What It Means to Be Moral

Why Religion Is Not Necessary for Living an Ethical Life

De: Phil Zuckerman

Narrado por: Paul Brion

The author of Living the Secular Life deconstructs the arguments for a morality informed by religion, urging that major challenges like global warming and growing inequality are best approached from a framework of secular morality.

In What It Means to Be Moral: Why Religion Is Not Necessary for Living an Ethical Life, Phil Zuckerman argues that morality does not come from God. Rather, it comes from us: our brains, our evolutionary past, our ongoing cultural development, our social experiences, and our ability to reason, reflect, and be sensitive to the suffering of others.

By deconstructing religious arguments for God-based morality and guiding listeners through the premises and promises of secular morality, Zuckerman argues that the major challenges facing the world today - from global warming and growing inequality to religious support for unethical political policies to gun violence and terrorism - are best approached from a nonreligious ethical framework. In short, we need to look to our fellow humans and within ourselves for moral progress and ethical action.

©2019 Phil Zuckerman (P)2019 HighBridge, a division of Recorded Books

Finally! an ethical argument for non spiritual people

I’m an atheist/atheistic who feels underrepresented. The successes of non spiritual peoples are under appreciated in society. I wish I could meet this author to thank them and discuss their ideas and book more. To strengthen the argument in this book, I am someone who has applied my life’s goal to reducing inequality while not relying on a spiritual authority. I’m an MBA student who studies value creation and have been accepted into top universities to study ethics at the MA level following my MBA. Hopefully this book fairs well in history.

A thoughtful well reasoned argument. Convincing.

The narrator could not pronounce the word “concomitantly.” Distracting. Still, I would have given him 4 1/2 stars if that had been possible.

A genuine 'must-read' for theist and atheist alike

This is a truly brilliant work. It is encouraging, enlightening, well-informed, and highly informative. Yet it is also very readable and easily accessible to the lay reader. I highly recommend 'What it Means To Be Moral' for any and all persons interested in morality, justice, ethics, or the implications of Darwin and the evolutionary sciences for our understanding of human nature. I think it should be on the reading list of every atheist, and particularly anyone who considers themselves an agnostic. It should be required reading for the recently burgeoning populace of 'nones'. But perhaps most importantly, it should be read by the worlds copious devout, or at least those amongst them who are open-minded enough to consider justice, morality, and human good as the products of evolution, as entirely natural phenomenon, and no longer as the products of divine fiat or supernatural agency. An essential contribution to the secular canon, this important work should be in the library of everyone and anyone who is interested in ethics, morality, good and evil, or our increasingly naturalistic understanding of human nature.

Disservice

This book made me sad and angry at the same time. I knew Religion has done a disservice to humanity. But I can’t accept the idea that there is not a bigger reason for being here on this journey called life.

Praise for Faith No More

This 395 page well researched and well reasoned book explains what it means to be moral, why we should want to be moral and all without the need to invoke any gods. Nothing is coming from outer space to help us. We are the help we need and Zuckerman makes the case.

Perfectly rational

I'm convinced. Can't really get a better review than that. This book changed my mind.

Very useful!

Great book on this topic, highly recommended. However I do disagree with a couple of assumptions that so many atheists make - and I am a lifelong atheist. Firstly, obviously there is purpose to life, every living thing gets up in the morning filled with purpose. It's one thing to say our purpose was not given to us by a supernatural power, but it seems to me foolish to argue that there is no purpose. If there is no purpose, why does evolution exist? Why do living things try to survive and reproduce? Will you argue that the evident purpose of every living thing is not really a purpose?
Secondly, obviously science can tell us all we need to know about morality. Our purpose is to flourish as individuals and as a species - we know this from evolutionary theory. Therefore what is good is what helps us to flourish as a species, and what is bad is what hinders that flourishing. How do we know what helps us in this our purpose, and what does not? Science!

Brilliant book!

Phil Zuckerman has simply written a magnificent book in which he takes on religion. He makes very compelling arguments that religion is absolutely NOT necessary to lead an ethical life. His well-reasoned arguments are backed up by studies, experiments, etc. The reader does a terrific job with this book. Zuckerman's prose just flows so easily. A real pleasure to listen to this book.

This is one of the best books to which I have listened in many years. I learned of the book when Phil Zuckerman was interviewed by Michael Shermer of the Skeptic Society.

Excellent read.

I would have liked having the person narrating to have more expression with the reading. It was hard to stay focused all the time, so I had to replay some.
Thank you!

mostly good

Couple of things... the politically-affiliated topics the author chose to demonstrate the "rightness" of secular morality make this book mostly pointless to share with right-leaning religious people. If the author was attempting to reach that audience, mostly it will fall on deaf ears. He did not take the time in the intro and conclusion to understand that audience enough to engage them in any kind of appeal - which sucks for me, I was hoping to utilize the other 90% of this book for just such a venture, but the caveat I'd have to enact to get my religious audience to ignore that 10% and not the whole book on principle is pointless to attempt to construct. Also... for as many science-based academics and intellectuals out there who appeal to athority to laude modern climate science for unscientifically (i.e. without falsifiability) proclaiming itself incontrovertible and literally name-calling any arbitrary research that doesn't validate its stance, seem to be as blind to their own dooms-day biases, shaming, and religiousity while not taking proper moral actions that would morally right the situation (e.g. man-made-global-warming adherents still drive cars, have developped psychosis-level anxiety in their children, and wail for some BIG FIX to come and save everyone ... because it's unreasonable that in the face of total world destruction that anyone should have to change their lifestyle voluntarily). Something the author and any religious adherents (does it fill you with rage when someone disagrees?) should consider in future editions.