Now that there is no one to judge whether what we do is right or wrong, would it be okay to steal, kill, lie and so on? Will there be no shame or sense of what is right? Will wrong be okay as long as it doesn't harm anyone? Will the law be our only limit? Will evil be okay as long as you don't get caught? Will we abuse our freedom (at least those who have it)?
I don't think so.
Do you?
You asked me elsewhere to give you details about kantian philosophy. May I take this opportunity to give you an answer within the framework of Kant's philosophy.
(note please that this is not everything in how Kant answers this and related problems, just a perspective)
(I will also speak casually, not using Kant's concepts themselves, but a casual "translation" of them)
If you act "morally" because a religion tells you to, you're basically doing it because you have some commandments and you go in Hell if you don't obey, or go in Heaven if you do, in other words, you don't choose being moral because it's right, you choose it because of fear of punishment or in the hope of a reward. That is not a moral act. It's a trade, a way to get a personal benefit, you name it, but not a moral action. (for
you)
Morality comes from doing the thing you know it's right, because it's right, not because somebody told you to, and definitely not because you expect a reward for it.
But then, how do you know still, what is right and what is wrong?
The "Golden Rule" applies, if I may name it as another member of this forum put it - I don't remember who he/she was, I read too much here the past few days here.
That is, something along these lines:
treat others such that the effect on them would be how you would want to be treated.
That is, a principle which in fact is stated by quite a number of religions, in one form or another (even though they also contradict it other times).
That is, what Kant names "categorical imperative". Act at all times, as much as humanly possible, such that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or another, never merely as a means to an end, but as an end in itself.
Whether that's always possible or clear or how it truly applies to the specificities of a particular case, that's another story...
Topic: Morals for Atheists