Religions of Southperry

Yeah, there is no such thing as absolute/universal morality. Every person, whether theist or atheist, religious or irreligious, agnostic or anything, make their own individual, subjective moral code. There is no universal code for morality, not within religion or without it.

And even outside of religious code, there is still no universal truth for ethics. Killing is wrong, right? What if it's an accident? What if it's to protect yourself? What if it's to protect someone else? What if it's to protect your property? Someone else's property? What if you kill an animal for food? For sport? What about capital punishment? Where is the line drawn for what killing is acceptable? Stealing is wrong, right? What if the owner came into possession of something fraudulently and stealing from them is the only way to get it back? What if you are starving and must steal food to survive? What if someone else is starving and you steal to help them? What about the government seizing assets of persons for various reasons? Where is the line drawn for what stealing is acceptable? Taking away someone's liberty is wrong, right? What if it's done to protect your life, liberty, or property? What about the government taking away the liberty of criminals who are convicted of crimes? How much liberty need be taken away in those cases?

Universal morality is certainly easy to disprove, and so is moral subjectivism. Today, we run on something close to the compromise of the two, also known as cultural relativism which by itself isn't as ideal as society likes to make us think it is.

 sample problem

If cultural relativism is true, then we essentially run on majority rule and any attempt at change/revolution from the minority is, by definition, immoral.

What does intrigue me, though, is how we managed to have these ethics system. In religions, I suppose it's simply divine command, whatever the deity wishes for becomes just. In a country, I suspect it comes from political/legislative decisions, which I suspect to be influenced by the masses. By that line of thought, wouldn't this ethical system essentially boil down to a compromise between the inhabitants within a specific community? A social contract of some sort?

EDIT: Depressing poll is depressing. Poll on creationists? Then those are some very promising numbers.