Relativism

Are you saying that there is no God and that morality is not relative: that is, the quality of being in accord with the standards of right or good conduct does not vary depending on person, race, age, location, etc? And that we as individuals, groups, classes of people, et al, do not decide for ourselves what is good or bad conduct? Stated another way, you are saying that the standard of what is good or bad conduct exist outside of us and our wishes of what is good or bad conduct: but this standard does not come from God?

Then let me ask this: does morality apply to non-humans? I will presume that your answer is no. That is, the action of your ancestor the iguana (here I am being facetious; evolution is a faith not based on science) killing another iguana for its food is not morally good or morally bad, it is morally neutral. What if we go further up the evolutionary chain? What if a dog kills another dog for its food? I’ll presume you will still consider this morally neutral. Okay, lets keep going. What if your ancestor the monkey kills another monkey for its food? Again, I will presume moral neutrality in this case. What if your ancestor the cave man kills another cave man for his food? This is where things start getting a little gray.

Was the act of this human killing another human for his food morally neutral? For the sake of argument, lets say the answer to this question is no, the cave man killing the other cave man for his food was not morally neutral; it was morally bad, that is, viewed against the non-subjective, absolute standards of what is considered good or bad conduct, this is bad conduct. Okay, at some point in this evolutionary chain, it became wrong for your ancestors to kill each other. Here's where I need help understanding the mysteries.

Did it all of a sudden become wrong or did it start getting more wrong to kill as you evolved? Did the moral absolute that it is wrong for humans to kill each other exist before humans existed, or did it come into existence when humans came in to existence?  Exactly where does this moral absolute exist in time and space so that a human can reefer to it to ensure that he is following the rules? (He can't look inside himself, that's moral relativism.) And why should a person obey an alleged moral absolute?

"Why should Grog not kill Merg for his food?" A play by vbMark:

Merg: (Kneeling with hands clenched.) Please no kill me Grog!
Grog: (Standing with club above Merg's head.) Why not Merg?
Merg: Because it is selfish and it will hurt the group.
Grog: Why ought Grog be concerned about the health of the group?
Merg: Because if the group not survive then the species not survive!
Grog: Why ought Grog care about the health of the species and whether the species survives or not?
Merg: Grog ought to be concerned with the species because if the species dies out, then Grog will not survive. If the species is in jeopardy, then Grog in jeopardy.
Grog: So Grog ought to be unselfish because it is better for the group, which is better for the species, which is better for Grog. So why ought Grog be unselfish?
Merg: Because it is better for Grog.
Grog: So what is better for Grog is selfishness. So what Merg say is, Grog morally ought to be unselfish so that Grog can be more thoroughly selfish. That is silly, Merg, you such a Neanderthal. (Grog hits Merg on head, killing him without personal guilt, without moral guilt, nor retribution from the karmic gods.)

The moral to this story? There is no reason not to do anything you want (Just be sure you have a big club.)

End.

A friend who read the above and replied saying, "The only argument I can come up with (from the atheist perspective) for believing in an absolute morality would be that it exists as some sort of social contract we enter into maintained by laws extending back to the beginning of civilization when man started governing."

Here is my reply:

Good counterpoint. My reply will focus on the crux of your sentence, "...social contract...maintained by laws...". These are two very important points: contracts and law.

Contract is from the Latin word contractus meaning to draw together. A contract is an agreement between two parties; that is, two parties draw together (listen closely) their own personal wants in a compromise to another's personal wants. Of course this also applies beyond an individual to groups, cultures, etc.

What makes morality absolute versus relative? Morality is relative if its rules are created from within any person. Morality is absolute if the rules were not created from within any person; that is, a person goes outside of himself to know the rules.

Some people believe it is morally acceptable to kill unborn children. Some people believe it is not morally acceptable. If those people meet to try to draw together a contract dictating the moral acceptability of abortion, the difficulty will lie in the answer to the question, what is the moral rule regarding this issue. Some of those people will say that we as individuals decide the moral rule; some will say that the moral rule exist outside of us as a philosophical truth; and some will say that the moral rule exist outside of us as a theological command.

Those who say that the individual decides moral rules, are free to pick and choose those rules like one picks and chooses ice-cream; take the one that suits your taste at the moment. Today it is morally wrong to kill college students and eat them, tomorrow it is not morally wrong to kill college students and eat them. These people believe that morality is relative.

Those who say that the being who created the universe has the power to create the rules and the authority  to enforce them (see footnote 1), believe that morality is absolute.

Those who say that morality exists outside of us as a philosophical truth or as some sort of social contract believe (see footnote 2) that morality is relative.

So the argument that the existence of a social contract is evidence for moral absolutism is faulty, that is, it does not follow. This can be seen more clearly when we look at the second point regarding the law maintaining the social contract.

Laws are created by a government. A government is a group of people. This group of people can enact a law that abortion is illegal. Each person may possess a different belief as to why abortion is morally wrong. Laws by government may by accident or by purpose be in agreement with a moral absolute but do not necessarily reflect the morality of the government. The law may be nothing more than a reflection of a group of people's desires for order and safety by the drawing together each individual's idea of right or wrong.

So the argument that laws maintain the social contract of morality begs the question whose morality. Thus is neither evidence for nor indicative of morality in any form.

- vbMark.

(Footnote 1): An important thing about a rule is that it needs to have been created by one with the power to create the rule and be enforced by one who has the authority to enforce it. For example, if I were to go out into traffic and try to stop cars, they are under no obligation to stop as I have no authority to enforce such a rule. However, if a police office does the same, cars (for the most part) will stop as they recognize his authority to enforce such a rule and their obligation to obey the rule.

(Footnote 2): I use the word believe here even though a person of this type will deny that he believes that morality is relative. The fact is, despite what a person says or thinks he believes it is his actions that define his beliefs. For example, if someone says there is no such thing as absolute right or wrong and you tell that person that they are going to be paid less than everyone else because that person is a female, or that person is gay, or that person is pro-abortion, then I believe that that person will be very adamant about what is right and what is wrong. Their actions will belie their rhetoric.