The main point of this long Dostoyevsky novel, which the plot mainly illustrates, is that, without belief in God, moral rules would disappear, and “everything would be permitted”. While I happen to believe in God (as of quite recently), I strongly disagree with this argument. For most of my life, I have lived without belief in God, and I have committed no murder or robbery or any other grave crime for the sake of my personal selfish benefit. Except for the occasional small lie, and many sins of omission, I have been no worse than the average Christian.

But my objection to Dostoyevsky’s claim is not derived from personal experience, but from fundamental ethics. Avoiding doing harm to other people is not, for me, based on God’s prohibition of such behaviour. And I would be ready to generalize this principle to apply as an obligation to all people. The basic principle for avoiding doing harm, and for promoting the well-being of all people as far as possible, is the principle of common essence; the fact (which I accept as an axiom) that all people share the same common nature or essence as myself, namely a thinking and feeling mind, and that therefore they must not be harmed if I don’t want to be harmed myself.

This is very close to the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Golden Rule, for me, is directly derived from the Principle of Common Essence. And while it is preached by all the world’s religions, it does not depend on God’s commands, it is morally self-evident. It was formulated as God’s command because in this form it would be more understandable and seem more binding to people who were not philosophically inclined. But for those persons who are so inclined, it can stand alone, on its own merit.

Standing on its own merit, the Principle of Common Essence is a more valid justification of moral behaviour than than using religion as its basis. Religious justification is at least partly based on fear of punishment in life after death, which is less praiseworthy than doing good and avoiding doing evil for its own sake. Religious justification based on love for God is somewhat better than that based on fear of God, but still depends on a relationship, on second-hand knowledge, not on intrinsic merit alone.

Perhaps, by believing and acting on the Principle of Common Essence, we humans are somehow be creating God in our image. Job in the Old Testament was certainly morally superior to God in that chapter. By “teaching” ethics to an amoral God, we help to create Him with more admirable qualities. At Teilhard’s Omega Point, we shall merge with Him, and He will create us at the Alpha Point, in the Great Wrap-around.

However, for those who are not willing to accept the philosophy of the Great Wrap-around which is quite counter-intuitive, I would say: just skip the previous paragraph. The argument for moral behaviour based only on the Principle of Common Essence can stand alone, just like the principle itself.