Replies

An interesting point is that the basic moral absolutes are virtually the same in every monotheistic religion, and even quite a few that aren't (such as Buddhism). So there is nothing sectarain about the basics such as no murder, no stealing, no lying, no homosexual or other illicit sexual acts, and so on. One could also include the do's - honoring parents, elders, telling the truth, honesty, and so on.

These moral absolutes are what separate humans from animals. Those who reject moral absolutes really want to destroy human civilization. Without these basic restraints and guides for social behavior, humans become WORSE than ordinary animals. We can see it happening already.

What the world needs is for people to re-awaken their dormant relationship with God, even if it means a "different" religion that one you or I prefer or consider the one true religion. [Let's leave Islam out of this for now!!!] Who would you rather meet in a dark alley - some Buddhists, or regular gang members? Some Mormons or some Hindus, or a group of leather-clad homosexual bikers just out of the bath house after being jacked up on meth for 3 days?

What the world needs is for people to re-awaken their dormant relationship with God, even if it means a "different" religion that one you or I prefer...

I have tried to be careful to allow for just what you say. I clearly believe that the Bible is the best basis for a moral code, but that is a distinct question from whether a stable moral system can exist without an external standard. There are written doctrines that do not preclude murder, rape, and mayhem of all kinds, so just writing it out doesn't solve the problem, but if you have a code that meets what most people would consider the key tenets of 'moral behavior', as in your examples of respecting life, property, family, etc., you can certainly make a case that practioners are less risk than those who disdain any external standard.

However, there is a second tier of constraint in moral codes that still demonstrate that the consensus 'moral absolutes' you talk about are insufficient by themselves. You can get near-universal agreement against murder and perjury, but not against homosexuality or divorce or extra-marital sex. Yet I maintain that it is this second tier of constraints - the ones that require a true 'moral' choice and not just an appeal to logic - that determine if a society can endure. It is in these areas that the written standard is most important, because without that standard more and more people will find themselves rationalizing and accepting the hedonistic option.

Another advantage of a well-documented moral code is that the true complexity of life can be addressed. Is all killing wrong, or just murder? If the family is the 'moral' basis for society, what happens to widows and orphans? Simplistic statements of the sort that are 'self-evident' lend themselves to misuse - or else fail the test of utility when real-world complexity stands up.