Must a Religion Affirm a Set of Morals?

[Heyo]

You need to study more than a quick excerpt from Wikipedia. Yes, they emphasize "action without intention," not unlike Buddhism. Karma = moral action, and is characterized as wholesome or unwholesome based upon one's intentions. Neutral Karma = action without intention. Unlike whole and unwholesome karma, neutral karma won't keep one in samsara or the like.

This means that a practicing Taoist (or Buddhist) won't strive to do either good or evil. Ie, they don't strive to live moral lives - they don't strive to do good. Morality is not their concern, not what they are trying to teach. In fact, attempting to live morally is counterproductive to these religions.

Taoism goes a step further than Buddhism in that it teaches that any formulation of good/evil is false. Indeed, the very distinction between good and evil is taught to be illusory.

Very informative. But I see a contradiction. It seems to me it's an ethics to be non-ethical.
Whenever a religion has any commandments or values to follow, it is some kind of morality or ethics. So the ethics of a Taoist is to try to be non-ethical.
It's like I'd say to you: "don't let yourself be influenced by me". You can't win.

 

[iam1me]

Very informative. But I see a contradiction. It seems to me it's an ethics to be non-ethical.
Whenever a religion has any commandments or values to follow, it is some kind of morality or ethics. So the ethics of a Taoist is to try to be non-ethical.
It's like I'd say to you: "don't let yourself be influenced by me". You can't win.

I don't think having a guide for how to behave to reach a desired goal is the same as ethics. A recommended diet and exercise to lose weight isn't part of one's ethics, for instance.

Ethics and morality are concerned with good vs evil and how to live a morally good life.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is there anything about the nature or purpose of religion that requires a religion to affirm a set of morals (or otherwise not be a religion)?

Could there be an amoral religion? If so, what might be the purpose of such a religion?

Would a religion that affirmed a set of morals in any way be superior (or inferior) to a religion that did not?

Until the advent of monotheism, the norm was for religion to be detached from morality. Pagan religion of those days was basically set up to dictate the rites used to appease the gods. It had nothing to do with morality. It's not that those cultures didn't have moral codes, but they tended to be civil, not religious. Judaism brought the great change by saying that the Creator actually cared about how we treated each other.