Philosophy Essay Competition Winners
We are very proud to announce the Cogito Education Philosophy Essay Competition Winners! This year, as every year, there have been some truly excellent entries, and it has been a difficult task choosing the best from a hugely impressive cohort.
A Religious Studies and Philosophy learning platform. Perfect learning aide. With 100+ tutorials and quizzes. No more need for tutors or textbooks.
1st Place
“Can Morality Exist Without Religion?”
By Kelsey Hamilton
Introduction: Religion vs Secular vs Moral Error Theory
Philosophers like Aquinas argue that religious traditions can often claim moral superiority through the stability of their scriptures: whether this be explicitly, ‘thou shalt not kill’, or implicitly, through situational prosocial behaviour, like donating to charity. Alternatively, secular philosophers, like Kant, believe that morality can successfully exist independently of divinity. However, this essay will argue that Mackie’s ‘moral error theory’ can easily supersede both stances, due to its rejection of objective morality which both religious and secular theories depend on to survive.
Divine Command Theory
To begin, Divine Command Theory can be utilised by Aquinas and integrated within his natural law theory to suggest that God’s commands act as a divine lawgiver to align with human nature (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I-II). Therefore, this view determines that, without a God, we would have no objective basis to distinguish between right and wrong. This is convincing as DCT offers a universal and unchanging foundation which does not collapse into cultural relativism- there appears to be a sense of accountability beyond our society which arguably incentives us to adhere to moral commands in exchange for eternal rewards (“Divine Command Theory”) This is extended by Craig, who argues that morality requires a transcendent authoritarian being which can only plausibly be God to avoid us diverting to arbitrary decisions. (Craig, 2011)
Counter: The Categorical Imperative
However, this theory becomes implausible when considering how the first formulation of the ‘categorical imperative’ of Kant allows us to successfully universalise moral principles if they can so logically be willed for all, without the presence of a religious authoritarian figure: ‘act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law’. (Kant, 1785, Groundwork on the Metaphysics of Morals). This automatically seems more appealing due to the emphasis it places on human autonomy and dignity- whereas DCT relies on theistic beliefs, the categorical imperative offers a moral framework which is accessible to pluralist societies encompassing all rational beings.
This wider secular applicability appears further appealing within Kant’s ‘Humanity Formulation’ extension which says: ‘Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.’. This principle is more compelling as it underscores the value of human respect within moral decision making as people are arguably more inclined to actively view morality with regards to their effect on others as opposed to the eternal rewards of a metaphysical deity, which would likely improve their outlook and behaviour towards societal relationships.
The Euthyphro Dilemma
Furthermore, the credibility of religious morality is successfully undermined via Plato’s ‘Euthyphro Dilemma’, a more outright criticism of DCT. Essentially, Plato asks whether something is moral because God commands it to be, which would define morality on an arbitrary will, or whether God commands it because it is good, in which morality is proven to not depend on religion to thrive in human nature. This criticism is effective to a high extent as it removes the idea of consistent moral stability in a religious society as the will of God is subject to divine whim. Even though this could be refuted with the idea that God’s commands can perfectly mirror our human nature, the fact that moral disagreements persist across both cultures and individuals does massively suggest that morals cannot be objective and universally shared.
The Argument From Queerness
This links seamlessly into the ultimate weakness of both the autonomous ‘categorical imperative’ and the fragile stability of the ‘DCT’ : their shared dependence on objective morality. This is challenged by Mackie and his ‘moral error theory’, which implies that moral claims are systematically false due to the implausibility of ‘objective values’. According to his ‘Argument from Queerness’, objective moral judgements have been mistakenly labelled, and they are better understood as social evolutionary constructions and sentimental expressions.
If objective moral facts were in existence, surely we would boast value consensus on even the most fundamental morals? Mackie argues that our diversity in moral opinions- for example, on whether euthanasia should be legalised- is the ultimate proof against the existence of objective morality. It becomes clear that, while Kant’s categorical imperative sounds effective theoretically, it would simply be unrealistic to claim that all rational human beings would will a moral maxim to become universal law, due to the vast cultural differences between individuals. As a critiquing point, therefore, moral error theory seems to sustain itself well in the face of opposition.
Although some may dismiss it as counterintuitive and slipping into a sense of complete moral nihilism, as terms like ‘ought’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ become invalid methods of expression, the fact that it aligns so much more seamlessly with psychological and evolutionary research provides it with a more convincing edge. This is because moral error theory can extend beyond that of just a point of rebuttal but does provide a much more coherent and concise explanation as to why we still willingly choose to engage in moral discourse despite the absence of objectivity. In ‘The Myth of Morality’, Joyce suggests that moral error theory is alternatively a more nuanced understanding of moral norms which actually reflect that of human nature and social agreements.
Conclusion: The Success of Moral Error Theory
Ultimately, while the argument from secular morality seems to have better, more universal grounds than religious morality, it can quickly become tarnished and made implausible by Mackie’s rejection of objective morality through ‘moral error theory’. Therefore, moral error theory presents the most convincing argument that morality can exist without religion, and consequently any further belief in objective morals, by simply accepting epistemic humility and greater potential for ethical renewal.
Works Cited
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Benziger Brothers, 1265.
“Divine Command Theory.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/divine-command-theory/?utm_source=chatgpt.com#H2. Accessed 30 April 2025.
“The Euthyphro dilemma & Divine Command Theory – A Level Philosophy & Religious Studies.” A Level Philosophy & Religious Studies, https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/euthyphro-dilemma-divine-command-theory/. Accessed 30 April 2025.
“Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant.” Goodreads, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/584624.Grounding_for_the_Metaphysics_of_Morals_On_a_Supposed_Right_to_Lie_Because_of_Philanthropic_Concerns. Accessed 30 April 2025.
Joyce, Richard. “Moral Anti-Realism > Mackie’s Arguments for the Moral Error Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Summer 2020 Edition).” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/sum2020/entries/moral-anti-realism/moral-error-theory.html. Accessed 30 April 2025.
Joyce, Richard. The Myth of Morality.
2nd Place
“Can Morality Exist Without Religion?”
By Rayaan Vyas
Introduction
The answer to whether morality can exist without religion relies on which definitions of ‘existence’ and ‘morality’ one operates under. Some argue that ‘to exist’ means to be real independently of human thought, feelings, or awareness. If all humans went extinct, a rock or any physical object would still exist on Earth.[1] In the same way, those who accept this definition of ‘existence’ argue that something which doesn’t exist physically but exists in the minds of humans, like moral principles, could still exist even if humans were extinct.[2] Ergo, they would define morality as something objective, that exists universally outside of human invention. Let this be ‘case 1’.
On the other hand, many believe that existence and morality are human constructs. ‘To exist’ means to be present in human experience, thought, or culture, and reality is mind-dependent – things exist because humans conceptualise or recognise them.[3] Therefore, morality is constructed by human beings, and it arises from our emotional responses, reason, social agreements, and practical needs.[4] Right and wrong are inventions, not discoveries. Let this be ‘case 2’.
By analysing both sets of definitions, this essay argues that morality can exist without religion in both the first case and the second case. In the first case, one can believe in external powers and an objective universe without accepting religion, and in the second case, morality is a human construct and neither requires anything external, nor religion, to exist.
Morality as an External Invention
Those who believe in case 1 believe that morality is something outside of human invention. Therefore, in order for morality to exist, there must be something independent of humans which is the inventor of said moral principles.
Hence, some argue that religion provides the answers and details about this inventor, in the form of God or some other being – a fair assertion. However, some take it a step further, and argue that anyone who hence doesn’t believe in religion rejects the idea of the existence of some external, independent inventor, and therefore that one cannot simultaneously reject religion and believe morality exists.
This line of reasoning is false, as one does not have to believe in religion to believe there is some external power, or that morality exists objectively. As an example, Deists believe in a supreme creator or higher power, but reject organised religion and divine revelation.[5] Therefore, even without religion, morality can exist due to the existence of a Deist God.
Others identify as someone who is spiritual, but not religious. Such people believe in vague transcendent forces like ‘the universe’, ‘energy’, or ‘higher consciousness’, without subscribing to any religion.[6] Therefore, under such a line of thinking, morality could exist objectively without religion, instead existing connected to this spiritual reality.
Philosophical realists believe in objective moral truths as well, independent of human invention, without invoking God.[7] For example, Platonists believe in a realm of eternal Forms (such as Justice and Goodness) – concepts that are mind-independent but not necessarily tied to a deity.[8]
Therefore, one can see that, when accepting case 1, morality can certainly exist without religion, as one can believe in external forces or an independent inventor without believing or accepting religion.
Morality as a Human Construct
Under the framework of case 2, ‘to exist’ means to be perceived, conceptualised, and recognised by human minds. Existence is not dependent on an external, objective world. Money exists because people collectively agree it has value, and nations exist because people believe in them and act as if they are real. The very concepts of ‘existence’ and ‘morality’ are human constructs, or tools created in order to help us better conceptualise the world, and are things perceived and recognised by human minds.
Therefore, humans are the inventors of these concepts. Morality exists because humans perceive distinctions between good and bad – it is real insofar as humans experience and live by it.
Hence, if one accepts the framework of case 2 over case 1, then morality is something that is invented and evolved by humans, instead of discovered by us. Thus, morality exists without religion, as humans still operate with a distinction between right and wrong. The very condition for existence – that humans perceive and recognise it – is met, even without religion.
Early humans lived in tribal societies tens of thousands of years before the emergence of organised religions and formal religious scriptures, and anthropological studies (such as C. Boehm, Moral Origins, 2012)[9] show that hunter-gatherer societies had complex moral codes long before written religion, with principles about sharing food, prohibiting murder, and resolving disputes. Furthermore, empathy, guilt, shame, and fairness are all natural emotional responses hardwired into our brains through evolutions.[10] Frans de Waal’s studies on primates show behaviours like reconciliation after conflict and punishing cheaters – moral principles that exist without any religious instruction.
Hence, not only can morality exist without religion insofar as moral rules are something perceived and recognised by humans, but it is a human construct created as a tool for societal function, that is based on emotional and social instincts and exist even for early humans and primates who did not have religious instruction.[11]
Conclusion
Morality can exist without religion. If one believes that something must be independent of the human mind and ‘objective’ to exist, then morality can exist without religion, as shown by considering other ideas like spirituality, philosophical realism, and Deism. However, if one believes that existence is solely based on human perception and conceptualisation, then morality can exist without religion, as morality is a human construct that humans not only perceive but also operate under as a result of their emotional and social instincts instead of religious instruction. Either way, morality can exist without religion, and morality does not rely on the concept of religion to exist.
Bibliography:
Boehm, C., 2012. Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame. New York: Basic Books.
de Waal, F., 2006. Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
de Waal, F., 2013. The Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a Kinder Society. New York: Harmony.
Ewing, A.C., 1953. The Definition of Good. London: Macmillan.
Hare, R.M., 1981. Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hume, D., 1739. A Treatise of Human Nature. London: John Noon.
Kant, I., 1785. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by H.J. Paton. London: Harper & Row.
Mackie, J.L., 1977. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. London: Penguin Books.
Nagel, T., 1986. The View from Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Plato, 1997. The Republic. Translated by B. Jowett, London: Everyman’s Library.
Pojman, L.P., 2006. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Ruse, M., 2013. The Philosophy of Human Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, E.O., 2012. The Social Conquest of Earth. New York: Liveright Publishing.
[1] Shafer-Landau, R. (2003). Moral Realism: A Defence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[2] Armstrong, D. (1997). A World of States of Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3] Searle, J., 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press.
[4] Joyce, R., 2006. The Evolution of Morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[5] Toland, J., 1995. Christianity Not Mysterious: A Treatise on the Nature and Origin of the Christian Religion. London: George Routledge & Sons.
[6] Zinnbauer, B.J., Pargament, K.I., & Scott, A.B., 1999. The Emerging Meanings of Religiousness and Spirituality: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Personality, 67(6), pp. 889-919.
[7] Ewing, A.C., 1953. The Definition of Good. London: Macmillan.
[8] Plato (1996). Phaedo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[9] Boehm, C., 2012. Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame. New York: Basic Books.
[10] de Waal, F., 2006. Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[11] de Waal, F., 2013. The Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a Kinder Society. New York: Harmony.
3rd Place
“Can Morality Exist Without Religion?”
By Jacob Fannon
The relationship between morality and religion has been a widely debated subject of philosophy for centuries. A central question in this issue is whether morality requires a religious base to hold objective validity or if it can exist as a strong construct independent of religious ideologies. This essay argues that while religion can provide an objective base for moral principles, morality can also exist subjectively without religious ideologies.
Religious traditions offer a framework for distinguishing right from wrong, often asserting that moral laws are divinely ordained such as God in Christianity and Varuna for Hinduism. This perspective suggests that moral values are grounded in the will or commands of a supreme being, providing an unchanging foundation for ethical behavior, as in many of these religions, if these frameworks are not followed then you end up somewhere undesirable in the afterlife. For believers, this divine authority offers clear guidelines and a sense of knowing as they are provided a guide with their religion, reinforcing the idea that morality has an objective existence controlled and decided by a higher power such as a god or deity. However, this idea faces consistent and strong philosophical challenges. The Euthyphro Dilemma, originating from Plato, ‘is piety (or any moral good) pious because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is pious?’. If the first half is true, morality is based on what God or deities command hence is objectively based on religion leading to the conclusion that morality is not able to exist without religion; if the second part is true, it implies that moral ideologies exist independently of divine orders or commands so can exist without it. This would lead to challenges of the idea that religion is the source of morality as if it exists outside God or deities that dictate it, hence suggesting that morality may be subjective in human societies.
To add to my previous point, the idea that morality can exist subjectively without religion is supported by scientific/philosophical research and debates. Natural Selection suggests that moral behaviors have been selected through evolution to improve social cohesion and hence improve the chances of survival within a society. Research also shows that altruistic acts cause the parts of the brain associated with rewards to release dopamine, suggesting moral behavior may be partly neurological. However, I personally believe that due to relativism between different societies, this scientific approach does not explain the full story. Nurture will also play a huge role as the way in which we are raised will further play a part in determining our own personal morality. For example, if we are raised in a certain community, we will have the morals that are most appealing to a community. Richard Garner, in “Morality: The Final Delusion?”, suggests that morality is a human invention—useful subjectively but not objectively real. These arguments support the idea that moral beliefs can emerge without religious ideas to dictate them, based instead on overall benefit and empathy that fits with our brain chemistry, along with the morals being subjective due to the variance in morals from society to society that are determined by the people within that society rather than them being universal.
Objective morality, normally grounded in religious ideologies, offers fixed rules believed to be universally correct and are laid out by a deity such as God. This can provide clarity and consistency for believers, but it struggles to account for the relativism across cultures and religions, which is an argument laid out by J.L. Mackie, leading to the belief that morality has to be subjective, hence can exist without religion. Subjective morality, on the other hand, emphasises the role of human reasoning, emotion, and social context in shaping moral rules following along with the existentialist ideas of the likes of Camus, as well as Jean-Paul Sartre. It allows for flexibility and change over time, taking into account that moral understanding can grow as societies become more developed and informed. However, critics argue that without an objective foundation, subjective morality risks becoming inconsistent as people can just adjust the morality to fit what suits them best. Another idea that could be brought into this debate is the idea that they are not actually mutually exclusive. In practice, many people draw from both sources—finding personal guidance in religious teachings while also using subjective, rational moral reasoning when going about their day to day lives when they find themselves in moral dilemmas as their emotions come into play, along with their own personal upbringing that has determined their overall moral compass. Philosopher Craig Biddle points out that neither traditional religious morality nor pure relativism provides a fully sufficient framework on its own; instead, he advocates for a morality based in objective reality and human flourishing. This argument suggests that humans should use both in order to fully gain a moral understanding. These arguments therefore suggest that morality can in fact exist without religion.
In conclusion, morality is a complex concept that can be interpreted through both objective and subjective lenses. Religion has historically provided a strong, authoritative base for morality, offering a sense of divine power and universal order that guides people down certain moral pathways. However, modern science and philosophy show that humans are more likely to have developed moral systems based on emotions, social survival, and reason—without relying on religious belief. Morality evolves alongside and within society, shaped by shared values brought into a person through the nurture of their upbringing, lived experiences which are added to by human nature to survive, and the need to live peacefully to ensure survival through the generations. Hence, bringing all these arguments together it suggests to us that morality can indeed exist without religion as whilst it provides a solid and consistent base, humans adjust their morality often in order to do what is best for society and themselves as a whole.