Objective morality: how would it affect your judgement/actions?

[Neo-Scholastic]

That may well be true. At the same time your behavioral norms are predicated on something even if you do not know what the something is. Otherwise you are just acting on your passing fancies which is no morality at all. For those whose behaviors are not purely driven by their momentary desires, their norms are informed by some underlying principles - the respective virtues of those principles is the difference between the principled stance of a hero and the rationalizations of a criminal.

Western atheists that promote the "Good without God" simply take for granted that the behavioral norms and principles they consider self-evidently good and true are in fact predicated on Judeo-Christian principles.

Nice try...Keep up the rationalizations. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...-societies

The writer of the article has a very short-range perspective. Only time will tell how long Western civilization will be able to maintain its liberal values apart from Christianity. But that was just an incidental point.

The main point that you failed to address was my challenge to your response to the OP. You say your behavior would not be any different with or without objective morality. You imply that somehow this means that no underlying universal principles guide your behavior. How is that any different from personal whim?

---

Western atheists that promote the "Good without God" simply take for granted that the behavioral norms and principles they consider self-evidently good and true are in fact predicated on Judeo-Christian principles.

Uh... no. Even most of the moral principles "introduced" in the Bible already predate the Bible. The Bible is not a moral book and even its few good points were already said long before.

Irrelevant. That some former pagan cultures have had similar principles in no way detracts from the fact that Western liberalism grew largely out of Christianity tempered with Hellenistic philosophy. Moreover, if their is indeed a transcendent source of value then it only stands to reason that cultures would adopt those values to the extent of the light they receive from general and special revelation. Prior to the modern period there is not a single example of a purely secular moral system except perhaps Confucianism but I am not an expert in Asian history.

---

The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant is a literary work from the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2040-1782 BCE) which illustrates the value society placed on the concept of justice and equality under the law. In the story, a peasant named Khun-Anup is beaten and robbed by Nemtynakht, a wealthy landowner, who then tells him there is no use in complaining to the authorities because no one will listen to a poor man. The rest of the tale relates how Khun-Anup, believing in the power of justice, refutes Nemtynakht and wins his case.

The Eloquent Peasant & Egyptian Justice

[/quote]

Are you suggesting that Western liberal values came from Middle Kingdom Egypt? If not, then your reference is irrelevant. If so, then you have a very warped understanding of European intellectual history. And furthermore, it opens up a very problematic possibility for your position. How can two independent moral traditions reach similar conclusions unless there is a common element that transcends the particulars or both cultures?