Religious people in the West and elsewhere are more likely than most to be ethical consumers, because they are more likely to search their consciences than most others. However, there are some non-religious people who do this too, some to a greater extent than religious people. Further, some religious groups seem selective about which ethical concerns to prioritise. Thus the Taliban in Afghanistan are strong on avoiding such intoxicants as alcohol, but less strong on promoting female emancipation. Comparable ideological barriers seem to prevent the supporters of Donald Trump, religious supporters included, from applying any inclinations they have for ethical consumerism, in matters affected by the climate change denial that characterises many of them.

I have always struggled to connect religion with ethics and I will point out that Ancient Greek thinkers and Chinese thinkers who practised ethics did not do so under a religious umbrella. It was instead largely connected to humanitarianism. Two recent examples of religious expression in the West are followers of Trump, noted by Robin above, surely a criminal? and those of Putin, equally so. Pause there for thought. Are religion and ethics naturally connected?

Depends on the religion. All religions are about gaining comfort with the great unknown. There are a spectrum of approaches from complete surrender and being infinitely small and equal through to being in control to the point where your god looks like you. Each of these approaches provides comfort to its members. At one end of the spectrum religious discipline centres around living in balance with all other things and at the other end of the spectrum humans are above nature and nature is their servant. These are generalizations but they do explain the roots of and resulting structure of society. There are always individuals in every society who think differently depending on their world view (which in turn is shaped by what they have internalized through education, media and personal upbringing). We also have to factor in our human denial instinct at an individual and a mass scale. Individual behaviours vary and may be different than societal behaviours. I suppose my point is that there might be some correlation between religion and ethical consumption but it will vary by religion plus there are other factors that also need to be part of this correlation.

Robin Attfield

I agree with you when you say (that religious people are more likely to examine their consciences), and this is regardless of the religions they follow, but it seems that the matter is only mental, i.e. it does not reach the point of changing behaviors. For example, the amount of waste left by those who practice Hajj rituals in Saudi Arabia and India every year is huge, even though their Hajj rituals are strict regarding moral behaviors in general and consumer behavior in particular.

Stanley Wilkin

Not every moral person is religious, but every religious person must necessarily be moral, taking into account the differences in the definition of morality across various religions. What one religion considers a noble virtue may not be seen as such in another. On the other hand, a moral individual outside the realm of religion derives their sense of morality from personal convictions combined with societal influences, which makes the concept of morality more fluid. In contrast, morality in the context of religion is more structured and disciplined.

Garry Merkel

We may disagree on our interpretation of the concept of religions, and this is natural because the differences between religions are an evident reality. Differences in the understanding of God and the concept of worship inevitably reflect on the concept of morality as well. However, it can generally be said that religions advocate for morality based on divine commands, which are often beyond critique or review. In contrast, the morality espoused by non-religious individuals is the product of human intellectual effort, making it more prone to contradictions and disagreements, and frequently subject to critique and opposition. On the other hand, history has recorded numerous unethical acts committed in the name of religion, such as wars and massacres. This raises an important question: is a religious individual truly religious in behavior according to the principles of their faith, or is their religiosity influenced by psychological and societal considerations?

Personal ethics and personal religion do not have any necessary connection. Religion might be used to justify some action and often is when one considers how many individuals are killed in the name of religion. While every religion I know much about has some version of the "golden rule" calling for one to treat others in a manner like they would like to be treated, exact wording varying, far too often that does not apply when the other person is of a different religion, or even a different branch of the same religion. I sometimes think that the non-religious are actually more likely to be moral than the religious.

Seddik

I really cannot agree with you, and your answer has simply bypassed the issue. To me violence is appalling but is within the words or/and assumed actions within monotheism. Ethics can be found in Egypt some 4000 years ago but was based on courtier courtesies. The instruction of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" was penned within this environment, so although part of courtier instruction still functions as an ethical code. Compare that with Samuel in the Hebrew books calling for the genocide of neighbouring tribes evidenced equally in some of the chapters of the Quran, off the top of my head 11.

Religions have always been co-opted, first by tribal leaders to gain more territory and wealth, later by the oligarchs of Nations. Truly virtuous people, are any who challenge the unethical and unsustainable costs of their wars and terror.

Paul,

Fine. It is not a question that ethics appears under religion, but it is more likely to appear within other systems. In fact it is more likely under systems where intellectual exchange is more evident than under monotheisms for example.

But there is a problem with confusing morality with ethics. Morality makes demands on those outside the group, while ethics seeks behaviour within the observer as well as others.

William Mayor

From a statistical perspective, the largest number of killings occurred during the First and Second World Wars, neither of which were driven by religious motives. Similarly, the most notorious criminals, murderers, and drug traffickers in the world are often not adherents of religions. The differences between religions may lie in their views on whether certain behaviors are moral or not. For instance, religion might consider relationships between men and women outside of marriage to be immoral, enforcing strict punishments, while non-religious individuals may view such relationships as personal freedoms and sometimes label religious teachings on the matter as unethical or even brutal.

Non-religious individuals lack a structured framework for defining moral behavior, as their definitions often rely on diverse and sometimes contradictory ideas. This is evident in their biases toward their own kind or social group. For example, many anti-colonial liberation movements were seen by large segments of colonial powers as groups of saboteurs and criminals, while those who shared the same homeland viewed them as leaders of noble causes aimed at liberating people and land.

That said, I do not deny the existence of groups, whether outside religious frameworks or intersecting with them, striving to make a difference by promoting ethical culture in various areas, particularly in economics and environmental issues. Judging the morality of religious individuals versus the immorality of non-religious ones requires not only statistical evidence but also historical analysis, and it must be studied within different contexts.

Thank you for your insightful and thought-provoking ideas, which are truly worthy of further research and discussion.

Seddik Boudouda Depends on the definition that you use.

I mean explicitly calling your consumption as "ethical consumption" is something that recently become fashionable to do (or at least claim to do) in higher strata of Western societies that are rather uniquely atheistic, so theoretically such people should have lead in this category.

However, if you simply mean "adjusting your consumption pattern due to seeing some purchases as too immoral", then the issue becomes quite murky and based on what you count, like let's say refraining from alcohol among Muslim. In some more Western countries boycott used to be uniquely weaponized by the left, but right now those countries become so called "polarized" - both sides of political spectrum play this game, though those who do so from right / religious position against companies that were deemed as disgusting, rather say "Don't give money to people that hate you". Right now Europe mostly stopped buying Russian carbohydrates - does it count as ethical consumption, geopolitics or something in between?

My problem here is based on how you define such consumption, you have high amount of leeway in getting conclusion.

Marcin Piotr Walkowiak

Your point of view is worthy of investigation.

Most behavioral concepts are not neutral, but are controlled by individuals' intellectual and cultural backgrounds. Boycotting the product of an ethnic group or a country is subject to the degree of hostility towards it.