Clearly, you are ignoring the existance of the 'golden rule' as the historical basis of all moral codes.
In which case, they need to explain, it seems to me, why they wish to attack the one thing that, on the historical record of mankind, fundamentally enables human society to cohere, on the basis of free mutual exchanges, and persevere over time. Thus to survive, hopefully unto their generations….
As I noted at 486, Betty, you attack the a-theistic, the non-religious, at every opportunity. You seem to think that the "one thing" holding society together is your vision of religion.
As Koestler remarked, it may be that mans excessive devotion to 'the cause' could now be mankinds biggest threat.
We have a great deal of knowledge of the cultural anthropological record of homo sapiens sapiens by now. It goes back about 40,000. Based on what is now known on both the anthropological and historical records (primitive societies are still extant today), ample research suggests that "order" – and then a sanctified and sanctifying base for that order – were the first two "orders of business" for the human imagination, once man began to settle into communitarian (e.g., pair-bonded and tribal) life.
Our modern civilization is far beyond the need for tribal order, and tribal religions, as we see in the middle east, where tribal religions are tearing their world apart.
One thing's for sure: There can be no moral code in a situation where everybody is "free" to make up his own as he goes along.
Directly contradicted by the first two hundred years of our american experiment in a constitutional republic.
The false expectation that this might be possible probably stems from the currently fashionable "radical individualist" interpretation of human meaning.
To preserve our republic, we should encourage more individualism, under the rule of constitutional law. -- Not less.
To which one might reply: Man is doubtlessly "individual"; but he is also by nature a "social animal." And both individual and group potential got its first huge boost by man's association with mutually-sustaining, cooperative communities. Which definitely improved his overall survival prospects, and that of his progeny – and also that of his community.
We have learned how to survive in the physical realm. Now we must learn how to survive in a crowded world. The socialisic/communitarian based theories have been failing, as shown in the holocasts of the 20th century.
Rightwhale said:
"Ultimately it [i.e., the moral code] may [serve the survival interest of the human community] … or maybe not."
-RightWhale-
Indeed. The old religions, the old tribalistic moral codes, may not serve for todays society. They may be our problems.
They don't in general. Even the debate about abortion, assumed to be Biblical on the prohibition side, turns out to not to be so upon further analysis. St. Thomas Aquinas thought the soul, the essence of humanity, entered the foetus when the foetus had grown enough to have definite human form, not at conception. This was codified at the Council of Vienne about 1312. Since then, with the early microscopes the "homunculus" was observed, and the Church decided the soul entered at conception, and since then further advances in microscopic observation showed the "homunculus" was not there after all, but the Church stuck to its new edict in spite of that and of Vienne which is still in force. It's doctrine, and if that is religious, then this morality debate is religious, otherwise it seems unrelated to religious views.
There are other moral codes than the Western, Christian, and Platonic, other histories or realizations. The Confucian system is based on li, functional duty, performance of which provides true humanity. Buddhist, Tao, early Gita, and some of the African systems aren't reliant on the principle of reciprocity but have completely different bases of personal perception or responsibility.
And how do we "fix" that problem, tpaine?
Here's a take by a physicist (Menas Kafatos) and a historian of science (Robert Nadeau), from their outstanding book, The Non-Local Universe:
"What is privileged in the struggle for survival is not competition between parts (c.f., Darwinism). It is complementary relationships between parts and wholes that result in emergent self-regulating properties that are greater than the sum of the parts and that serve to perpetuate the existence of the whole....
"In our view, however, there is probably little hope that scientific knowledge per se will occasion the massive cooperative efforts between people and governments needed to effectively deal with [the acute global problems that mankind now faces].
"Cooperation on this scale could be dependent on the rapid emergence of something like a global ethos, termed here a new ecology of mind -- that would serve as the basis for more universally accepted guidelines in ethical thought and behavior. This new ecology of mind, which is consistent with, although not legitimated by, our current scientific worldview -- could evolve without any appeal to metaphysics or in the absence of any dialogue between science and religion. However, we believe this will not occur for the following reasons: The foundations of ethical thought and behavior have rarely (if ever) followed the dictates of pure reason, and virtually all such changes have historically resulted from the influence of people with the capacity for profound religious awareness." [emphasis added]
Methinks you want to "throw out the baby with the bathwater," tpaine.
Directly contradicted by the first two hundred years of our american experiment in a constitutional republic.
Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said, "This nation will cease to be great when it ceases to be good?" Part of the recipe for American success isn't just the "freedom" aspect, but the "responsibility" aspect. I and others take the view that the responsibility aspect is linked to a desire to do good, to please God.
I suppose you would argue that the responsibility need can be satisfied if people want to do good for "the society at large," rather than to God. My problem with that is that the flawed human perceptions of "doing good for society" too often roll into totalitarian models of accomplishing it.
I think what makes it all work, in America's case, is humility before God. I think arrogance is the enemy of our great society and believe that, without striving to comport with God's Law, our arrogance goes unchecked, and the wheels come off.