Question:
Millions of people are good without God. We don't need God to be good. Why not choose the path of reason instead of the unnecessary superstition that there is a God?
Answer:
The comments that preceed this question are perfect examples of one of the truths of life I have noticed over and over again. Virtually every atheist I have ever met has been a very moral person. They have a clear understanding of right and wrong, and they are, as this quote states, very good people. The problem is not in their morality; the problem is that they live this morality in a way that demands the existence of the very God they deny exists. In other words, they live, and in some ways, speak as though God really does exist, while simultaneously denying His existence.
Let me explain.
If there is no God, then morality is a human construct, and humans can change it at will to fit the current situation. Morality, then, is no different that the rules of a house poker game. Nothing wild? One eyed jacks wild? Three cards? Five cards? Seven cards? Two cards down, the rest up? All cards down? One card on your forehead so only your oponents can see it? Ace's high? Ace's low? And on and on and on. If there is no God, then morality is whatever we want it to be, with no absolute, universal rules of any kind.
In fact, the very definition of things like "good" and "bad" would be completely arbitrary to the point of having no meaning whatsoever. If Hitler wanted to define "good" as the absence of all undesirables (Jews, Gypsies, handicapped, blacks, etc.) from existence, that definition is no more or less valid than any other definition of "good." If I want to take your brand new car away from you and keep it as my own, while that action may be illegal based on current law, there is nothing inherently "wrong" with it, because all definitions of "right" and "wrong" are nothing more than opinion.
The problem is, no one actually believes this, and no one outside of a psychiatric hospital or a high security prison (excepting those who have not yet been caught and encarcerated) actually lives their life as though morality is nothing more than a human construct. No matter what we claim to believe about God, humans cannot escape absolutes in morality. The most hardened atheists I have ever encountered have made some of the most astonishing statements that assume moral absolutes. Here is an example of what I am talking about from Penn Jillette, a staunch atheist. Listen to the entire story, and notice at time 4:30 how he describes the believer about whom he is telling this story:
"He was a very, very, very good man."
Penn Jillette talks about receiving a bible from a Christian.
The thing is, if there is no God, as Penn Jillette insists, this statement he just made is completely meaningless, since "good man" is an arbitrary tag that should mean something different to every person. But that is not how anyone actually talks, and that is not how Penn Jillette talks here. He is speaking in absolute terms, as though "good" exists independently of human opinion, and human behavior is measured against that standard.
And that is the problem.
While Penn speaks in the positive, it is often easier to understand the problem here if we switch to the negative. For example, while we may not always be able to agree on what is "good," we know beyond any doubt that there are some actions that are simply wrong, and can never be anything other than wrong, regardless of culture, age, government, or religion. Torturing and raping a six year old girl is evil, and will always be evil, no matter what the circumstances, culture, era, or reasoning. We all know this, deep down in the core of our being, and nothing could convince us otherwise. In the deepest depths of our hearts we know that labeling such behavior as evil transends human opinion. It is absolute, and no amount of argument or justification will ever change that determination. It doesn't matter what someone believes, this truth is independent of opinion, and requires no consensus to be True. It is manifestly obvious that this is True, and anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong.
We KNOW this to the very core of our being.
But if there is no God, absolutes such as this cannot exist. Without God, NOTHING in morality transends human opinion. We invented morality, and we can change it at will, whenever we want. When it comes to morality, the most we could ever say is that "I disagree with you." We cannot say, "you are wrong." We can make laws forbidding that behavior, we can punish those who engage in that behavior, but what we cannot say is that there is anything inherently "wrong" with that behavior.
And this startlingly simple truth, that moral absolutes really do exist, is one of the inescapable "hooks" that God has placed within each and every person. We know, beyond any doubt, that some things are simply wrong. We cannot escape the existence of absolutes, if for no other reason than to deny them is in itself, an absolute (that "no absolutes exist" is itself an absolute statement of truth, thus an inherent contradiction).
So when I say that every atheist I have ever met speaks as though there really is a God in heaven who has set the moral absolutes for humanity, and they themselves live as though these absolutes are not up for vote, but are so inherently obvious that they need not even be justified, this, to me, is one of the most compelling bits of evidence I have ever encountereed that God MUST exist. In order for an atheist to tell me I am "wrong" about anything I say or do, the very God he argues against must exist. In other words, no matter what he claims, his argument is not one of reason, but mere opinion.
Who, but God, could construct human minds in such a way that His staunchest enemies, those who despise Him the most, must predicate their strongest arguments against His existence on a premise that cannot be True unless He DOES exist? Is it rational to deny the existence of the foundation upon which your arguments rest?
The only truly rational conclusion is that God is real.
Now what are you going to do about it?
Morality is an instinct necessary for societies to function. It is similar to blinking to prevent an object going into our eye, or being fearful of heights. We have innate characteristics that perpetuate our own existence and that of our society. Those without a sense of right and wrong are removed from society because people decide they are better off without these immoral individuals.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to me how many absolute truths you assume in your statement. Who gets to decide what moral values are necessary in a society? The Taliban? Al Quiada? China? North Korea? An Apartheid run South African minority? America? And if two societies are in direct opposition to each other, who should decide which society deserves to survive, and which should be destroyed? Which of the conflicting values in those oppositional societies were correct, and which were in error?
DeleteThe problem is that "right" and "wrong" are nothing more than opinion in an atheistic society. Further, when one society decides it has a different set of "right and wrong" values than ours (such as a Taliban society, or a North Korean society), without something above us that gives us absolute definitions of what right and wrong mean, we have no grounds upon which to criticize their views. If Saudi Arabia feels justified in jailing and beating a woman who drives a car without a male present, or Malasia feels justified in forcing a young girl to marry her rapist, on what grounds do we judge their behavior as "wrong"? Where do we get the moral justification to decide that the moral values that run THEIR society are inferior to those that run ours? What makes our opinions on right and wrong superior to theirs?
Further, who gets to decide that someone does not have "a sense of right and wrong"? What if their set of "right and wrong" is simply DIFFERENT from yours, or from the majority? Does the might of the majority make their opinions correct? The views of those running the underground railroad in pre-civil war America were very much the minority in the south, yet if they were captured, they were most definitely "removed from society." In fact, the pre-civil war era south ran pretty well with slavery as one of their cherished values . . . at least, if you were a white person.
So clearly, there is more to morality than merely "an instinct necessary for society to function." Lots of fully functioning societies have moral codes that we modern Americans find abhorrent. Are we right, or are they right?
And even further, who says that perpetuating our own existence is even a good thing? I've met a few very scary ecological extremists who feel very strongly that the greatest good we could do for our planet is to find a way for humanity to go extinct. They believe what is "morally good for the planet" far outweighs what is good for humanity, because humanity has no greater value than any given animal.
And who is right? The guy who wants us all dead? The person who wants a male dominated society to persist and grow? The person who believes that one segment of society should rule another segment? The person who believes everyone should have an equal voice, even if most of those voices are uneducated, uninformed, and clearly lacking in wisdom?
Without some absolute set of morals against which all of these varying opinions can be weighed, there simply is no such thing as "right" and "wrong," and all views on these questions I have asked are NOTHING more than opinion.
My only assumption is that morals are constructs of society. What is moral is a balance between the rights of individuals and the good of society. Adding god to the equation is not helpful in determining what is right. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are both based on Islam. Placing individuals in positions of authority without accountability to the people is not the solution either. Free societies create the most moral societies.
ReplyDeleteIf god is the basis for morality then right and wrong is based on the interpretation of what ever holy book is followed. Saudi Arabia is ruled based on Sharia law from the teachings of the Qu'ran and the Sunnah. Malasia is also based in Islam. Forcing women to marry her rapist is also condoned in the bible.
The abolition of slavery was the results of the minority convincing the majority to change. Their actions raised awareness, leading to debate, resulting in reform. Many suffered and died for what they believed was right, and we looking back and see emancipating the slaves was the right thing to do. Bringing god into the picture is not helpful because the bible supports slavery which was a great rallying point for the south.
Yes, basic morality is necessary for survival, which is why it is ingrained in us. This is best understood by looking at how tribes operate. If there was no objection to murder they would just kill each other off. Stealing was wrong because they couldn’t afford freeloaders. Positive morals were also necessary because those that didn’t benefit society couldn’t survive on their own. So doing right by others was necessary for survival. I use this example to show how some morals are ingrained in our being, not necessarily an explanation for all morals.
The point about perpetuating our own existence is simply a way of explaining our ingrained morality.
My basic point is that morals are constructed by society. I do not assume any society has arrived at the best morals, only that we will continue grow and hopefully improve.
If we follow a god how do we know what is right? Which god should we follow? If we follow a holy book whose interpretation is right?
If god is the basis for morality then right and wrong is based on the interpretation of what ever holy book is followed. Saudi Arabia is ruled based on Sharia law from the teachings of the Qu'ran and the Sunnah. Malasia is also based in Islam. Forcing women to marry her rapist is also condoned in the bible.
The abolition of slavery was the results of the minority convincing the majority to change. Their actions raised awareness, leading to debate, resulting in reform. Many suffered and died for what they believed was right, and we looking back and see emancipating the slaves was the right thing to do. Bringing god into the picture is not helpful because the bible supports slavery which was a great rallying point for the south.
Yes, basic morality is necessary for survival, which is why it is ingrained in us. This is best understood by looking at how tribes operate. If there was no objection to murder they would just kill each other off. Stealing was wrong because they couldn’t afford freeloaders. Positive morals were also necessary because those that didn’t benefit society couldn’t survive on their own. So doing right by others was necessary for survival. I use this example to show how some morals are ingrained in our being, not necessarily an explanation for all morals.
The point about perpetuating our own existence is simply a way of explaining our ingrained morality.
My basic point is that morals are constructed by society. I do not assume any society has arrived at the best morals, only that we will continue grow and hopefully improve.
If we follow a god how do we know what is right? Which god should we follow? If we follow a holy book whose interpretation is right?
Let me clarify once again. The argument of morality that I am making here is NOT about whether or not the Christian God is the real God. The entire point of the morality argument is that ANY absolute assumption of good and bad, right and wrong, requires God. ANY God. At this point, WHO that God is cannot be determined.
DeleteWHO that God is would be a completely separate discussion, and would require a completely different route to discover the Truth. Trying to answer that question through studying morality is doomed to failure. So arguing that the Bible seems to say things that run contrary to our idea of morality is irrelevant. I'm not claiming that everyone holds to Biblical morality, nor am I arguing that biblical morality is correct, what I am claiming is that everyone believes there IS such a thing as "right" and "wrong," even if each and everyone of us thinks they are something different. It doesn't matter what our individual definition of morality is, we KNOW there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong" and that morality can be improved. We KNOW that morality can be get better. But if morality is a human construct, that "knowledge" is nonsense.
And again, let me point out that it does not matter what arbitrary method you think exists to explain our ingrained morality, the fact that you believe it can be IMPROVED shows that you are measuring it against something that is above and beyond humanity, and beyond what simply "works" in a society.
Unless some standard exists against which we measure morality, there is no way to know if morality "improves" or "declines" as morality itself is a purely arbitrary construct. There is no "independent" means of measuring morality if morality is a human construct. If morality is, as you claim, a construct that arose based on what did and did not work in creating a society, then because every society is so different, there is no way to know if any given successful society is "improving" or "declining" in their morality. Despite this, you keep insisting that morality can be "improved." By whose standard? Who decides if accepting homosexuality (as America has largely done) or rejecting homosexuality (as all Muslim countries have done) is an improvement or a decline?
You see, if morality is a human construct, no one can EVER know if morality is improving or declining.
The very fact that you believe morality can be improved shows that despite your claim about where it originates, you know, deep down inside, that there is something absolute about morality that is independent of human opinion. And if there is no God, those statements you keep making about morality "improving" have no meaning, because there is no way to "measure" that improvement.
In a world without God, ALL morality is arbitrary, and NO morality is any better or worse than any other. It can neither decline or improve, as ALL measures of morality are purely arbitrary.
THAT is the morality of a world without God, and it is NOT the morality you present.
Hi Michael, I’ve read your article as well as the comments here and I have a couple of things I’d like to add.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Tom made an excellent point; the existence of morality does not need to come from God, but can in fact be a natural byproduct of our evolution. Most (not all) people are born with a sense of empathy, and it’s not unreasonable to believe that this is the source of most moral standards. We choose not to murder, or rape, or steal, because we know that these actions cause pain to other people, and it’s our sense of empathy that leads us to avoid this.
You’ve made some interesting counter-points to Tom’s original claims. First, I’d like to ask what exactly qualifies Christian doctrine more than other religious doctrines. You have clearly expressed that the actions of the Taliban are wrong (as any sane person would accept). However, from their viewpoint they are well within the bounds of their religious decree. How could an objective observer look at their actions, compare it to that of Christian teachings, and decide which is correct? Both are operating under the conflicting pretenses that their religious texts are true. Objectively speaking there is no way to compare the validity of these claims, both have similar credentials, and both must be taken on faith.
Additionally, you’ve made an excellent point on the subjectivity of morality, but I feel you’ve followed it to the wrong conclusion. If the word of God, or rather, his unspoken rule book that you claim everyone plays by (even unknowing atheists), were to exist, then there should not be so many different opinions. If your claim is true, then everyone knows God’s rules and there is no ambiguity. But this is not the case, so where do the discrepancies come from?
Furthermore, how do you explain individuals who have been clinically proven to have absolutely no moral compass? People with psychopathy have essentially no sense of morality and are capable of committing intensely immoral acts with little to no remorse. Where do these people come from and why do they exist?
To me the imperfections in the system are indicative of something that’s come about naturally rather than supernaturally. Like most things associated with people, the trait has evolved in a general direction, but there are deviations from the norm. We have all evolved under the same pressures, and because of this most of us have the same general sense of morality. Murder is bad, stealing is bad, rape is bad, because these things conflict with our sense of empathy. They inflict pain and harm on other people, and this is bad. I do not see how God is required to understand this.
We do not need God to even establish a reference frame for morality. All of that comes from empathy and reason. If you’ve studied ethics, then you understand that the goal is to set forth rules of behavior that minimize suffering for the majority. When we say that we want to improve morality, that’s what we mean, that’s the goal we’re striving for.
To me this is actually one of the great dangers of religion. Following religious text blindly actually retards and stagnates this growth. The moral absolutes that you speak of are wolves in sheep’s clothing. People take solace in them, and become complacent. It leads to the mentality that things cannot get better, and do not need to. But this is not true; just imagine if that mentality prevailed in the civil war era. You agree that slavery is abhorrent, yet nowhere in the Bible does it say we should avoid it.
The fact that you can exercise your own judgment towards moral issues is of its own right testament to the fact that morality is ingrained in our psychology. We do not need God’s decree to grow morally as a society; I would even go so far as saying that we can do better than that, and have already begun to do so. You are correct in asserting that nothing is absolute, and that is why we need to be flexible and conscious of how our behavior affects other people. Religiously dictated morals effectively eliminate this flexibility, and stop us from growing.
Hi Joser,
ReplyDeleteYou, as most atheists I speak to, are missing the forest for the trees. The point has nothing to do with any particular moral law, nor with Christianity, nor with whether or not there exist some people who are morally "broken." The point is that if there is no God, then none of us have a right to tell any other of us that what they are doing is "wrong." We can set up any framework we like, but that framework will always be completely arbitrary. Just because some specific construct is designed to benefit humanity does NOT make it any less arbitrary than one that does NOT benefit humanity.
And this is the point: you can't even claim some moral or philosophical idea is or is not true. If someone believes that the ultimate good is to destroy all human life, they are no more right or wrong than you are.
So it all comes down to I'm actually asserting the opposite of what you state.
I am asserting that there are absolutes, that they are, in fact, completely inescapable, and that to prove me "wrong," you will, by necessity, have to resort to absolutes.
For example, the phrase, "nothing is absolute," is an absolute statement. You find yourself unable to tell me I am wrong without falling back on some measuring stick that assumes, in fact requires, absolutes. Further, you claim that rigidity keeps us from "growing." Yet without some absolute measurement somewhere, the entire concept of morally growing is nonsense. There is no such thing as moral growth, as that has to be measured against something. If all morality is an artificial construct made up of pure opinion, then there is no way of knowing if we are morally better, worse, growing or dying any more than it is possible to know if blue is better than green, or if asparagus is superior to cauliflower.
And that was my point. How amazing is it that you have to use the very thing you deny to try and prove me wrong? And there is no way around it. You can tell me you disagree, but if you are to be true to your worldview, you can never tell me I am wrong, because there is no philosophical or moral "right" and "wrong" in a world without absolutes. "Right" and "wrong" are opinion, and nothing more.
So you see, in my worldview, I can tell you that you are wrong. But if you are to remain true to yours, you can never tell me, or anyone else, that we are wrong. At least, not morally or philosophically. That, to me, is a stunning, and inescapable irony: you need for there to be a God so that you can state that there is no God.
Do you see it yet?
Hi Michael,
ReplyDeleteYou have again raised some excellent points. What you’re touching upon is moral relativism, the idea that any notion of what is good or bad must be arbitrary. However, there is no reason to assume that arbitrary is a bad thing. You’re operating under the pretense that something being contrived somehow removes its validity. Indeed, you state in your response, that “just because some specific construct is designed to benefit humanity does NOT make it any less arbitrary than one that does NOT benefit humanity.” But you do not explain where the harm in this lies. If there are a set of procedures set forth that clearly benefit humanity, then the fact that they are contrived does not take away from their usefulness.
What you’re suggesting is that the only valid measurement of moral goodness must come from the word of God. But yet you have exercised judgment beyond the explicit teachings of the Bible. The text itself does not explicitly condemn slavery, in fact there are some scriptures that condone it; but you have deemed such behavior as unacceptable. If the religious text is all that you have as a baseline measurement, then you cannot declare this to be a step in the right direction. You cannot pass moral judgments that are beyond the teachings of the Bible without justifying them. By doing so you are necessarily contradicting yourself. Whether you like it or not you are developing your morals beyond what has been explicitly described in the Bible, which is a type of moral growth.
Furthermore, we can judge whether this growth is good or bad without religious text. By setting the standards for ourselves, we can deem whether or not you are moving towards or away from our goals. We do not need religious text to dictate what good and bad growth is. You’ve suggested that we cannot pass judgment on any deviations unless we can reference it to the Bible, and that the actual repercussions of ethical developments are completely irrelevant if they have been conceived outside of religious text because they are “arbitrary.” But you have not explained how their “arbitrary” nature takes away from their beneficial nature. Additionally, I would say that you are wrong in asserting that they are arbitrary. They were conceived with a very specific goal in mind: to benefit mankind. You have somehow asserted that the goal is secondary to whether or not God has decreed it, but you yourself have contradicted this notion by exercising moral judgment outside of explicit religious teachings. By doing so you accept that there is more to morality than what is explicitly described in the Bible.
If you disagree with this notion then you absolutely must justify why the teachings of the Bible are more valid than the views of the Taliban. When determining who is morally right or wrong you have to have a goal in mind. And if your only argument is that the Taliban conflicts with the Bible then you’re going to have to do better, because objectively speaking both texts are valid (when judged by the same standards). It’s ironic to me that you have accepted the teachings of the Bible over those of other religions, because in doing so you have exercised moral judgment that comes from yourself and not from the text that you’ve claimed is its source. If this were not true then you would in fact be conflicted as to whether other religious views were correct over Christian views.
The main point that I’m trying to make is that we do not rely on God to determine what is morally “right” or “wrong.” As human beings we are capable of sitting down and establishing standards; we are trying to minimize the suffering of the majority of people. Because of the claims you are making, you are responsible for explaining how this goal does not suffice, simply because it was conceived by man. If we are not aiming to serve others, but rather to blindly follow religious text, then what is the point? Surely we can come up with rules with better explanations than “do this or else.”
Hi Joser,
DeleteSorry it took me so long to respond.
The problem may be that I am not explaining myself very well, so let me try again.
First: I am not arguing anything about the Bible. I am making a general argument about a generic "God." My point is that the existence of absolutes requires some kind of "God."
Second, I'm not arguing for any particular "set" of morals. I have used some examples that I felt were universally accepted to make my points, but they were not intended to point to any particular moral standard.
My main point is that absolutes cannot be avoided. You see, if there are no absolutes, you can't tell me that my position on morality is wrong. When you tell me I am wrong about my view on morality being arbitrary, you are claiming that "benefiting humanity" is not opinion, but is absolute.
If you have one opinion on morality and I have another, who gets to decide which of us is right? You? Why? Who just made you . . . um . . . God? Just because you think that benefiting our species is the ultimate standard does not make you right.
From a universal position, I might even call it a "species bigoted" opinion. All the extinct species might disagree with you (and there are lots and lots of people who believe that animals have EQUAL right to life as humans).
If I believe that humanity is a scourge on this planet and needs to be eradicated in order to protect the other thousands of species, there is no way for you to convince me that I am wrong and you are right, because I have rejected the "foundational" premise of your argument (that whatever benefits humanity is "good"). Some people believe that if we got out of the way, then maybe a truly beneficial race could evolve who would actually take care of the planet and the other species, instead of destroying it. And our existence might be imperiling their evolution. And thus, in the long run, from a species standpoint, maybe humanity is the ultimate evil.
And this is the key issue here. Even you act as though some moral positions are beyond argument, showing that deep down inside, even you believe there ARE absolutes. You might deny it, but your arguments keep coming back to it.
It really doesn't matter what your rationalization is for what morality is based upon. If there is no God, it is opinion and nothing more. Meaning morality is simply the opinions of the majority, and nothing more. Which means, "right" and "wrong" are whatever the majority happens to define it as. This means that the "majority" can never really be "wrong," because those words are arbitrarily defined, and if the majority can't define them, then who can?
If morality is a human construct, then which humans get to define the meaning of "right" and "wrong"? The majority? The victors?
But no one actually believes this, and even more to the point, no one actually lives like this. It's a great theory, but it simply doesn't resemble reality. People revolt against the majority all the time because they believe the majority to be WRONG. In other words, they believe that right and wrong are NOT dependent upon what the majority says, but are above and beyond human opinion.
So my point is NOT that humanity cannot construct some arbitrary moral guidelines, nor is my point that if we did do this, it wouldn't work. My point is that if we did, every tiniest detail of it would still be "majority opinion," and nothing more.
And ultimately, calling something "right" or "wrong" would mean nothing more than "I agree with you," or "I disagree with you."
I apologize for how long this is, but one of my strengths is NOT being able to may my points in a concise and compact way. Sorry.
You have a great new year.
Hi Michael, I'm really sorry, but this is going to be a two-part post. I tried really hard to condense it, but there's nothing that I feel comfortable omitting. So, here you go:
ReplyDeleteHi Michael,
I’d like to start this by clarifying my position from my last post. It may have been unclear, but I was not arguing for any absolutes. I apologize if my argument was confusing; I understand and accept that not everyone holds benefitting humanity as the ultimate goal of morality. It was just an example of something that people generally agree is worth pursuing. However, I understand that, objectively speaking, it cannot be described as more worthwhile an endeavor than eradicating mankind. The fact that some people disagree on what’s “good” does not undermine my argument.
Your entire argument, as I see it and as described by yourself, is dependent upon the idea of an “absolute moral code” being inevitable. In your previous posts you have attempted to argue that this is true, but all you’ve demonstrated is that such a construct would be far more convenient than subjective moral codes. The examples you’ve presented do not prove that an absolute moral code exists, nor do they prove that subjective morality is impossible.
You start by asserting that, “if there are no absolutes, you can’t tell me that my position on morality is wrong.” This is a circular statement, though. First, please let it be clear that when I say that I hold you to be wrong, I am finding issue in your primary assertion that absolutes exist. So, in the statement above you are claiming that if they don’t exist, I cannot tell you that you are wrong in asserting that absolutes exist. This being said, “absolutes” certainly do not need to exist for me to assert that they do not exist. Do you see the flaw in your opening claim?
You go on in your argument to take issues with deciding who gets to determine “right” and “wrong.” I agree with you in that determining the sources for our moral code is not straightforward. It can be tricky to set forth the values that we as a species want to pursue morally. However, the complexity of the problem is not proof of the existence of an absolute moral code.
Later in the argument you take this notion further, and cite moral subjectivity as proof of an absolute moral code: “If there is no God, it is opinion and nothing more.” However, this is just another indication that subjectivity is inconvenient. I agree; morality is opinion and nothing more. Now, if you would like to use this to argue that absolutes exist, you need to demonstrate that it is somehow impossible.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to address your citation of revolutions as being indicative of an absolute moral code. When you say that “people revolt against the majority all the time, because they believe the majority to be WRONG,” you’re assuming that the people are in agreement because of their shared “absolute moral scale,” but this need not be the case. When people revolt, it is because they feel their morals or rights are being violated by the current institution. This certainly indicates that the revolting group of people probably has similar morals, but it does NOT point to an absolute nature of morality. The same behavior can be explained via evolutionary means, as discussed in my first post. It’s quite likely that such a large group of people will have similar moral values, because they are all people. The code does not have to be set forth by a deity, but can be the result of natural processes.
Finally, you’re saying that anyone who discusses this with you, me included, must necessarily resort to absolutes to make their claim. You’ve said that I “act as though some moral positions are beyond argument,” and that I must believe there are absolutes. However, this was not my intention, and does not accurately capture my opinion on the matter. Yes, I feel that morality is, in some sense beyond argument, BECAUSE it is arbitrary. No one can make an objective case for their morals, because they are, in fact, opinion. I understand this to be true, and it is actually pivotal to my argument and my perception of human morality. At its core, your argument focuses on proving that this is impossible. However, you have yet to actually demonstrate this. Nothing you’ve presented so far proves that morals aren’t subjective, and you certainly haven’t proven that subjective morality is impossible.
Now, I would also like to represent my arguments against your case specifically. It is ironic that you claim that my theory on morality is not seen in practice, because the system that you propose is much further from what we see in the world. If, as you claim, some absolute moral code exists, regardless of its origin, why is there so much ambiguity towards its nature? If the absolute moral code exists, then we should all inherently hold the same moral views. We would not need any external instruction; it would be a part of who we are. But this is not the case. As you have pointed out, people disagree on every aspect of morality. This must be accounted for if you are to truly make a case for the existence of an “absolute moral code.”