Last week, 10 people were killed in a shooting at a Buffalo supermarket. Such an event inevitably results in strong feelings of anger, horror, and shock directed at the perpetrator which in this case is exacerbated by the likely racial motivation for the attack. Words such as dirtbag, monster, and even Satan may be used to describe the killer, but there is one word that frequently gets used to describe these perpetrators that interests me… coward.

The use of coward to describe a perpetrator of evil reveals something about ourselves. Cowards are not just people who do the wrong thing or who abdicate their moral responsibilities. If this were all the word meant it would be a fine term to use in this context. However, the word coward is typically used for people who take the easy way out. People who abdicated their responsibilities to pursue something understandably more desirable. For example, the coward soldier should have stayed in the trenches, but he ran away to safety. So when we call someone a coward it signals an understanding of why their decision would be a personally gratifying one.¹Even more confusingly, the word coward is also used in situations in which the “coward” chooses an option that they know will bring them greater suffering. This can be seen in George Bush’s remarks about the “cowardly attacks” of 9/11. In the week after the attacks Bill Maher noted that “coward” was not one of the many fitting names we could call these people, as flying a plane into a building while you are still in it is not the easy choice. Aaaaaannnd… that’s how Maher’s show Politically Incorrect came to an end. Fitting. Going back to the Buffalo shooter, those calling him a coward are then signaling that they understand the allure of what he did, but felt he had a responsibility to fight against it. In other words, the implication is “of course killing feels good, the rest of us are just decent enough to not do it”. This is interesting psychologically, but concerning socially.

When people show you who they are, believe them.

Maya Angelou

A similar idea is sometimes communicated by believers to atheists. Some religious traditions hold that human nature is evil and only (their) religion can control it.²Primatologist, Frans de Waal has proposed Veneer Theory to suggest that culture whether through religion or other means simply manages to repress our evil nature. Essentially, human morality is a thin veneer over an otherwise evil species. de Waal rejects this in favor of the view that morality is an evolved trait of humans. As a result, a believer may say to an atheist something like “well, if you don’t believe in God why don’t you just go around stealing, raping, and murdering.”³ This essay is not a knock against the moral nature of all religious people. Most religious people I know believe that moral behavior is possible without religion. They just believe that without religion, moral behavior is more difficult or that we lack important features of the good life. It is a bit alarming for one to hear a statement like this as I have, because it makes you realize that the only thing holding back the person in front of you from committing atrocities is punishment from authority. It is enough to give an atheist pause before he tries to strip away one’s faith in God. This was felt by Voltaire who said, “there is no God, but don’t tell that to my servant, lest he murder me at night.”

What’s interesting is that such religious individuals don’t just indicate that the nonexistence of God would open up the moral landscape to atrocities and some individuals would check out the territory. Rather, they imply that as soon as the gates to Atrocity City are lifted, naturally, we’d all want to take a trip. My feeling here is speak for yourself. By which I mean two things: 1) don’t assume I have a lust for evil and 2) if you have a lust for evil please let me know and if religion is all that holds you back I’ll happily let you keep it.

During a discussion on motivations for moral behavior in one of my college philosophy courses, a classmate said something to the tune of “I mean really the only reason you act morally is because you hope it comes back to benefit you in the end, right?” This was followed by 5 seconds of awkward silence. The lack of understanding that there might be motivating reasons for moral behavior (other than reciprocity/karma and avoiding punishment) is surprising to me and makes me concerned about the world.

I once was pleased with the erosion of religion from the modern world. Now, I fear it, not because I believe any or all religion to be true, but because we don’t seem to be fully equipped for the secular world (at least not yet). What I fear individuals like the new atheists do is strip people of their moral foundations before they have had the chance to build something more sturdy. They are like bicyclists riding around the local park ripping the training wheels off little kid’s bikes.⁴ By using the metaphor of religion as training wheels, I don’t mean to imply that religion is some easier, simpler, unnecessary, childish moral system. Moral behavior is more difficult than riding a bike so training wheels may often be necessary. And I don’t say that lightly as I am unable to ride an actual bike myself without training wheels. By the way I’m 23. They are captured by the idea that one can ride without training wheels and fail to recognize that not everyone can ride without training wheels right now. I do believe the training wheels should come off, but its probably best to not remove them when the rider is still clearly leaning on them. I think I know it is possible to develop secular moral systems that are sufficiently motivating to deter people from committing atrocities. However, the waters of the secular world can be rough, and the unprepared may not be able to sail them. I’ve been thrown about these waters myself. So, what I wish to do is to encourage the sharing of moral knowledge that can be used by people of all religious backgrounds. The focus will not be trying to convince people about which moral systems are right or wrong. These debates have lasted hundreds of years without resolution. Rather, I am focused on giving people tools and knowledge that encourage moral behavior within their current moral system. I welcome you to join our voyage.

• 1
  Even more confusingly, the word coward is also used in situations in which the “coward” chooses an option that they know will bring them greater suffering. This can be seen in George Bush’s remarks about the “cowardly attacks” of 9/11. In the week after the attacks Bill Maher noted that “coward” was not one of the many fitting names we could call these people, as flying a plane into a building while you are still in it is not the easy choice. Aaaaaannnd… that’s how Maher’s show Politically Incorrect came to an end. Fitting.
• 2
  Primatologist, Frans de Waal has proposed Veneer Theory to suggest that culture whether through religion or other means simply manages to repress our evil nature. Essentially, human morality is a thin veneer over an otherwise evil species. de Waal rejects this in favor of the view that morality is an evolved trait of humans.
• 3
  This essay is not a knock against the moral nature of all religious people. Most religious people I know believe that moral behavior is possible without religion. They just believe that without religion, moral behavior is more difficult or that we lack important features of the good life.
• 4
  By using the metaphor of religion as training wheels, I don’t mean to imply that religion is some easier, simpler, unnecessary, childish moral system. Moral behavior is more difficult than riding a bike so training wheels may often be necessary. And I don’t say that lightly as I am unable to ride an actual bike myself without training wheels. By the way I’m 23.