Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Philosophy had shown that governments no longer needed to be organized around the idea of divine right to be legitimate, but rather by the consent or rationality of the governed — that large and consistent moral theories could exist without reference to God. Europe no longer needed God as the source for all morality, value, or order in the universe; philosophy and science were capable of doing that for us. This increasing secularization of thought in the West led the philosopher to realize that not only was God dead but also that human beings had killed him with their scientific revolution, their desire to better understand the world.
https://bigthink.com/thinking/what-nietzsche-really-meant-by-god-is-dead/
There's obviously no need for a God to establish a morality. But if one were to investigate the morality claimed by a specific religious group or if one wishes to discuss how morality has been historically discussed, often reference to the matrix society's favored religion is not only needed but absolutely necessary.
My feeling about morality is it is an emergent property of any social group. Social animals derive an evolutionary and survival advantage from a cohesive and stable social group. That means developing a set of rules that work to balance the desires of all members of the group with the needs of all members of the group. Murder is wrong because it would tend to destabilize the social group. Theft is wrong because it would tend to destabilize the social group. Etc.
So when the social group is threatened the survival of all members are threatened.
And I don't even think this version of morality required any philosophers to come up with it. We see it in wild animals that work in packs. We see rules spontaneously generate within social animal communities.