that synderesis, an innate habit of understanding first principles like "do good and avoid evil," enables moral knowledge independent of positive divine commands in non-conflicting cases. In Dharmic traditions, functions as a foundational ethical framework encompassing cosmic order, duty, and righteousness, varying by context such as , stage of life, or universal principles like non-violence (). Interlinked with karma—the causal law where intentional actions generate consequences across lifetimes— orients behavior toward alignment with universal harmony, promoting moral actions that accumulate positive merit (punya) and mitigate rebirth cycles (samsara). In Hinduism's (circa 2nd century BCE), Krishna instructs that selfless adherence to one's surpasses ritualistic or outcome-focused ethics, emphasizing duty over personal gain. Buddhism adapts these by subordinating to the Eightfold Path, where ethical conduct (sila) generates wholesome karma leading toward nirvana, as outlined in the texts compiled around the 1st century BCE. A recurring element across religious ethical frameworks is the principle of reciprocity, akin to the , which mandates treating others as one desires to be treated, evident in formulations from the Analects of Confucius (5th century BCE) to the New Testament's Matthew 7:12 (circa 80 CE). This deontological structure underscores mutual obligation without always invoking divine commands, though interpretations vary: consequentialist in karmic systems, virtue-oriented in others. Empirical studies, such as those analyzing cross-cultural moral foundations, indicate that while religious adherence correlates with heightened in cooperative dilemmas, the causal direction remains debated, with priming religious concepts enhancing fairness in economic games by up to 20% in lab settings.

Abrahamic Traditions

Jewish Ethics

Jewish ethics derives primarily from the (mitzvot) outlined in the , comprising 248 positive injunctions and 365 prohibitions, as enumerated in the . These commandments form the basis of , the comprehensive Jewish legal system that governs both ritual and moral conduct, integrating ethical imperatives into daily life through rabbinic interpretation in texts like the and later codes such as Maimonides' . Unlike , which often relies on human reason, Jewish moral philosophy posits divine revelation as the ultimate source of ethical authority, with obedience to God's covenant at Sinai emphasizing covenantal responsibility over autonomous moral deliberation. A foundational principle is imitatio Dei, the imitation of God's attributes, rooted in Deuteronomy 28:9's call to "walk in His ways," which includes emulating , , and holiness in human interactions. (tzedek) stands central, commanded in Deuteronomy 16:20 as "Justice, justice shall you pursue," mandating impartial courts, fair weights and measures, and protection for the vulnerable such as widows, orphans, and strangers, reflecting a causal link between societal equity and communal stability. Tzedakah, literally "righteousness" rather than mere charity, obligates systemic aid to the poor through mechanisms like leaving field corners for (Leviticus :9-10) and tithing produce every third year for the needy (Deuteronomy 14:28-29), positioning it as a corrective to economic disparities rather than voluntary benevolence. Complementing justice, gemilut chasadim—acts of loving-kindness—extends ethical duties beyond material aid, encompassing personal involvement such as visiting the sick, comforting mourners, and burying the dead, applicable to all people regardless of status. The in 49b deems these superior to in three ways: they can benefit the rich as well as the poor, the living and the dead, and involve one's own effort alongside resources. Interpersonal ethics further demand honesty in business (:11, prohibiting false oaths), respect for parents and scholars, and prohibitions against gossip () or vengeance, all enforced through communal accountability to foster trust and reciprocity. Social responsibility manifests in obligations to strangers, drawn from Exodus 23:9's empathy clause—"you know the soul of a stranger"—informed by Israel's historical , promoting a realism that ethical lapses erode societal cohesion.

Christian Ethics

Christian ethics derives principally from the , regarded as the revealed word of , which provides normative guidance for moral conduct through divine commands and exemplary narratives. Central to this framework is Jesus' summation of ethical obligations in the Gospels: to love with all one's heart, soul, and mind, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, upon which hang all the and the Prophets (Matthew 22:37-40). This principle underscores a relational ethic oriented toward obedience to and benevolence toward others, distinguishing Christian morality from mere rule-following by emphasizing transformative grace amid human sinfulness. The (Matthew 5-7) exemplifies ' ethical instruction, presenting the as blessings on those exhibiting poverty of spirit, meekness, mercy, purity of heart, and peacemaking, while calling for righteousness surpassing external legalism—such as reconciling before offering gifts at , avoiding lustful anger equated to , and loving enemies rather than retaliating (:21-48). Complementing this, the Decalogue in Exodus 20:1-17 establishes foundational prohibitions against , , Sabbath-breaking, dishonoring parents, , adultery, theft, false witness, and covetousness, serving as enduring standards for covenantal fidelity. These teachings frame ethics as pursuit of holiness enabled by the , countering innate depravity through repentance and faith in Christ's redemptive work. Denominational traditions interpret authoritative sources variably while affirming scriptural primacy. In Catholicism, ethics incorporates , as articulated by in the 13th century, whereby human reason discerns universal moral precepts from God's eternal law, with the primary axiom that good is to be pursued and evil shunned, applicable even to non-believers. Protestant reformers, including (1483-1546) and (1509-1564), advanced sola scriptura, insisting the Bible alone suffices as infallible rule for faith and practice, critiquing ecclesiastical traditions lacking biblical warrant and emphasizing justification by faith as liberating from works-righteousness. Eastern Orthodox ethics, meanwhile, stresses theosis—divinization through participation in divine energies—drawing on patristic tradition alongside scripture to cultivate virtues like humility and ascetic discipline. Across branches, ethical application addresses issues like sanctity of life from conception and marital fidelity, grounded in creation ordinances (Genesis 1-2), though interpretive disputes persist on matters such as or warfare.

Islamic Ethics

Islamic ethics, referred to as akhlaq in , constitutes the moral framework guiding Muslim conduct toward righteousness and submission to God's will, as articulated in the and exemplified in the —the recorded sayings, actions, and approvals of Prophet Muhammad. The , comprising approximately 300 verses with direct legal or moral import out of 6,236 total verses, establishes foundational imperatives such as justice, compassion, and prohibition of harm, while the provides practical interpretations through authenticated collections like and , compiled in the 9th century CE. These primary sources integrate ethics with , the broader Islamic legal and moral code, which derives from divine revelation rather than human invention, ensuring objectivity rooted in —the oneness of God. Secondary mechanisms, including (consensus of qualified scholars) and (analogical deduction), extend application to novel situations via (independent reasoning), though limited to alignment with revelation. Core principles emphasize internal disposition and external action. , or God-consciousness, serves as the bedrock, fostering self-restraint and virtue even absent human oversight, as the Quran states: "Indeed, Allah loves those who fear Him" (Quran 3:76). (justice) mandates equitable treatment, prohibiting oppression and requiring restitution, with the Quran enjoining: "O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice" (Quran 4:135). Complementing these, ihsan (excellence) urges benevolence surpassing duty, defined in a hadith as "to worship God as if you see Him, for if you do not see Him, He sees you," promoting compassion (rahma) and truthfulness (sidq) in interpersonal and societal relations. Ethical dichotomies like (permissible) versus (forbidden) govern domains from diet to finance, with accountability extending to the afterlife via divine judgment. Historically, Islamic ethics evolved through theological debates. The Mu'tazila, emerging in Basra around 720 CE under Wasil ibn Ata, championed rationalism influenced by Greek philosophy, asserting that moral good and evil are intrinsically knowable by reason and that God's 'adl (justice) precludes arbitrary evil, positioning ethics as compatible with human intellect independent of revelation in principle. This view gained state enforcement under Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun in 833 CE via the mihna (inquisition), testing scholars on the Quran's createdness to uphold rational divine justice. Countering this, Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari (d. 936 CE) founded the Ash'ari school, reconciling orthodoxy by subordinating reason to revelation: moral values derive from God's command, not inherent rationality, thus preserving divine omnipotence while incorporating kalam (speculative theology) to defend faith against rationalist excesses. Ash'arism predominated in Sunni thought by the 11th century, influencing figures like al-Ghazali, who critiqued pure rationalism in Ihya Ulum al-Din (revived circa 1100 CE) for potentially undermining scriptural authority. In contrast to secular ethics, which often posits relativistic norms derived from empirical utility or social contract—yielding variability across cultures and eras—Islamic ethics maintains absolutism anchored in immutable divine sources, prioritizing eternal consequences over temporal expediency and rejecting anthropocentric autonomy. For instance, while secular frameworks like utilitarianism weigh aggregate happiness without transcendent reference, Islamic ethics evaluates actions by conformity to revelation, incorporating communal welfare (maslaha) only subordinately. This theocentric orientation fosters holistic virtue, spanning personal piety to public policy, though interpretive diversity persists across madhabs (legal schools) like Hanafi and Maliki, established by the 9th century CE.

Dharmic Traditions

Hindu Ethics

Hindu ethics centers on , the principle of moral and cosmic order that dictates righteous conduct, duties, and harmony in individual, social, and universal contexts. Rooted in ancient texts, dharma is not a fixed code but context-dependent, varying by one's role, stage of life, and circumstances, with the aim of generating positive karma—the law of cause and effect governing actions and their consequences across lifetimes. This ethical system emphasizes self-restraint, virtue, and alignment with (natural order), as articulated in Vedic hymns and later expositions, promoting societal stability through reciprocal duties rather than universal individualism. Core virtues include (non-violence or non-harm), satya (truthfulness), asteya (non-stealing), aparigraha (non-possessiveness), and shaucha (purity), which form foundational restraints in ethical practice and extend to mental and verbal realms beyond mere physical abstention. These principles, while aspirational, are not absolute; for instance, the Bhagavad Gita (composed circa 400 BCE–200 CE as part of the Mahabharata) justifies violence when fulfilling svadharma (personal duty), as in Arjuna's warrior role, advocating nishkama karma—disinterested action detached from ego or outcomes to avoid karmic bondage. Ahimsa gained prominence in later texts and practices, influencing figures like Gandhi, but Vedic rituals historically involved animal sacrifices, indicating ethical evolution tied to interpretive schools. The varnashrama dharma framework structures ethics around four social divisions (varnas) and four life stages (ashramas). Varnas, described in the Rig Veda's Purusha Sukta (circa 1500–1200 BCE), classify society functionally: Brahmins for priestly and intellectual pursuits, Kshatriyas for governance and protection, Vaishyas for commerce and agriculture, and Shudras for service, originally linked to innate qualities (gunas) like sattva (purity) rather than rigid heredity, though later Dharmashastras emphasized birth-based inheritance. Ashramas delineate progressive phases—brahmacharya (celibate student life focused on learning), grihastha (householder duties including family and wealth acquisition under ethical bounds), vanaprastha (retirement to contemplative withdrawal), and sannyasa (renunciation for spiritual pursuit)—each prescribing tailored moral imperatives to balance worldly (artha and kama) and transcendent (moksha) goals within the purusharthas (four aims of life). Texts like Manusmriti (circa 200 BCE–200 CE) codify these duties, detailing rules for justice, inheritance, and conduct, though interpretive diversity across darshanas (philosophical schools) like Mimamsa and Vedanta allows for contextual flexibility. Ethical reasoning integrates karma and samsara (cycle of rebirth), where actions accrue merit or demerit, propelling the soul (atman) through existences until liberation (moksha) via knowledge, devotion, or disciplined action, as expounded in Upanishads (circa 800–200 BCE). This causal mechanism incentivizes virtue not through fear of external judgment but intrinsic consequences, fostering personal responsibility amid pluralism—no single authority enforces orthodoxy, leading to sects varying in ritualism (e.g., Tantric traditions permitting antinomian practices under guru guidance) versus asceticism. Scholarly analyses note that while dharma sustains social hierarchy for functional efficiency, critiques in texts like the Bhagavad Gita prioritize inner purity over external form, countering rigid applications.

Buddhist Ethics

Buddhist ethics, termed śīla in Pali and Sanskrit, forms the foundational moral discipline within the threefold training of higher ethics, higher mind (concentration), and higher wisdom, as outlined in early texts like the Dīgha Nikāya. This framework posits that ethical conduct curbs unwholesome mental states, prevents karmic accumulation of suffering, and supports meditative insight into the Four Noble Truths of suffering, its origin, cessation, and path. Unlike rule-based deontology or virtue ethics centered on character, Buddhist ethics emphasizes intention (cetanā) as the determinant of an action's moral quality, with actions classified as wholesome (leading to pleasure and enlightenment) or unwholesome (perpetuating rebirth and dukkha, or suffering). The ethical dimensions are integrated into the , 's prescribed method for ending suffering, with three interconnected factors—right speech, right action, and right livelihood—constituting the core of śīla. Right speech prohibits lying, divisive talk, harsh language, and idle chatter; right action abstains from killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct; right livelihood avoids trades involving harm, such as dealing in weapons, intoxicants, or flesh. These guidelines derive from suttas like the , where instructs disciples to abstain from such behaviors to purify conduct and foster communal harmony. Empirical alignment with causal realism appears in the path's structure, where ethical restraint empirically reduces interpersonal conflict and , as observed in monastic communities adhering to these precepts since 's time around 5th century BCE. Lay Buddhists undertake the Five Precepts (pañcasīla) as voluntary training rules, recited during observances: (1) abstention from taking life, (2) from taking what is not given, (3) from sexual misconduct, (4) from false speech, and (5) from intoxicants causing heedlessness. These originate in discourses such as the Sīlakkhandha Vagga of the Dīgha Nikāya, where they are presented as conducive to long life, beauty, happiness, and heavenly rebirth, grounded in the principle that harming others rebounds via karma. For monastics, the Vinaya Piṭaka expands this into a disciplinary code, with 227 rules for bhikkhus (monks) in the Pātimokkha, categorized by severity: four defeat offenses (e.g., sexual intercourse, theft over a certain value), thirteen requiring communal meetings, and lesser infringements on etiquette and livelihood, all aimed at preserving the saṅgha (community) since its formalization post-Buddha's enlightenment circa 528 BCE. Karma underpins the motivational structure of Buddhist ethics, defined not as fate but as volitional action yielding retributive fruits (vipāka) across saṃsāra (cyclic existence), with wholesome karma generated by generosity (dāna), ethics, and meditation. Intention distinguishes neutral acts (e.g., involuntary movements) from those ripening in future suffering or liberation, as stated in the Aṅguttara Nikāya: ", I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, and intellect." This causal mechanism encourages ethical consistency without reliance on external authority, though its efficacy hinges on accepting rebirth, a claim unsupported by direct empirical observation but inferred from introspective analysis of mind in texts like the Abhidhamma Piṭaka. In Mahāyāna developments from the 1st century CE, ethics evolves via the bodhisattva path, incorporating six perfections (pāramitā)—including ethics (śīla)—and vows to delay nirvāṇa for universal salvation, as in the Bodhisattvabhūmi, prioritizing compassion (karuṇā) over strict precept adherence through skillful means (upāya-kauśalya). Variations across schools reflect contextual adaptations: Theravāda emphasizes literal precept observance for personal liberation, while Vajrayāna integrates tantric ethics allowing provisional rule-breaking under guru guidance for rapid insight, as in 8th-century texts like the . Scholarly analyses note that while promotes non-violence and , its soteriological focus on individual cessation of craving can undervalue systemic absent in early canon, though later commentaries like Buddhaghosa's (5th century CE) link ethics to societal stability via reduced greed and hatred.

Jain Ethics

Jain ethics centers on the principle of (non-violence), which mandates the avoidance of harm to all living beings, including microscopic organisms, through thought, word, or deed. This doctrine, attributed to the teachings of (circa 599–527 BCE), posits that violence generates negative karma, binding the soul to cycles of rebirth, and thus requires rigorous discipline to achieve liberation (). Ahimsa serves as the foundational vow, influencing all aspects of conduct, from interpersonal relations to environmental interactions, and is considered the highest ethical imperative in Jain texts like the Acaranga Sutra. The ethical framework is structured around five primary vows (vratas), divided into mahavratas (great vows) for ascetics, who observe them absolutely, and anuvratas (minor vows) for laypersons, which allow limited exceptions for practical necessities. These vows comprise ahimsa (non-violence), satya (truthfulness, avoiding false speech), asteya (non-stealing, refraining from taking what is not given), brahmacharya (chastity, complete celibacy for monastics and fidelity for laity), and aparigraha (non-possession, limiting attachments to material goods to reduce karmic influx). Monastics undertake mahavratas lifelong, renouncing possessions and wandering without fixed abode, while lay anuvratas permit moderated adherence, such as avoiding harm within one's capacity or community. This dual system ensures ethical scalability, with ascetics modeling ideal purity. Complementary doctrines like (multiplicity of viewpoints) and syadvada (conditional predication) underpin ethical relativism, asserting that truth is multifaceted and absolute claims invite conflict; thus, ethical judgments must account for context and perspective to uphold non-violence. Aparigraha extends to minimizing consumption, as excess possessions imply exploitation of resources and beings, fostering practices like frugality and detachment from sensory pleasures. These principles derive from Jain metaphysics, where souls (jivas) pervade all matter, making harm ubiquitous and demanding vigilant restraint. Practical applications manifest in dietary restrictions and rituals emphasizing minimal harm. Jains adhere to lacto-vegetarianism, excluding meat, eggs, and often root vegetables (e.g., potatoes, onions) to prevent killing subterranean microbes or organisms during harvest; some sects filter water and sweep paths to avoid injuring insects. Advanced practitioners may undertake sallekhana, a voluntary fast unto death by gradually reducing intake, viewed as a non-violent purification of the soul rather than self-harm, undertaken by the elderly or ill to shed karma without external violence—distinct from suicide due to its intent of detachment and consent under scriptural guidelines. Such practices, while empirically linked to health risks like malnutrition, align with causal mechanisms of karma accumulation, prioritizing soul liberation over bodily preservation.

East Asian Traditions

Confucian Ethics

Confucian ethics originates from the teachings of (551–479 BCE), a Chinese philosopher whose ideas were compiled posthumously in the , a collection of dialogues and aphorisms emphasizing moral for individual and societal order. Unlike deontological or consequentialist systems, it functions as a framework, prioritizing the internalization of character traits through education, practice, and relational duties to foster harmony (he) within hierarchical social structures. This approach views as malleable, capable of progress from self-interested impulses toward benevolence via deliberate habituation, as described his own moral development progressing from in youth to broader wisdom in maturity. Central virtues include ren (benevolence or humaneness), defined as empathetic concern for others rooted in reciprocity, akin to the principle of not imposing upon others what one dislikes oneself; li (ritual propriety), encompassing norms of conduct, etiquette, and ceremonies that regulate behavior to prevent disorder; yi (righteousness), the commitment to moral rectitude even against personal gain; zhi (wisdom), discerning judgment in applying virtues contextually; and xiao (filial piety), reverence and obedience toward parents and ancestors as the foundation of all ethics. These virtues interlink, with ren as the comprehensive ideal unifying them, cultivated through role-specific duties rather than abstract rules, enabling reliable responses to situational demands in family, community, and governance. Confucian ethics structures society around five cardinal relationships (wulun): ruler to subject (emphasizing benevolent governance and loyal service), father to son ( and paternal care), husband to wife (distinction of roles and mutual support), elder brother to younger brother (fraternal respect and guidance), and friend to friend (trust and equality). These hierarchies promote stability by aligning individual actions with reciprocal obligations, where superiors model to elicit deference from inferiors, countering chaos from unchecked self-interest. Failure in these duties disrupts cosmic and social equilibrium, as ethics extends beyond human interactions to align with (Heaven), an impersonal moral force embodying the natural order and ethical mandate (tianming) that legitimizes rule only through virtuous conduct. Tian demands rulers emulate its impartial pattern, punishing moral deviance via natural or political consequences, thus integrating ethics with a realist view of where yields prosperity and invites downfall. In practice, Confucian influenced imperial examinations from the (206 BCE–220 CE) onward, selecting officials based on mastery of to ensure ethical administration, though critics note its reinforcement of authoritarianism by subordinating individual autonomy to collective roles. Modern interpretations, such as from the (960–1279 CE), synthesized these with metaphysical elements, emphasizing li as both ritual and cosmic principle, yet core tenets remain focused on empirical moral training over theological speculation. Empirical studies of Confucian-influenced societies correlate these with high social cohesion and economic discipline, as virtues like xiao underpin family-based welfare systems predating state provisions.

Taoist Ethics

Taoist ethics, rooted in the philosophical tradition of Daoism originating in ancient , emphasizes alignment with —the fundamental, ineffable principle underlying natural processes and cosmic order. The core text, the Daodejing, traditionally attributed to (a figure whose historical existence remains debated, with the text likely compiled between the late 4th and mid-3rd centuries BCE based on linguistic analysis), advocates for ethical conduct through spontaneity and non-interference rather than rigid moral codes. This approach contrasts with prescriptive systems like , prioritizing harmony with nature over social hierarchies or ritual obligations. Central to Taoist ethics is , often translated as "non-action" or "effortless action," which entails acting in accordance with the Dao's natural flow without forced exertion or contrivance. Far from passivity or laziness, involves perceptive responsiveness to circumstances, yielding outcomes through minimal intervention, as exemplified in governance where the sage ruler governs least to foster . This principle extends to personal ethics, discouraging artificial desires or ambitions that disrupt equilibrium, and promotes (naturalness), where virtue emerges organically from observing and emulating the uncontrived patterns of the world, such as water's yielding yet persistent force. The Daodejing delineates three foundational virtues, termed the "three treasures," essential for preserving one's alignment with : compassion (ci), which fosters bravery and endurance; frugality or moderation (jian), enabling expansiveness and sufficiency; and humility, expressed as "daring not to be first in the world" (bu gan wei tianxia xian), which underpins effective and security. These treasures counter excesses like aggression, waste, and , which the text links to societal decay; for instance, chapter 67 warns that abandoning them invites ruin, as history demonstrates through cycles of overreaching empires. Ethical practice thus cultivates simplicity and detachment from ego-driven pursuits, viewing moral failings not as inherent but as deviations from natural balance, correctable through reversion to the Dao's impartiality. In broader application, Taoist ethics critiques coercive authority, war, and punitive justice, favoring minimal governance that allows innate human goodness—aligned with nature—to prevail, as evidenced in the Daodejing's portrayal of the ideal state as one where people "love their own children" without state imposition. Later philosophical works like the Zhuangzi reinforce relativism in ethics, urging skepticism toward absolute norms and embracing perspectival flexibility, yet grounded in the unchanging Dao. Empirical observations of natural ecosystems, where complexity arises without central control, underpin this causal realism, though religious Taoism's alchemical and immortality pursuits introduce ritual elements less central to core ethics. Overall, Taoist ethics prioritizes empirical attunement to reality's flux over ideological constructs, yielding resilience amid change.

Shinto Ethics

Shinto lacks a formalized ethical code or canonical scriptures akin to those in Abrahamic or Dharmic traditions, deriving its moral framework instead from ritual practices, customary observances, and an emphasis on maintaining harmony with kami (spirits or deities) and the natural world. Central to this system is the concept of makoto, or sincerity, which manifests as genuine intent in human interactions and reverence toward the divine, serving as the foundational attitude for ethical conduct rather than a prescriptive rule set. Purity (sumu or harae) plays a pivotal role, where ritual cleansing—such as ablutions before shrine visits—restores balance disrupted by impurity (kegare), often associated with death, illness, or moral lapses, thereby ensuring communal and personal harmony (wa). This orthopraxic approach prioritizes experiential alignment with cosmic order over abstract moral absolutes, viewing humans as fundamentally good yet susceptible to disharmony through negligence or pollution. Ethical imperatives in Shinto extend to social relations, influenced by syncretic elements from Confucianism, stressing filial piety, loyalty to family and community, and avoidance of shame through innate moral sensibility. Practitioners are encouraged to honor ancestors via rituals at household altars (kamidana) and participate in festivals (matsuri), which reinforce collective bonds and gratitude toward nature's provisioning forces. Unlike sin-based systems, Shinto eschews guilt or eternal judgment, focusing instead on rectification through purification to avert misfortune, as impurity is seen as a practical disruption rather than inherent evil. Historical State Shinto, particularly from the Meiji era onward, amplified these ethics toward imperial loyalty and national unity, though post-World War II disestablishment shifted emphasis back to localized, non-dogmatic observance. In contemporary practice, ethics promote as an extension of harmony with -inhabited landscapes, evident in shrine-led conservation efforts amid Japan's urbanization. Moral education draws on to foster sincerity in daily life, integrating with while retaining ritual primacy, as no centralized authority enforces . Critics note the system's flexibility can accommodate cultural adaptations, such as wartime , but its core resilience lies in adaptability without doctrinal rigidity.

Other Traditions

Zoroastrian Ethics

Zoroastrian ethics derives from the teachings attributed to the prophet (Zarathustra), who lived circa 1500–1000 BCE in ancient , emphasizing a dualistic framework where individuals must actively choose between forces of good, led by the supreme deity , and evil, embodied by Angra Mainyu. This moral system underscores human as pivotal in the cosmic battle, with ethical conduct determining one's role in advancing order or chaos. Central to this is the triad of humata (good thoughts), hukhta (good words), and hvarshta (good deeds), which forms the practical guide for daily life, promoting intentional moral purity over ritualistic observance alone. The concept of asha, denoting truth, righteousness, and cosmic harmony, stands as the ethical cornerstone, requiring adherents to align actions with natural and divine order, while its antithesis druj—falsehood and deception—represents moral corruption that disrupts this balance. Ethical imperatives extend to environmental stewardship, viewing the earth, water, and fire as sacred elements of creation to be protected from pollution, reflecting a causal link between human behavior and the material world's integrity. Charity (vishyasobish) and justice are likewise mandated, with texts like the Avesta prescribing aid to the deserving poor and truthful judgment as virtues that combat evil's influence. Sin in Zoroastrianism arises from willful deviation toward druj, such as lying or harming creation, but redemption is possible through confession, penance, and renewed commitment to good deeds, emphasizing personal accountability over predestination. This system influenced later ethical traditions by prioritizing individual agency and eschatological judgment, where souls are weighed by their thoughts, words, and actions at the Chinvat Bridge, determining eternal fate in the renovation of the world (Frashokereti). Historical practices, preserved in Pahlavi texts from the Sasanian era (224–651 CE), reinforce these principles amid persecution, maintaining ethical resilience through community rituals like the Yasna ceremony.

Germanic Neopagan Ethics

Germanic Neopaganism, encompassing movements such as Heathenry and Ásatrú, reconstructs ethical frameworks from medieval Norse texts like the and Icelandic sagas, rather than adhering to a singular doctrinal akin to Abrahamic commandments. These sources depict a worldview emphasizing (fate or personal causality), tribal reciprocity, and situational honor over abstract universal , where actions were evaluated by their impact on kin, community, and cosmic order. Ethical conduct prioritized loyalty to oaths, courage in adversity, and as social bonds, but tolerated practices like blood feuds, , and pragmatic alliances, reflecting a realist assessment of human incentives in harsh environments rather than egalitarian ideals. A prominent modern synthesis, the , emerged in the 1970s through groups like the and Ásatrú Free Assembly, distilling perceived ancient values into: courage, truth, honor, fidelity, discipline, hospitality, industriousness, self-reliance, and perseverance. Inspired by wisdom poetry such as the in the , which advises moderation, vigilance against deceit, and generous exchange, these virtues aim to foster personal resilience and communal trust. However, scholars and practitioners note their post-19th-century origins, lacking direct attestation in primary lore, and critique them for oversimplifying contextual ethics—such as the 's endorsement of cunning survival over rigid truth-telling in threats—potentially aligning with individualistic modern values more than tribal precedents. Divergences persist among kindreds: universalist organizations like derive ethics from lore's emphasis on (peaceful kinship bonds) and reject exclusionary interpretations, while folkish variants stress ancestral continuity, sometimes invoking tied to ethnic heritage. Empirical assessments of efficacy remain anecdotal, with adherents reporting heightened personal accountability through ritual oaths and blots (sacrificial communal events), yet no large-scale studies quantify moral outcomes. Primary sagas illustrate causal realism in ethics, where betrayal invites verifiable downfall via cycles, underscoring reciprocity's role in social stability over punitive absolutism.

Wiccan Ethics

Wiccan ethics, as articulated in the religion's foundational texts and practices, revolve around two primary principles: the and the Rule of Three (also known as the Threefold Law). The , often summarized as "An it harm none, do what ye will," serves as a guiding maxim emphasizing personal freedom bounded by the imperative to avoid causing harm to others or oneself. This principle was first publicly articulated by , a key collaborator of Wicca's founder , in a 1964 speech at a pagan gathering, though its roots trace to earlier formulations in Gardner's writings from the . The Rede's interpretation prioritizes individual in magical and mundane actions, provided they do not infringe on others' , reflecting a consequentialist framework where is the ethical litmus test. Practitioners view it not as an absolute prohibition on all conflict—such as defensive magic—but as a call for mindful intent, with "harm none" extending to ecological balance and personal integrity. This ethic emerged in the mid-20th century amid Wicca's development as a modern pagan revival, drawing from eclectic sources including Freemasonic oaths and Romantic ideals rather than unbroken ancient traditions. Complementing the Rede, the Rule of Three posits that any energy or action—positive or negative—returns to the practitioner magnified threefold, often across physical, emotional, and spiritual dimensions. Documented in Wiccan literature since the 1970s, this law functions as a deterrent against malevolent acts, akin to amplified karma, and encourages ethical reciprocity in rituals and daily conduct. In practice, these principles inform Wiccan rituals, such as spellwork requiring ethical vetting for non-harmful outcomes, and dynamics emphasizing consent and mutual respect. Variations exist across Wiccan traditions; adheres strictly to initiatory oaths incorporating these ethics, while eclectic or solitary practitioners may adapt them flexibly. Empirical assessments of adherence remain anecdotal, with no large-scale studies quantifying moral outcomes, though self-reported surveys indicate high emphasis on and personal empowerment.

Scientology Ethics

Scientology's ethical framework, developed by founder , emphasizes rational actions promoting survival across eight "dynamics" encompassing self, family, groups, mankind, life forms, the physical universe, the spiritual universe (theta), and infinity or Supreme Being. is defined as "the rational use of ethics technology to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics," prioritizing empirical improvement in one's condition of existence over moral absolutes derived from divine revelation. This system, detailed in Hubbard's 1968 handbook Introduction to Scientology Ethics, structures behavior through identifiable "conditions" of operation—ranging from Non-Existence to Power—and corresponding formulas for advancement, such as finding communication lines and producing value in lower states like or Danger. Central to the framework are mechanisms for addressing threats to survival, including "Potential Trouble Sources" (PTS)—individuals connected to "Suppressive Persons" (SPs), defined as those actively opposing Scientology's goals—and the policy of handling or disconnection. Disconnection requires severing ties with declared SPs to protect one's spiritual progress, framed officially as a voluntary religious tenet rather than , though Hubbard's directives state it as a high to fail to disconnect when ordered. The church maintains this applies only to militant hostility, not mere disagreement, and denies systematic family separations. Practices extend to justice procedures administered by Ethics Officers, involving "security checking" interrogations and penalties like restitution, demotion, or expulsion for "out-ethics" acts harming dynamics. The Sea Organization, Scientology's clerical order, enforces stricter ethics through billion-year contracts and intense self-regulation, aiming for group survival. Hubbard's writings, such as Policy Letter 24 September 1965, outline that ethics targets "reasonable" versus "unreasonable" conduct, with SPs lacking rights under church codes. Critics, including former members in litigation, argue the system enables coercive control, with disconnection fracturing families—evidenced in cases like Wollersheim v. (1989), where a awarded $30 million (later reduced) for via enforcement, including isolation and harassment. The "Fair Game" doctrine, introduced in 1967 and officially canceled in 1968, permitted unethical actions against SPs without church penalty, though courts have found lingering effects in retaliation practices. Ongoing suits, such as Leah Remini's 2023 claim of stalking and psychological harm post-declaration as SP, highlight allegations of systemic abuse under pretexts, though the church counters these as apostate fabrications. Empirical assessments remain limited, with no peer-reviewed studies validating survival outcomes, while legal records document punitive applications over rehabilitative ones.

Comparative Perspectives

Universal Themes Across Traditions

Across major religious traditions, the principle of reciprocity—commonly known as the —manifests in formulations urging adherents to treat others as they would wish to be treated, or to avoid imposing undesired actions on others. In , this appears as "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you" (Matthew 7:12, ). Confucianism expresses it negatively: "Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire" ( 15:24). Hinduism parallels this in the : "This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you" (13.114.8). Buddhism advises, "Considering the of all beings as one's own deliverance, one should treat others as oneself" ( 10:129-130). Islam states, "None of you believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself" ( 13). Zoroastrianism echoes it: "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing to another whatsoever is not good for itself" (Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5). These formulations, spanning Abrahamic, Indian, and East Asian traditions, indicate a convergent ethical norm rooted in and mutual regard, observable empirically in primary texts predating modern . Prohibitions against unjust killing, theft, and deceit also recur widely, reflecting concerns for human flourishing and social order. The Abrahamic explicitly forbid , , and bearing (Exodus 20:13-16), principles paralleled in Zoroastrianism's emphasis on good thoughts, words, and deeds to combat chaos (, 30). In Hinduism, the Dharma Shastras condemn violence except in duty-bound cases and proscribe and lying ( 8:348-352). Buddhism's include abstaining from killing, stealing, and false speech (Vinaya Pitaka). Confucianism prioritizes righteousness (yi) and propriety (li), implicitly barring deceit and harm to maintain harmony ( 4:15). Empirical comparisons of these codes reveal near-universal codification of , likely arising from causal necessities of cooperative societies rather than isolated revelation. Compassion toward the vulnerable and stewardship of creation form another shared motif, often tied to divine mandates or karmic consequences. commands care for the poor and widows (Deuteronomy 24:19-21, echoed in James 1:27). mandates , obligatory almsgiving to the needy ( 9:60). promotes karuna () as a path to enlightenment, extending to all sentient beings (). Indigenous ethics emphasize harmony with nature (wa), prohibiting desecration of sacred spaces. These imperatives correlate with observable reductions in societal inequality where religiously enforced, as in historical systems yielding welfare analogs predating secular states. While interpretations vary—e.g., some traditions permit defensive — the underlying aversion to gratuitous underscores a realist ethic prioritizing and reciprocity over abstract .

Points of Divergence and Tension

Confucian ethics prioritizes structured social roles, ritual propriety (li), and hierarchical relationships to achieve communal harmony, viewing moral cultivation as an active, human-directed process essential for societal order. In contrast, Taoist ethics advocates wu wei (effortless action) and alignment with the natural flow of the Tao, critiquing Confucian artificiality as disruptive to spontaneous harmony and favoring individual withdrawal from rigid societal impositions. This tension manifests in historical Chinese philosophical debates, where Taoists like Zhuangzi portrayed Confucian virtues as contrived barriers to authentic existence, while Confucians dismissed Taoist passivity as evasion of ethical responsibility. Shinto ethics emphasize ritual purity () and intuitive harmony with (spirits), deriving moral guidance from contextual avoidance of pollution rather than universal commandments or cosmic dualism. Zoroastrian ethics, however, revolve around a stark ontological dualism between (truth/order, aligned with ) and druj (lie/chaos, embodied by Angra Mainyu), compelling adherents to actively choose good thoughts, words, and deeds in a cosmic struggle culminating in eschatological judgment. The divergence creates tension in comparative frameworks: Shinto's amoral impurities (e.g., or as temporary states resolvable by rite) lack Zoroastrianism's inherent moral culpability tied to and eternal consequences, leading to incompatible views on —episodic disharmony versus an autonomous adversarial force. Germanic Neopagan ethics, reconstructed from Eddic sources, stress tribal loyalty, personal honor, and acceptance of (fated inevitability), often endorsing and martial virtues over . Wiccan ethics, codified in the Rede ("An it harm none, do what ye will") and the threefold return law, prioritize individual , consensual , and ecological balance, reflecting modern eclectic adaptations that reject hierarchical . These contrast sharply with Confucian deference to elders and rulers or Zoroastrian , fostering tensions in group dynamics—Neopagan kin-based reciprocity clashes with Wiccan non-coercive , as seen in contemporary pagan communities debating inclusivity versus ancestral purity. Scientology's ethics framework treats as a pragmatic for survival dynamics, using "conditions formulas" to elevate personal and group states through auditing to remove reactive engrams, eschewing sin for empirical self-improvement. This diverges from ritualistic traditions like or virtue-based systems like , which lack Scientology's quasi-scientific metrics (e.g., the for ethical auditing), and from dualistic by framing "suppressive persons" as environmental threats rather than metaphysical evils. Tensions arise in interfaith contexts, where Scientology's proprietary methods and rejection of psychiatric intervention conflict with Taoist naturalism or Wiccan holistic , highlighting irreconcilable epistemologies—technocratic rationality versus intuitive or theistic intuition.

Criticisms and Empirical Assessments

Major Critiques of Religious Ethics

One prominent philosophical critique of religious ethics centers on the , originally posed by in his dialogue , which challenges by questioning whether moral goodness is commanded by because it is inherently good, or if it is good solely because commands it. The former implies an independent standard of morality transcending divine will, undermining the necessity of religion for ethics, while the latter renders morality arbitrary and potentially capricious, as 's commands could theoretically endorse any act, including atrocities, without intrinsic justification. Proponents of this critique, such as secular philosophers, argue that this dilemma exposes religious ethics as either superfluous or foundationally unstable, lacking a rational basis beyond fiat. The further undermines claims of religious ethics deriving from an omnibenevolent deity, positing that widespread suffering—such as natural disasters killing millions, including the 2004 Indian Ocean that claimed approximately 230,000 lives—contradicts the idea of a perfectly good God prescribing moral order. Critics like evolutionary biologist contend that scientific explanations for , such as evolutionary processes producing predation and disease without divine intent, eliminate the need for theological justifications and highlight religion's failure to resolve empirical moral inconsistencies. This critique extends to ethical prescriptions, as religious doctrines often attribute suffering to divine will or human , yet provide no falsifiable mechanism to distinguish moral good from observed harm. Historical applications of religious ethics have drawn empirical scrutiny for enabling violence under moral guise, with events like the (1095–1291) resulting in estimated deaths of 1 to 3 million combatants and civilians, justified by Christian doctrines of holy war. Similarly, the (1478–1834) executed around 3,000–5,000 individuals for , while broader witch hunts across Europe from 1450–1750 claimed 40,000–60,000 lives, often rationalized through biblical interpretations equating dissent with demonic influence. Detractors argue these outcomes demonstrate how religious ethics prioritize doctrinal absolutism over consequentialist evaluation, fostering intolerance rather than universal moral progress, as evidenced by higher rates of religiously motivated conflict in pre-secular eras compared to modern secular governance. Friedrich Nietzsche's critique in works like (1887) portrays as "slave morality," inverting natural hierarchies by valorizing weakness, humility, and pity while demonizing strength and self-assertion as vices. He contended that this system, rooted in among the powerless, stifles human potential and vitality, contrasting it with "master morality" that affirms life through and creativity, unsupported by religious dogma. Nietzsche viewed religious ethics as life-denying, promoting ascetic ideals that devalue earthly existence in favor of otherworldly rewards, a position echoed in analyses showing Christianity's emphasis on self-abnegation correlating with historical suppression of scientific , such as Galileo's 1633 condemnation for . Critics also highlight religious ethics' incompatibility with empirical science, as doctrines like young-earth conflict with established evidence—such as indicating Earth's age at 4.54 billion years—undermining ethical claims grounded in literal scriptural authority. This tension, argued by figures like David Barash, suggests religious moral frameworks resist falsification and adaptation to new data, unlike informed by and , which explain through reciprocal mechanisms without postulates.

Defenses and Evidence of Moral Efficacy

Empirical studies have identified associations between and reduced criminal behavior, with a of 60 studies finding that religious beliefs and practices exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals' criminality, equivalent to a of -0.12. This effect persists across various measures of , including attendance and salience, and holds after controlling for social factors like family structure. A review of 75% of studies on youth delinquency similarly concludes that higher religious involvement correlates with lower rates of antisocial acts, attributing this to internalized norms and community oversight. Religious participation also correlates with elevated charitable giving and volunteering. Data from the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey indicate that regular church attenders donate an average of $2,935 annually to charity, compared to $704 for non-attenders, with the gap widening when excluding religious-specific donations. Among U.S. households, 62% of those with regular worship attendance contribute to secular and religious causes alike, versus lower rates among non-religious groups. Longitudinal analyses link this to religious teachings emphasizing altruism, where frequent engagement fosters habitual generosity beyond mere self-reporting. In family dynamics, religious involvement predicts greater marital stability. A nationwide study of 2,979 first-time married couples found that frequent religious service attendance reduces risk by 37-50%, mediated by shared values and commitments reinforced through communal practices. Couples marrying in religious ceremonies exhibit modestly lower dissolution rates than secular ones, with attendance serving as a buffer against relational stressors via doctrines upholding as covenantal. These patterns suggest causal pathways where religious cultivate restraint and reciprocity, though selection effects—such as self-selecting conscientious individuals—may amplify observed outcomes. Proponents argue these findings demonstrate moral efficacy through mechanisms like perceived divine , which experimental priming studies show boosts in economic games by 20-30% among believers. Systematic reviews affirm religiosity's link to prosocial actions, including , independent of cultural confounders. While critics note inconsistencies in self-reported versus behavioral data, aggregate evidence from diverse populations supports religion's role in elevating ethical conduct over secular baselines.

Contemporary Applications and Debates

Bioethics and End-of-Life Issues

Religious ethics frequently invoke the principle of the sanctity of human life, derived from doctrines asserting that life possesses inherent value from conception to natural death, thereby shaping opposition to interventions that intentionally terminate it. This perspective contrasts with secular bioethics emphasizing individual autonomy and quality-of-life assessments. In end-of-life contexts, major Abrahamic faiths, including Catholicism, Protestantism, and Islam, generally prohibit active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS), viewing them as violations of divine authority over life. For instance, the Roman Catholic Church declares direct euthanasia morally unacceptable, equating it to murder regardless of motive, as articulated in the Catechism. Similarly, Islamic teachings emphasize patience in suffering and trust in Allah's will, rejecting mercy killing as contrary to Quranic prohibitions on suicide and homicide. Empirical data reveal a consistent correlation between religiosity and resistance to end-of-life termination practices. A 2023 study of medical professionals found that stronger religious faith predicted lower acceptance of to refuse life-saving procedures or pursue , with devout respondents exhibiting reduced tolerance for PAS. Pew Research surveys indicate that white evangelical Protestants (69% oppose ) and (65% oppose) show higher opposition rates compared to religiously unaffiliated Americans (only 28% oppose). In multinational analyses, religious individuals justify at lower rates than secular counterparts, with and personal cumulatively reinforcing anti-euthanasia attitudes. These patterns hold across contexts, though some denominations like the permit withholding treatment in futile cases while rejecting active killing. In broader , religious traditions scrutinize reproductive and genetic technologies through lenses of human dignity and natural order. remains a flashpoint, with sanctity-of-life doctrines in prohibiting it except in narrow cases like maternal life endangerment; studies link religious to opposition via purity concerns, mediating attitudes beyond mere . research elicits division: Catholicism condemns it for destroying potential life, favoring adult alternatives, while shows pragmatic acceptance if minimizing harm, though without unified doctrine. Genetic editing, such as , prompts varied responses; Orthodox Christianity cautions against "playing God" in germline modifications, whereas some Islamic scholars permit therapeutic applications under strict oversight, prioritizing research benefits over enhancement risks. Contemporary debates highlight tensions between religious ethics and advancing medical capabilities, including advancements that align with faith-based emphases on dignity in dying over hastened death. In jurisdictions legalizing PAS, such as parts of and , religious institutions advocate for robust alternatives, citing evidence that comprehensive reduces demand for without compromising care quality. Critics of religious stances argue they impose undue , yet proponents counter with causal evidence from faith communities showing higher utilization of non-terminal interventions and lower rates among the devout, underscoring ethics rooted in empirical outcomes rather than subjective relief. Policy-wise, religious has influenced U.S. restrictions on federal funding for embryo-destructive since 2001, reflecting persistent doctrinal influence amid secular pushes for innovation.

Environmental and Social Stewardship

In , environmental stewardship is rooted in scriptural mandates such as Genesis 1:28, which grants humanity "dominion" over creation, interpreted by theologians as a call to responsible care rather than exploitation. The Catholic Church's 2015 encyclical Laudato Si' by emphasizes integral ecology, linking to social injustice and urging faithful action against and based on the principle that the earth is the Lord's. In , the concept of khalifa (vicegerency) positions humans as trustees of God's creation, with Quranic verses like Surah Al-Baqarah 2:30 obligating preservation of natural resources for all life forms, influencing modern fatwas against and waste. and similarly promote ahimsa (non-harm) toward nature, viewing ecosystems as interconnected with , though empirical adherence varies. Empirical studies on religion's influence on environmental behavior yield mixed results, with stewardship-oriented beliefs correlating positively with pro-environmental actions like reduced consumption, as seen in cross-national data where religious individuals report higher willingness to donate for conservation. However, self-identified Christians in the U.S. often exhibit lower environmental concern compared to non-religious groups, potentially due to interpretations prioritizing human needs over ecological limits, though religiosity can foster behaviors via guilt mechanisms in traditions emphasizing divine accountability. A 2022 meta-analysis found indirect positive links through perceived moral obligations, but causal impacts remain moderated by doctrinal emphasis and cultural factors, underscoring that religious ethics do not uniformly translate to measurable reductions in carbon footprints or habitat loss. Social stewardship in religious ethics centers on justice and communal welfare, as articulated in Catholic social teaching's seven themes, including the dignity of work and preferential option for the poor, derived from papal documents like (1891) and applied today in advocacy for fair wages and anti-poverty programs. Biblical injunctions in Deuteronomy 16:20 and 6:8 command pursuit of justice (mishpat) and mercy, influencing Protestant and Jewish traditions like (repairing the world), which motivates efforts against inequality. Islamic (obligatory almsgiving, 2.5% of wealth annually) and Sikh seva (selfless service) institutionalize aid, with global religious networks delivering welfare equivalent to $1.2 trillion in U.S. socioeconomic value yearly, including $418 billion from congregations in education and health services as of 2021 estimates. Data indicate religious organizations amplify social impacts, with active congregants showing 10-20% higher rates, such as volunteering, per Pew Research's 2019 global survey across 27 countries. Faith-based providers handled significant portions of U.S. in the , investing $4.4 billion annually across 236,000 congregations, though effectiveness debates persist due to varying oversight and secular comparisons revealing no inherent superiority in outcomes like alleviation. Contemporary tensions arise in balancing scriptural calls for charity with critiques of dependency, as higher correlates with reduced support for state welfare in some U.S. studies, prioritizing private stewardship over systemic redistribution.

Technology, AI, and Emerging Challenges

Religious traditions confront technology and artificial intelligence (AI) as potential extensions of human capability that risk undermining core ethical principles such as human dignity, divine sovereignty, and . AI systems, capable of processing vast data to simulate decision-making, challenge religious anthropologies by blurring distinctions between creator and creation, prompting debates on whether machines possess or souls. For instance, advanced AI like large language models trained on billions of parameters raises concerns about or the devaluation of uniquely human attributes like and relationality, as articulated in theological analyses emphasizing over dominion. In , ethical frameworks prioritize exceptionalism derived from the imago Dei, viewing AI as a tool for glorifying rather than a substitute for purpose. The Southern Baptist Convention's 2019 resolution on AI ethics asserts that dignity must anchor any guidelines, opposing developments that erode it through automation or enhancement. Christian ethicists argue AI should align with virtues like and , rejecting unchecked deployment that could foster dependency or bias amplification, as seen in critiques of algorithmic contradicting biblical mandates for . Islamic ethics engages AI through al-shariah (objectives of Islamic law), emphasizing preservation of faith, life, intellect, progeny, and wealth, while safeguarding the Creator-creation divide. Scholars advocate pluralist benchmarking for AI norms, cautioning against systems that mimic divine attributes like , potentially leading to shirk (associating partners with ). A 2023 analysis proposes AI governance rooted in trusteeship (khalifah), ensuring technologies serve flourishing without eroding moral autonomy, as evidenced by fatwas restricting harmful applications like autonomous weapons. Judaism applies halakhic principles to AI, insisting technologies advance (repairing the world) under guidance, without violating prohibitions on or deception. Rabbinic discourse highlights AI's utility in study and ethics but warns of risks to and covenantal relationships, with the Israeli Association for Ethics in AI promoting frameworks that respect human uniqueness. Emerging Jewish thought posits AI as a golem-like construct—powerful yet lacking nefesh ()—necessitating safeguards against over-reliance. Buddhist perspectives frame AI ethics around dukkha () reduction and right intention, advocating designs that foster over attachment or illusion. Principles from the suggest AI should minimize harm, as in proposals for algorithms promoting rather than division, though critiques note technology's potential to exacerbate samsara through distraction. Emerging challenges like , which seeks radical enhancement via neural implants or genetic editing, elicit religious opposition as Promethean overreach. Christian responses decry it as rejecting God's image for self-deification, citing Genesis accounts of human limits as intentional for dependence on divine redemption. Similarly, Islamic and Jewish views maintain as sacred, viewing uploads or cyborgism as disrupting fitrah (natural disposition) or divine creation. Empirical assessments, such as 2023 surveys showing 70% of religious adherents wary of AI-driven pursuits, underscore causal links between tech optimism and ethical erosion absent transcendent anchors.

References

  1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-morality/
  2. https://itlc.northwoodtech.edu/ethics/religion
  3. https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/religious-ethical-systems/
  4. https://fiveable.me/hs-world-religions/unit-16/religious-ethics-moral-teachings/study-guide/ATKVqb3BHgCWda91
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4345965/
  6. https://historyforatheists.com/2021/05/the-great-myths-12-religious-wars-and-violence/
  7. https://divinity.uchicago.edu/academics/committees-and-areas-study/religious-ethics
  8. https://banglajol.info/index.php/PP/article/view/75227/50275
  9. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.7312/mill17488-003/html
  10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312443805_Ethics_Secular_and_Religious_An_Evolved-Cognitive_Analysis
  11. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/10/971
  12. https://academic.oup.com/book/11828/chapter/160919895
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11023590/
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3708674/
  15. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-indian-buddhism/
  16. https://sacred-texts.com/jud/index.htm
  17. https://journal.christianscience.com/issues/2002/11/120-11/religions-and-their-sacred-texts
  18. https://www.brownpundits.com/2024/03/22/sacred-texts-and-jewish-muslim-relations/
  19. https://ericgerlach.com/ethics-india-hindus-jains/
  20. https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/33656/1/Unit-1.pdf
  21. https://opentextbc.ca/ethicsinlawenforcement/chapter/religion-or-divine-command-theory/
  22. https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-ethics/chapter/can-we-have-ethics-without-religion-on-divine-command-theory-and-natural-law-theory/
  23. https://firstthings.com/the-gospel-and-the-natural-law/
  24. https://www.gotquestions.org/natural-law.html
  25. https://assets.cambridge.org/97811071/86446/excerpt/9781107186446_excerpt.pdf
  26. https://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/karma-hinduism-buddhism.asp
  27. https://fiveable.me/introduction-indian-philosophy/unit-14
  28. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/756399/jewish/The-613-Commandments-Mitzvot.htm
  29. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-ethics-some-basic-concepts-and-ideas/
  30. https://acjna.org/articles/principles-of-jewish-ethics/
  31. https://ijs.org.au/core-ethical-teachings-of-judaism/
  32. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/gemilut-hasadim
  33. https://fiveable.me/introduction-to-judaism/unit-4/jewish-ethical-principles-values/study-guide/ppbGyZq3WqObbs6y
  34. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/christian-ethics/
  35. https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-christian-ethics/
  36. https://bibleproject.com/articles/what-is-the-sermon-on-the-mount/
  37. https://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/command.htm
  38. https://ps.edu/what-is-the-foundation-for-christian-ethics-dr-kenneth-magnuson/
  39. https://catholicinsight.com/2024/04/12/thomas-aquinas-and-natural-law-theory/
  40. https://calvinseminary.edu/article/sola-scriptura/
  41. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1551&context=auss
  42. https://www.gcu.edu/blog/theology-ministry/what-are-ethics
  43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387398733_Islamic_Ethics_Exploring_its_Principles_and_Scope
  44. https://www.isra.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/3.-Core-Ethical-Teachings-2021.pdf
  45. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/understanding-sharia-intersection-islam-and-law
  46. https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/religions/islam/resources/islam-law-and-ethics
  47. https://idaraalfurqan.com/ethics-and-morality-in-islam/
  48. https://tarbiyah.riphah.edu.pk/courses/professional-ethics-and-morality/lesson/ethical-principles-of-a-tawhidic-society-adl-and-taqwa/
  49. https://stepbystepsalah.com/islamic-ethics-and-morals/
  50. https://www.iman-school.com/islamic-ethics-a-comprehensive-framework-for-a-moral-life
  51. https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ash-ariyya-and-mu-tazila
  52. https://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H052
  53. https://al-islam.org/history-muslim-philosophy-volume-1-book-3/chapter-11-asharism
  54. https://strengthofislam.com/islamic-ethics-moral-balance-civilization/
  55. https://ashar786.wordpress.com/2023/05/13/difference-between-western-ethics-and-islamic-ethics/
  56. https://www.peh-med.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1747-5341-9-11/tables/1
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3705697/
  58. https://factsanddetails.com/world/cat55/sub388/entry-5630.html
  59. https://www2.arpel.org/index.jsp/s25IL5/243255/Hindu%2520Bioethics%2520For%2520The%2520Twenty%2520First%2520Century.pdf
  60. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7fd4/946ebe992241a10c023f880afa604beaf63d.pdf
  61. https://www.exoticindiaart.com/article/texts-philosophies-of-hindu-dharma/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8691438/
  63. https://divinesansar.com/blogs/mythology/understanding-karma-and-dharma-in-hindu-philosophy
  64. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html
  65. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1.pdf
  66. https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma/
  67. https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2005103.pdf
  68. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/11/636
  69. https://licentiapoetica.com/ethics-and-the-five-vows-a233ec501b38
  70. https://www.jaina.org/?page=HouseholderVratas
  71. https://fiveable.me/indian-philosophy/unit-4/jainism-metaphysics-ethics-epistemology/study-guide/LGthwauLML5Oxi96
  72. https://jainworld.com/library/jain-books/books-on-line/jainworld-books-in-indian-languages/antiquity-of-jainism/importance-assigned-to-five-vratas/
  73. https://pinkispalate.com/jainism/jain-diet/
  74. https://www.indica.today/research/conference/sallekhana-is-not-suicide-considering-nonviolence-in-jain-ideal-death/
  75. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.jaina.org/resource/resmgr/11302019_enewsletter/Jain_Philosophy_of_Sallekhan.pdf
  76. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius/
  77. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-chinese/
  78. https://dc.cod.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=nehscholarship
  79. https://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/main.html
  80. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/iupjournals/index.php/confluence/article/download/566/71/
  81. https://mrsmerkow.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/fiverelationshipsreading.pdf
  82. https://philarchive.org/archive/BACCHM
  83. http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Myth/personsheaven.html
  84. https://iep.utm.edu/neo-confucian-philosophy/
  85. https://geriatrics.stanford.edu/ethnomed/ethno-med/chinese/fund-of-knowledge/fund/beliefs.html
  86. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laozi/
  87. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/daoism/
  88. https://www.britannica.com/topic/wuwei-Chinese-philosophy
  89. https://www.taoistic.com/taoteching-laotzu/taoteching-67.htm
  90. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/107179190000700108
  91. https://rsc.byu.edu/light-truth/shinto
  92. https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/journal/15/article/1781/pdf/download
  93. http://jinja.or.jp/modules/pico/index.php?content_id=15
  94. https://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2056.html
  95. https://www.patheos.com/library/shinto/ethics-morality-community
  96. https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1850&context=ocj
  97. https://religionsgeek.com/index.php/2024/02/28/shinto-japans-indigenous-tradition/
  98. https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/id/14285/
  99. https://ikigaitribe.com/podcasts/podcast103/
  100. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373328817_LIVING_WITH_HONOR_EXPLORING_THE_ETHICAL_VALUES_OF_JAPANESE_SOCIETY_AND_EDUCATION
  101. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780791490303-005/html
  102. https://www.theosophical.org/publications/quest-magazine/zoroastrianism-history-beliefs-and-practices
  103. https://ramiyarkaranjia.com/zoroastrian-ethics-and-virtues/
  104. http://www.zoroastrian.org.uk/vohuman/Article/Asha%2C%2520God%27s%2520Willl.htm
  105. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/intejethi.7.1.2375373
  106. https://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/pdf/zoroastrianEthics.pdf
  107. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2375373
  108. https://thetroth.org/resource/the-nine-noble-virtues/
  109. https://www.heathenbydesign.com/post/nine-noble-virtues
  110. https://thetroth.de/news/nine-noble-virtues-asatru
  111. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/609097/summary
  112. https://www.learnreligions.com/the-wiccan-rede-2562601
  113. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/byathameandstang/2018/08/wiccan-rede-threefold-law-not-stupid/
  114. https://dowsingfordivinity.com/2020/01/19/causality-and-ethics-in-wicca/
  115. https://wiccaacademy.com/the-threefold-law/
  116. https://downtheforestpath.com/2018/07/02/the-threefold-law/
  117. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233181788_Beyond_Poetry_and_Magick_The_Core_Elements_of_Wiccan_Morality1
  118. https://www.bop.gov/foia/docs/wiccamanual.pdf
  119. https://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-attitudes-and-practices/scientology-system-of-ethics.html
  120. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us-11.html
  121. https://www.scientology.org/store/item/introduction-to-scientology-ethics-hardcover.html
  122. https://sup.scientologycourses.org/courses-view/conditions/step/read-conditions-formulas.html
  123. https://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-attitudes-and-practices/what-is-disconnection.html
  124. https://bitterwinter.org/scientology-2-suppressive-persons-and-fair-game/
  125. https://www.scientologyreligion.org/religious-expertises/scientology-cosmology-anthropology/page1.html
  126. https://cesnur.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/tjoc_3_1_3_introvigne.pdf
  127. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/212/872.html
  128. https://abc7.com/post/leah-remini-church-of-scientology-lawsuit-david-miscavige/13588893/
  129. https://iep.utm.edu/goldrule/
  130. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20006295
  131. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15570274.2022.2139542
  132. https://religion.uga.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/eot-TAOCON.pdf
  133. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comparphil-chiwes/
  134. https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/73666660m
  135. https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/shinto/shintoethics/ethics.shtml
  136. https://www.coursehero.com/file/86476512/Lesson-Five-Paperdocx/
  137. https://haftasman.urd.ac.ir/article_68457_en.html
  138. https://gettherapybirmingham.com/the-true-nature-of-paganism-insights-from-anthropology-psychology-and-comparative-religion/
  139. https://www.greenshinto.com/2013/04/04/wicca-connection/
  140. https://www.scientologyreligion.org/religious-expertises/scientology-analysis-and-comparison/a-sociological-analysis-of-the-evolution-of-the-church-of-scientology.html
  141. https://www.scientologyreligion.org/religious-expertises/scientology-analysis-and-comparison/
  142. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294113739_Scientology_a_New_Age_Religion
  143. https://iep.utm.edu/divine-command-theory/
  144. https://philpapers.org/archive/JOYTEA.pdf
  145. https://fivebooks.com/best-books/jerry-coyne-incompatibility-religion-science/
  146. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/science-and-theology/2015/08/03/77136504-19ca-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html
  147. https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2014/09/28/david-barash-on-the-incompatibility-of-science-and-faith/
  148. https://apholt.com/2019/01/30/death-estimates-for-the-crusades/
  149. https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2010-04/body-counts
  150. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/wcfia/files/569_jhallreligionviolence11-01.pdf
  151. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/03/nietzsche-slave-morality-religion
  152. https://eriktorenberg.substack.com/p/nietzsche-on-slave-morality
  153. https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/will-to-power-and-will-to-weakness/
  154. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/religion-science/
  155. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022427801038001001
  156. http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/Religion-Delinquency-and-Drug-Use1.pdf
  157. https://manhattan.institute/article/religion-the-forgotten-factor-in-cutting-youth-crime-and-saving-at-risk-urban-youth
  158. https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/magazine/less-god-less-giving/
  159. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/pretty-scary-7-things-to-know-about-religions-decline-and-charitable-giving
  160. https://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/Religious-Influences-on-the-Risk-of-Marital-Dissolution.pdf
  161. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207778
  162. https://ifstudies.org/blog/religious-service-attendance-marriage-and-health
  163. https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Norenzayan_Behaviour_DoesReligionMakePeopleMoral.pdf
  164. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2153599X.2022.2131892
  165. https://sarahward.web.illinois.edu/WardKing2018JPSPb.pdf
  166. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/11/21/religious-groups-views-on-end-of-life-issues/
  167. https://www.sju.edu/centers/icb/blog/catholic-churchs-position-suicide-physician-assisted-suicide-declaration-euthanasia
  168. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9569313/
  169. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10943-023-01860-1
  170. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2022.966711/full
  171. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10087279/
  172. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2008/07/17/religious-groups-official-positions-on-stem-cell-research/
  173. https://issues.org/islamic-ethical-perspectives-human-genome-editing/
  174. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885392421000300
  175. https://www.acton.org/public-policy/environmental-stewardship/theology-e/biblical-perspective-environmental-stewardship
  176. https://www.unep.org/about-un-environment-programme/faith-earth-initiative/religions-and-environmental-protection
  177. https://centerforearthethics.org/blog/the-role-of-environmental-and-spiritual-ethics-in-galvanizing-nature-based-solutions-unep-report/
  178. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/120322
  179. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343276508_Does_religion_promote_pro-environmental_behaviour_A_cross-country_investigation
  180. https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/max_boykoff/readings/clements_2013.pdf
  181. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494421001705
  182. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8913539/
  183. https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/seven-themes-of-catholic-social-teaching
  184. https://www.gotquestions.org/social-justice.html
  185. https://lausanne.org/global-analysis/stewardship-and-justice-a-challenge-for-christian-consumers
  186. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2025/05/16/faith-based-fortune-the-1-2-trillion-impact-of-religion-on-the-u-s-economy/
  187. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/01/31/religions-relationship-to-happiness-civic-engagement-and-health-around-the-world/
  188. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/faithbased.pdf
  189. https://www.e-jps.org/archive/view_article?pid=jps-40-1-1
  190. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1088&context=urceu
  191. https://aiandfaith.org/insights/religious-ethics-in-the-age-of-artificial-intelligence-and-robotics-exploring-moral-considerations-and-ethical-perspectives/
  192. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0048721X.2025.2506893
  193. https://www.christianitytoday.com/2023/09/artificial-intelligence-robots-soul-formation/
  194. https://christoverall.com/article/longform/a-christians-perspective-on-artificial-intelligence/
  195. https://www.ccu.edu/blogs/cags/category/business/technology-and-truth-christian-ethics-in-the-age-of-ai/
  196. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-023-00668-x
  197. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/16/6/796
  198. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-025-00922-4
  199. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/6797055/jewish/Judaism-and-Artificial-Intelligence.htm
  200. https://iaeai.org/
  201. https://futureoflife.org/religion/ai-in-jewish-thought/
  202. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/06/1015779/what-buddhism-can-do-ai-ethics/
  203. https://www.buddhistdoor.net/features/how-buddhist-principles-can-help-shape-a-more-ethical-ai/
  204. https://juicyecumenism.com/2025/07/11/how-should-christians-respond-to-transhumanism/
  205. https://creation.com/transhumanism-image-of-god
  206. https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/thinking-biblically-about-transhumanist-technologies/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.