Questions

[Captain Scarlet]

Can't have made my point clearly enough contextually then. My point isn't that survival is an important factor nor that contractarianism is correct (it is one of a number of views held by ethicists. My point is that you do not need god to get you to objective morality, that there is no such thing as absolute morality, and that god is a more complicated explanation than natural ones.

I agree with all of that

Ultimately there is either one objective theory of morality or there are none, it all hinges on what values are and whether or not the things that are (or give rise to) values can be evaluated outside the attitudes of person(s).

Indeed objective morality to me seems to me to need careful definition. Absolute morality,which is surely what theists are actually saying when they talk about morality, is meaningless. Clearly we have apprehended acts, deeds etc which make us feel disgusted or elated etc, but these are not universally held through time and space. Objective morality as something which naturally occurs as a result of social biological development isn't meaningless, but is subject to revision as society progresses, changes or even regresses. Does that make it subjective? Yes over the long term, but no not necessarily as a point in time snap shot.