Study of similarities/differences in moral views of religious and non-religious people

essentialsaltes said:

[T]he present research investigated whether there are reliable similarities as well as differences between believers and disbelievers in the moral values and principles they endorse.

[The studies] show that disbelievers (vs. believers) are less inclined to endorse moral values that serve group cohesion (the binding moral foundations). By contrast, only minor differences between believers and disbelievers were found in endorsement of other moral values

[R]esults also show that disbelievers (vs. believers) have a more consequentialist view of morality in both countries [US and Sweden]. A consequentialist view of morality was also associated with another presumed antecedent of disbelief—analytic cognitive style.

The paper is a bit dense with academese, but here is a summary in Live Science.

The moral compasses of atheists and believers are different in a few key ways, a new study finds.

In some aspects, the moral compass was incredibly alike between the two groups; they both highly rated fairness and protecting the well-being of vulnerable people, for instance, and both highly endorsed liberty but not oppression. However, the groups diverged when it came to matters of group cohesion, such as valuing loyalty and respecting authority, the study found.

"Virtually everyone," atheists and believers alike, scored high on these two values, showing that they valued protecting the vulnerable and being fair toward others; and they saw these values as moral issues, Ståhl said. However, he found differences between believers and disbelievers on the other three values: authority (respecting authority figures, such as police, parents and teachers), loyalty (being loyal to one's group, such as a country — not burning a country's flag, for instance) and sanctity (not doing anything perceived as degrading, usually in a sexual sense, such as being promiscuous).

[Both] groups scored low on amorality, disagreeing with statements such as "I am willing to be unethical if I believe it will help me succeed."

Click to expand...

where do non-believers stand on Abortion?

Abortion is legal and regulated in most democratic countries. This is as it should be, I think. The religious conservative stance attempts to impose their moral view on people who do not share that stance.

So there is at least one difference in the morality of non-religious people with Christian and other religious traditionalists - though not with all Christians, as that chart shows. Only white evangelicals (religious conservatives, I suppose) have a majority against abortion.

In my opinion if a woman is against abortion she should not have one. She is not entitled to prevent another woman from choosing differently.

Whyayeman said:

In my opinion if a woman is against abortion she should not have one. She is not entitled to prevent another woman from choosing differently.

Click to expand...

Not that I'm totally pro-life or anything (in fact I am actually pro-choice for practical purposes as blanket bans on abortion simply don't work), but I have never found this to be a good argument. It's equivalent to saying 'if you are against murder then don't murder anyone, but you are not entitled to prevent someone else from murdering someone'.

Daniel Marsh said:

where do non-believers stand on Abortion?

Click to expand...

Is there interest in what non-Christian Lover of God has to say? Maybe? I'm not for Abortions. In the same breath it's such a deeply personal decision that I don't believe the government or anyone else should be involved in that decision other than the people directly involved.