Posted: Sep 15, 2014 4:34 pm
The absence of objective morality does not mean that basic moral code enshrined in law regarding personal behaviour is not something that is necessary in order for society to function. The fact that it is less than perfect is no reason to abandon any attempts to establish it. The alternative to that is anarchy where everyone is only restricted by their own moral code and nothing else. Furthermore the subjective interpretation of objective morality renders it entirely meaningless. Even within belief systems there is no uniformity of opinion on the specific parameters of this so it is a bit rich to accuse atheists of relative moralism when theists are just as prone to it themselves. It is one thing to say objective morality comes from God but when those who actually believe in him cannot agree on exactly what that is then it is just empty rhetoric. Something that is objective by default cannot have multiple interpretations. Seven of the ten Commandments do not actually require belief for them to be practised anyway. So there is a significant overlap between what atheists and theists believe or can believe in anyway as pertaining to morality. And indeed five of the ten are within reason perfectly acceptable and which I have no problem with at all [ the last two are unacceptable as they are thought crimes ] It is not therefore as if all atheists have one moral code and all theists another moral code with zero compatibility between them. Because in actual fact the origin of morality lies in psychology not religion. As we are all psychological beings it is not therefore entirely unreasonable to find common ground on what is and is not fundamentally morally acceptable or unacceptable regardless of anything else