Morals and Religion... | Writing Forums
Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a non-profit community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists.

We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of participation level, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in their craft. Participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building skill level! There's so much more to explore!

Morals and Religion... (1 Viewer)


Senior Member
Many people, psychologists and everyday citizens alike, have come to the subconscious, or sometimes conscious, conclusion that morals are intrinsically embedded in our minds from birth. “Thou shall not kill; thou shall not steal.” These common topics are quick to be judged as innate ethics. Ethics are a joke.

It is my firm belief that NO morals are innate. We live in a society where murder is, to put it very lightly, frowned upon. Our modern “civilization” looks down on those who break our all too familiar laws; such as, running a stop sign or drinking and driving, but the people of our society do much more than just “look down” on those who commit acts of callousness. The people of today openly show their extreme revulsion for those who break our supposedly instinctive morals. People are astonished that someone is heartless enough that they would be able to conquer their fundamental principles.

People are idiots. Those who foolishly believe that we are born with certain inherited morals, as if the genes in our bodies will match our parent’s values and views on life. Well if that is true than I pity my kids but, most of all, those poor people around my children. I have stifled my supposedly intrinsic morals; imagine how bad my child would be.

Morals aren’t instinctive or inborn; morals are imposed. Society decides that it is their duty to force morals upon others. These completely imposed morals, such as murder or theft, are the only way to insure the stability of a society. A society needs rules, needs structure in order to succeed as a civilization. That is why a perfect synonym for the word society is the phrase social order, because society is social order. Morals are supposedly the intrinsic beliefs and values that we hold concerning human life and the correct way to function within a SOCIETY.

A million years ago, before we were fully evolved, before we established governments or built our homes of steel and concrete morals could have been far different, possibly even absent entirely. Do you honestly have the ceaseless effrontery to stand their and tell me that you believe that everything, all the morals that we now know as adults, or adolescents, we knew years ago as a baby? Please.

You can see the evolution of morals over time. Before there was a remotely “modern” society, before there truly were laws to prevent theft, there were people who stole, people who killed. Isn’t it possible that our ancestors might as well have been murderers and thieves?
That is until a leader finally caught hold, possibly be committing these acts against their supposedly intrinsic “morals” and that leader made laws in order to assure that he was the leader. Laws such as those who kill will be punished with death, those who steal will have their hand chopped off. Some of these consequences are, believe it or not, still in practice in some Arab and Middle Eastern nations. We acquired morals through fear. They were preached as the right thing to do and they were accepted for two reasons.

One, fear, people openly dreaded the thought of death or losing an arm. Of course, who could blame them? But people still did it; people still committed the acts despite these new laws and ways of thought.

And two, religion, it is my definitive conviction that the spiritual art of religion was created by the ruling sects a few thousand years ago. Finding truth and ultimate purpose in manipulation, the ruler(s) of the time decided to create a way of assuring rule through a mixture of fear and apparent faith and thus religion was made. Ultimately, religion’s only purpose is, or, in this day and age, was, to control the populace by playing on their newfound morals and their fear of the unknown, their fear of the afterlife. All people aspire for greatness and what is greater than going to a heavenly paradise to sit at the right hand of a mythical omnipotent deity. Hell is fear incarnate, faced with fables of burning corpses, a fallen angel, and eternal suffering is it any wonder that people would choose to follow the religious leaders who coincidently happened to be directly below the leaders of the society. Just mortal punishment is not enough; you need something more solid, something eternal. And that is why religion was invented as the ultimate way to impose morals, and that reason only.


Senior Member
your opening statement is fatally flawed, imo...

"Many people, psychologists and everyday citizens alike, have come to the subconscious, or sometimes conscious, conclusion that morals are intrinsically embedded in our minds from birth. “Thou shall not kill; thou shall not steal.” These common topics are quick to be judged as innate ethics."

...that's neither factually nor technically correct... i don't know anyone who'd claim such things are inborn... quite the opposite, as a matter of fact, since, as with any animal, the human's first instinct is to seek food and shelter... and the hungry baby isn't going to care in whose tit he finds the milk that will keep him alive in, nor who owns the arms that can shelter him from the elements... his own mother's or someone else's will do just as well... he won't have any inborn moral need to not trespass or steal milk from another just -as-hungry infant... one with any sense would think otherwise... none i've ever come across, anyway... and surely no one who's studied human nature and holds a degree in psychology..., go ahead and present your own ideas, but it's a mistake to predicate them upon the false premise that many believe the opposite to be true...

...your other points are valid, and i agree wholeheartedly that religion is nothing but a social construct meant to allow the few to control the many... i write about that myself, quite often, as you can see in the works on my site, if you want some company in your justified (imo) rant ;-) ...

...the main problem i see with the piece is that the writing itself isn't as clear and compelling as it could be... but, aside from that beginning, your argument is sound...

love and hugs, maia