I think the point was not that ethics and morality are impossible without religion, at least not exactly. I think the questions were a little different, e.g., where did the ideas come from?
If the question is did morality and ethics come from religion or preceded it then I would bet on morality and ethics coming first and religion growing out of those a precursor to a legal system. Note that a lot of religious morality and ethics is framed as 'law'.
> If the question is did morality and ethics come from religion or preceded it then I would bet on morality and ethics coming first and religion growing out of those a precursor to a legal system. Note that a lot of religious morality and ethics is framed as 'law'.
I guess there's also something about this connection that's bugging me, and I don't know exactly what; sorry for the response that's indulging my questions and maybe paying less attention to your statements. I'm trying to edit, but I have to go to dinner.
If ethics and morality predate religion, it's hard to understand precisely why religion exists, at least if religion were reducible to its practice. (I don't take you to mean this, FWIW.)
Functionally, I suppose one might argue that religion is about justification--justifying the ability to execute judgment, for example, by infusing one's authority with divine imprimatur. This doesn't really sit well with me despite straightforward examples, because it doesn't explain why anyone would go along with this. Religion requires some kind of belief, and why would people buy into it? One needn't have religion to solidify political power, although that is the basic pattern prior to the 20th century. If it's mostly about power, how does one explain Christianity before Constantine? (It's an example I'm familiar with, but I don't know that it's unique.)
At the same time, religion is not all law, either. Law is about proscription (thou shalt not) and prescription (when thou doest, here's your punishment), an eye for an eye (not an arm and an eye for an eye). On the other hand, when someone says "Do good to those who hate you and bless those who curse you," that is ... not the same. It's not even entirely clear on the face of it that this is a good idea? Why is it better to do this?
Well, let's take those stone tablets that Mozes brought down from the mountain. What do you think are the chances they would have made it as far as they did if he said: "look guys, here is some stuff I chiseled into a bunch of tablets while I was up on the mountain" vs "this is the word of god"? It's an appeal to authority if there ever was one and by placing the authority in a spot where it can not be directly queried for verification it can literally develop a life of its own, like any good meme on social media today.
Check out how eager people are to follow and propagate anonymous stuff that happens to coincide with their worldview.
> Well, let's take those stone tablets that Mozes brought down from the mountain.
Yeah, that's one of those obvious examples I was thinking of before, but upon reflection I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to view this as a link in the evolution of ethics and morality into religion. No one is going to follow a ceremonial law as intricate as the one in the Torah unless they already believe in a god or gods.[1]
The utility of religion for control goes almost without saying, but this is a different matter than explaining the religious impulse: control is asserted from the outside, but faith happens from the inside. If it were purely a matter of covering civil laws with a patina of divine approval, the ceremonial aspects of the Torah make little sense. Hammurabi, for example, doesn't bother with them, despite claiming divine authority for handing down his rules.
[1] As an aside, the Old Testament can be read as a failed experiment in establishing monotheistic worship to Israel. If Moses intended to consolidate his authority, or his family's authority, by identifying their ancient god with Yahweh, it's hard to argue that he succeeded.
I think the point was not that ethics and morality are impossible without religion, at least not exactly. I think the questions were a little different, e.g., where did the ideas come from?