"We NEED absolute morals and someone to give them to us."
Offline I'm sure you're all familiar with this theist argument:
"But we NEED absolute morals! Otherwise, morals would be relative, and people would just make up their own morals! The world would descend into chaos! Moreover, we NEED an absolute moral law giver, and that is the God of the Bible."
I have heard VERY intelligent people make this argument. The valedectictorian of my college class, who was my roommate for a time, formulated this argument to me, and he's one of the smartest people I've ever known personally.
Unfortunately, I do not think that A) this argument is logically valid & B) that the premises behind this argument follow to the conclusion that is made.
I wrote an extremely long refutation of the argument that was more of a mental exercise for me, but is realistic to assume that most will not spend the time reading it.
For this reason, I'm going to use 2 and only 2 of what I consider to be my BEST refutations.
1. ALL morals must have REASONS that they are moral. Morals cannot be arbitrary. God does NOT arbitrarily decide one day, "Killing is bad," and overturn it the next day. Killing is bad because in snuffs out a human life and causes suffering of friends and family. The REASON we do not kill is for those reasons I listed, NOT because God says, "Don't Kill." God's reasons are the same reasons as OUR reasons. That is total moral equivalency. We need God for NOTHING when it comes to morals, because we can use our own reasoning skills to deduce them. Granted, the theist will then argue that human conscience is derived from God, the absolute moral law giver. If they do this, they concede that the Bible is not the authority, it is our conscience. Get them to concede that point clearly before refuting conscience. Then, explain how the conscience can be explained through evolutionary means. Simply put (drawing from Dawkins & others), moral behavior and altruism results in a selective advantage of individuals in a group or tribe. It does not pay to be selfish and evil in the animal kingdom, and it is CERTAIN and factual that animals exhibit behavior that corresponds to human moral behavior. If our conscience can be explained by evolution, God is unnecessary as an explanation as the origin. Occam's razor, that is choosing simplicity over unneccessary complexity, gives us strong probability that evolution, not God, is the origin of human conscience.
2. The greatest problem for the theist argument about NEEDING absolute morals or an absolute moral law giver is that the premises and reasoning establishing logical necessity are either completely non-existent, or I have never heard them. I certainly cannot derive them playing my best theistic Devil's advocate. Perhaps for that, I am a failure. WHY is it logically necessary?
Correct me if I am intentionally or wrongly stating the premise behind the "necessity" argument, but it would appear that we NEED absolute morals because it makes us nauseous and gives us a angt if we do not have a simple solution to the problem of ethics. Getting a tummy-ache is does not prove logical necessity for something. Nothing is NECESSARILY true because it prevents a tummy-ache. It makes me uneasy and sad that I don't have a diamond as big as a truck in my backyard, but that doesn't make the existence of a huge diamond in my backyard either likely or NECESSARILY true.
To restate:
P1: It makes me uneasy and gives me angst that I do not have a large diamond as big as a truck in my backyard.
Conclusion: It is LOGICALLY NECESSARY for a huge diamond to exist in my backyard.
Result: I am not uneasy and I have no angst. I don't have to plan for my financial future or think about how to make any money.
Similarly --
P1: As a theist, it makes me uneasy and gives me angst to think that morals are not absolute. It also makes me uneasy to determine WHERE those absolute morals come from.
Conclusion: It is LOGICALLY NECESSARY for there to be absolute morals and an absolute moral giver that I can either communicate with myself or read the directly communicated morals in a holy book.
Result: I am not uneasy and I have no angst. I don't have to read any more books on ethics or think about it any more. The problem has been solved and I can dogmatically sit on my holy book without any more thought about ethics.
----
Theists, how can you make your argument stronger and show me WHY it is logically necessary for absolute morals and an absolute moral giver?
Atheists, if no theists respond, do you think I have interpreted this argument fairly, and would you add any of your own refutations? Do you think there are any stronger arguments?
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM.
- Login to post comments
Interesting topic.
I think the biggest point you are missing here is the obvious one.
We didn't create the absolute moral laws, they just are. Whether you buy into that or not, I'm not sure.
Example. I grew up never being explicitly told it is wrong to attack someone. All was I told was avoid fights as best you can but worse comes to worse, if you get attacked, try to run and if you can't - defend yourself as best as possible. One day I picked a fight and belted a kid in the face. Instantly, something inside me went "hang on, this is really wrong". It wasn't fear of getting punished, because I knew I had a reason and my parents always went easy on me. It was this sense that you just don't hurt people, that it's wrong.
I think the analogy of the diamond in your backyard is flawed. It is not a logical necessity for you to have a diamond. It is a logical necessity for you to work and earn money so that you can buy all the things that you were convinced are logical necessities by society - but that doesn't change the absurdity of the rationale.
On a society level - it is necessary for absolute morals because we have an understanding of equality. That's why the little people have such mistrust for big business - they see an inequality. Absolute morals give people guidelines and boundaries.
On a personal level - have you ever noticed how the moral absolutes that Christians generally advocate (lets leave homosexuality for another discussion because some say it's ok and others say it's not and that could be a real distraction in this discussion) are designed for the good of both the self and the people around them? "Love your neighbour as yourself" - that's the most general and yet specific moral absolute ever. Would I want someone to take my stuff? Nope. Would I want someone to swear at me and abuse me? Nope. Would I want someone to sleep with my wife? Nope.
If you see that as unnecessary then perhaps you should explain a better system?
I'm not doubting your sincerity but you make big assumptions about theists. You assume that theists see their faith as an intellectual "rest stop". Since finding my faith, I have researched more than I ever would have had I remained a skeptic.
As for the issue of the absolute moral giver. If your mother tells you to clean your room every saturday, your absolute moral giver on room cleaning is ...tada...your mother.
As a Christian, my absolute moral giver for my life is God. I'm not sure there is any other way to explain it.
The idea here isn't nessecarily action, but the intent behind action. It's good to love your naighbor because it is your intent to do good unto him. It's good to not sleep with your friend's wife because it is your intent to not cause him emotional harm. What I personally have a problem with is people who love their neighbor because they want to go to heaven and people who refuse adultery because they don't want to go to hell. You're not doing something because you believe it's right, you're doing something because of an expectation of divine rewards.
That places religious moralism behind two motivations; fear and greed. That doesn't sound moral to me.
Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine
Immaculate,
I think those motivations come from poor understanding of teaching.
The good things I do are an overflow of God's love for me. If you can imagine a cup being filled up, when it is full the pourer keeps pouring until the drink flows out onto the table and onto the floor and then you get in trouble from your landlord for staining the carpet. Hang on. Back the analogy up. I think you know what I am saying.
I'm not driven by fear at all.
As far as greed goes - Christianity doesn't teach that one can earn their way into heaven. As far as divine reward goes - I don't know what the divine reward is but I know this for sure:
When you give a gift to someone, I'm assuming it makes you feel great when they say "thank you". In fact, to use another analogy, imagine you come across someone who has stumbled through the desert and is dying of thirst. Now you give them access to your well and say, "drink all you want - be satisfied on the water I am offering". I don't know about you, but the gratitude that would be in that persons heart would be enormous - they may even say something like "I can never repay this".
I don't see doing things in this life that have promises of reward in heaven as being morally corrupt. Without fail, the giver always gets the glory. I get satisfied. God gets glorified. There is no moral dilema for me.
Peace,
Semp.
I agree. However, I don't believe religious moralism is nessecary to make this happen. You seem like a good person and I believe that you would still be a good person if you didn't believe that you were glorifying god in doing this.
Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine
I want to get something very clear before we go any further. I promise to address everything you wrote, semp., but we need to tackle one subject that is at the heart of this.
By "Logical Necessity", I mean something very specific. I do not know if you endorse my definition or have a different definition for "necessary." So I will supply my definition, and if you mean something else, please supply YOUR definition of "necessity."
Here is mine:
http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/tok/rationalism4.htm
1) Logical Necessity. When something is logically necessary it is true by definition. For example, the statement "All bachelors are unmarried" is necessarily true because that is how we define the word "bachelors" - that is, "people who are unmarried". Mathematical truths are also of this type. These are called necessary or analytic truths.
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
LOL. Reading your post with that definition in mind makes a lot more sense - still don't know that I agree with what you are saying. I think I was thrown off by the title of the thread because you used the word "need" which has a different meaning (obviously) to logical necessity. Need has no bearing on, well, absolute truth.
Because that is really what we are debating here. "Absolute morals" is just "absolute truth" in disguise. The moral aspect is the offspring of absolute truth.
To string together an sumation:
Absolute morals = Absolute truth = The existence of an Absolute truth provider = The existence of God.
It is for that reason that most Christians are against moral relativism - which implies that "truth" is in the mind/hands of the person seeking the truth. Moral relativism, side point, goes against everything that we know as scientific. In fact, the idea or concept of an absolute truth is in line with science.
Do we need absolute morals (and therefore absolute truth and therefore someone/thing to give them to us) - I don't think we have a choice.
I mentioned in another post about trying to ignore gravity - it just is. When so many things are echoed right across the spectrum of living world (family groups among species, mourning over death etc etc etc) why is it so hard to believe that, in the same way that physics is a universal law (and therefore an absolute truth), that morals exist under the same pretext of being absolute?
Something to chew over at least.
Peace,
Semp.
SEMP: On a society level - it is necessary for absolute morals because we have an understanding of equality. That's why the little people have such mistrust for big business - they see an inequality. Absolute morals give people guidelines and boundaries.
DOCTORO: Okay, I'm going to attempt arguing that there is some confusion here between the words, "necessary" and "should".
I will agree that we SHOULD have morals that we apply to all humans equally and fairly. You have me there, and I will be happy to assent to that.
However, saying that applying morals to all humans is logically necessary [like it is logically necessary that 2+2=4] is false.
If we both agree that we SHOULD have morals that we apply equally and fairly to all humans, then let's further make 3 distinctions:
1. I can have morals that I PERSONALLY apply equally and fairly to other humans.
2. SOCIETY -- A COUNTRY, STATE, CITY, or other legal entity as a whole can have morals that it applies to all its citizens within its jurisdiction.
3. The whole world community outside the context of the legal system and jurisdiction.
For me to have morals that I apply equally and fairly to others doesn't necessitate God.
For society to have morals that are applied equally and fairly to its citizens doesn't necessitate God.
The concept of having a non-legal overarching worldwide moral system is very vague and ambiguous. We have the jurisdiction of the UN, but what else can we do besides that?
Finally, there is that pesky step of stating that it is logically necessary for GOD to be the moral law giver.
I don't know that I've seen your rationale for that other than it is your preference.
You said, "We didn't create the absolute moral laws, they just are. Whether you buy into that or not, I'm not sure."
See, this is the problem. You're talking about morals as if they are OBJECTIVE as opposed to SUBJECTIVE. If morals are objective, they are like scientific truths. This would be like they are something existent that we discover or are told. Similar to viewing stars with a telescope. Creation of the telescope does not create the stars, it only observes them.
But how is it logically necessary that morals are objective? Something there for us to discover?
-------------------------------
I would argue that we SHOULD, but NOT that we LOGICALLY MUST, create morals in our society based on reasonable principles. These are called laws. Moreover, we could create societal conventions for interpersonal behavior that are NOT laws. We SHOULD have equal morals, but the only real way to do that is inside your own actions or by making them law.
I will answer the rest of your post later.
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
There are some genuinely nice people on this board - good to be discussing this stuff with level headed people for once
I guess I can't say for sure - I know that I'm less inclined to put my needs first but, again, there are selfless people out there without a god in their life. It's a tricky thing - I am who I am today because of my faith.
With the risk of sounding cliched (how do you do the funny e symbol?) lifting a 10 pound weight for God always feels like 2 pounds. I don't know - again, hard to explain...gah...walking cliche..
Peace,
Semp.
SEMP: "LOL. Reading your post with that definition in mind makes a lot more sense - still don't know that I agree with what you are saying. I think I was thrown off by the title of the thread because you used the word "need" which has a different meaning (obviously) to logical necessity. Need has no bearing on, well, absolute truth."
Jeremy: Reading your post, I can see you are not quite the hapless dolt that I believe most Christians to be. Kudos on making my list of "not as irrational as most theists" list.
But I still don't know how you define "necessary" in the context that you mean. You say you do not mean "logically necessary." What do you mean?
And if you say that absolute morality is not logically necessary, or necessary in any way; and it just IS, then why?
How can absolute morals just BE? And if absolute morals just ARE, then how do we ascertain the morals themselves?... And further, how do we ascertain epistemelogically that morals have the property of absoluteness? Faith?
This may be a poor argument on my part, but I think the fact that morals are NOT objective is a default position and the one who posits the objectivity of morals has the burden of proof.
Non-objective morals, in my opinion, would be equivalent to naturalism (which is the default position with respect to supernatural claims).
Furthermore, if I can prove that it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for morals to BE objective, then aren't morals subjective?
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
My point was missed I think - I wasn't saying that it isn't logically necessary or necessary but rather that it simply is - so venturing into those aspects isn't necessary.
My belief that moral absolutes exist stems primarily from the instinctual nature we have when dealing with certain issues - for example, causing pain to someone else is a good place to look. From a very young age, if we hurt someone else, we understand that pain isn't good and that it is wrong to cause others pain. There is no explanation for why we feel that. Not causing pain is like the grand-daddy of moral absolutes. From that, we ascertain that being kind is a must, being generous is good, being respectful of others is important etc etc.
I think there lies a root family of moral absolutes from which all others stem. These aren't taught or instituted, but rather found naturally.
Therefore - if they are found naturally then they cannot be subjective.
I think that sounds right.
From there, from these basic moral absolutes, there are those moral absolutes instilled by (for example) Christianity which may not necessarily be "natural" but are moral absolutes none-the-less because they do not conflict with the primary undeniable moral absolutes.
Peace,
Semp.
Before I get into it - the practice of slavery was universal in feudal societies - it's not something that was invented in the Bible.
There are conflicting views on the discussion of slaves and how to treat slaves in the bible. Given the fact that slavery is no longer part of modern western civilisation it is hard to judge.
I think it is more complicated than you make it out to be and there are a few reasons.
Middle eastern society (even to this day - but not the same extent) was feudal. The heirachy was royalty, lords, land-owners, heirs, peasants and slaves (Although it should be noted that peasants and slaves were almost interchangable - the only major difference was that slaves were more than likely to be foreigners from lands that had been conquered by one nation or another). I bring this up because of the underlying difference in society (ours being a mixture of socialism meets capitalism meets democracy / republic). Rights weren't a given they were something you were born with - you either had them or you didn't. Slaves were part of the natural order in that system.
It's a hard thing to discuss because slavery is, quite rightly, a painful subject for different groups of people.
I know what Paul's response to slavery is in the New Testament:
"Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to." (1 Cor 7:20)
Paul is not advocating (or renouncing) slavery but simply stating that people should see God as the ultimate master and trust Him for the position they are in.
"For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink." (1 Cor 12:13)
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28)
These passages actually state that, despite the inequality of human society, that we are all equal in God's eyes.
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." (Eph 6:5-9)
That's one of the most important disertation in the new testament regarding slavery.
To be honest, I find it flawed logic for people to assume that Christianity encourages slavery. In the same way that people would assume it is ok to covet their neighbours TV as long as they don't covet their neighbours donkey.
The real clincher is:
"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." (1 Tim 1:10)
Slave traders are put in the same boat as people who kill their mothers and fathers.
The main thoughtline here is this - If you are a Christian slave: use this as a chance to witness to your master and those around you - serve him with joy so that God is glorified. If you are a slave trader - STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING!
Does that make the Bible outdated and irrelevant because slavery is no longer common? Absolutely not. There are many forms of slavery even today. I do the dishes with the same attitude - wash dishes for Jesus. I worked hard meaningless jobs for quite a number of years and the only thing that got me through was the knowledge that I was serving my God and not merely serving burgers to rude customers.
Moral Absolutes
As for the original issue - I don't believe that slavery itself is a moral absolute but "how to live when in slavery" would be something that I would advocate as a Christian moral absolute.
Peace,
Semp.
This is a red herring. The point is that the bible while putting itself forth as a moral authority, condones slavery.
Any arguments to 'historical context!" actually cut the legs out from under the bible as a moral guide.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Did you read the rest of my post or did you stop there?
Ok, so the practice of slavery is not a moral absolute according to the bible (i personally find it very odd that an all knowing and all loving god wouldn't ban the practice outright), but what about eating pork, working on saturday, and taking god's name in vain. Is it absolutely immoral to do these things?
My point being, that it seems to me that modern day christians seem to pick and choose the parts of the bible that directs their morality.
All the rest is standard theist fare that's been gone over 100 times. I was just trying to help you here, feel free to ignore it and continue on in your red herring....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
The bible condones slavery throughout, there's never a moment where anyone speaks out against it. It's used as an analogy for the relationship between christians and 'god' in the NT.
It would be pretty easy to replace one of the inane, repetitive '10 commandments' with 'thou shall not have slaves' .....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
So yes, we do have concepts of "right" and "wrong" and they are universal for humans and possibly also universal for many other species that organize similar societies to our own. Yet, they are not absolute.
Consequently, their attack on my statement that I do not believe in an absolute morality appear more like a strawman to me than an actual refutation of my view.
On the contrary, I find the idea that an "absolute morality" to be somewhat arbitary. We come back to the dilemma if something is good because god commands it or if god commands it because it is good. If an absolute morality exists then a quick reading of the christian bible will tell you that God is not at all good - he condone slavery and bigotry and a host of other things which we today think life is better without. On the other hand he appears to get upset when someone refuse to make their sister-in-law pregnant when her husband (your brother) has passed away without children. Again, modern society have no use for such "morality". Consequently, if God is the source of this morality then it is rather amorality than morality and we are better off without it.
Indeed, christians themselves are a testament to the lack of absolute in morality. The morality of a modern day christian is very far removed from that of the 1st century christian. If God's morality was absolute then either the modern day christians got it right and the 1st century christian was a sinner or modern day christians got it wrong and they are all sinners. Go figure!
God had no time to create time.
You really need to do 2 things.
1. Either read my post in it's entirety or brush up on your knowledge of the Bible.
2. Lose the air of presumptuousness. It's not a good look.
If you actually took the time to read my post you would have seen this:
"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." (1 Tim 1:10)
I guess I can class your actions in with those people - because I fully condone what you are doing. Therefore, you are also ranked with perverts, liars and murderers.
Throughout. Never a moment.
It's used as an analogy because slavery was the only example of how a person could be "bought" for a price. i.e. Ransomed by Jesus' sacrifice.
At least - AT THE VERY LEAST - know the theology of my faith if you are going to speak on it.
Can I please get back to talking to the people that actually wanted to have an open discussion? todangst skills seem limited to 1 liner quips.
You really need to do 2 things.
1. Either read my post in it's entirety or brush up on your knowledge of the Bible.
2. Lose the air of presumptuousness. It's not a good look.
If you actually took the time to read my post you would have seen this:
"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." (1 Tim 1:10)
I guess I can class your actions in with those people - because I fully condone what you are doing. Therefore, you are also ranked with perverts, liars and murderers.
Throughout. Never a moment.
It's used as an analogy because slavery was the only example of how a person could be "bought" for a price. i.e. Ransomed by Jesus' sacrifice.
At least - AT THE VERY LEAST - know the theology of my faith if you are going to speak on it.
Can I please get back to talking to the people that actually wanted to have an open discussion? todangst skills seem limited to 1 liner quips.
I think your bible quote comes from the NIV version. However there are a few other translations of that verse that differ slightly. The New American Standard version uses the word “kidnappers” instead of slave traders, the King James Version uses the word “menstealers”, and the English standard version uses the word “enslavers” with a footnote saying, “those who take someone captive in order to sell him into slavery” It would seem that it is not so much slavery that is being condemned, as is the practice of stealing someone and selling them into slavery.I think that this might be an example of how modern translations of the bible try to put a positive spin on the text to make it more palatable to modern chistians.
enslavers [ESV], slave traders [NLT, NIV], kidnappers [NSAB, AMP, CEV, NKJV], menstealers [21CKJ, KJ, ASV, YLT]
The point isn't whether something is condemned or not - you can see what Paul's response is to it. I actually mentioned that he clearly does not advocate nor renounce it.
What he does say is that: should you find yourself in slavery (something that the world did) if you can purchase your freedom - DO SO. If not, this is how to live as a slave.
Then he spoke of the sinfulness of slave traders - after all, someone is always taken in order for them to become a slave. Whether he vocally condemns it or not - It is clearly contrary to Christ's teachings.
I was reading a journal a few years back that discussed the use of the word "servant" as opposed to "slave" and it discussed the following:
1. the difference between the two (particularly in the biblical middle-east) - citing that the two were almost identical in nature in terms of that culture.
2. what the psychological response difference is between the two. There is a huge difference in terms of how we perceive a "slave" and a "servant" but the reality is - they are both the same thing (biblically speaking).
It's ironic that rich people today have maids and butlers (like Richard Dawkins).
Ultimately, as a Christian, I'm called to be everyones slave - not thinking of my own good, but the good of many, so that many may be saved.
That is truly horrible. Can you imagine a world in which people sought the best good for everyone else first?
Peace,
Semp.
(p.s. if I haven't replied to someones post - I'm having huge problems with this BB. I go to post something long and I get a timeout, go back, presto! it's vanished! Sorry, I'm trying to catch up)
I hate to split hairs with you, but someone is not always taken into slavery. Maybe initially someone has to be taken, but after that, many were born into it. By your reasoning the slave owners of the old American south did nothing wrong. After all, none of them went out and captured Africans. They merely bought and used them. It seems to me that if slavery were contrary to Christ’s teachings, then he would have said something about it himself.
The words themselves may be interchangeable in ancient texts, but the concepts are not. Even in ancient times, if you needed someone to help you build a house, you could hire laborers. You were their boss, you paid their wages, but you did not own them. You couldn't sell them back to someone when you were done with them. They were not your property.
To compare a modern day housekeeper to a slave of ancient time, I think, is insulting.
I can't remember where I read it but the best explanation about why we have morals was similar to this:
A moral is defined by what the majority of a group of people think is right, it does not necessarily mean however that it is right.
So if you are raised in a society with the morals that witches are bad, or adulterers should be stoned to death, that homosexuality is a sin, etc then you tend to think that the moral is right.
I hope that helps in some way.
Regards,
UltraMonk
: Freedom - The opportunity to have responsibility.
: Liberty is about protecting the right of others to disagree with you.