What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[robvalue]

I think CL wants to say that one society has it right and another has it wrong. But of course, both societies will say they have it right, and often divinely so. Neither has any "proof" that they are correct.

Morality can be discussed and improved, but it can't be commanded. After all, morality is a matter for each individual as well as society. Everyone will value things slightly differently and have varying opinions. Something doesn't become "moral", as far as any individual is concerned, because someone says that it is.

A list of "objective morals" makes no sense. For one thing, how can it possibly handle complex situations where various different moral factors must be considered? For example: practically everything! Every situation is different, and we're often dealing with the "lesser of two evils". That can't be covered by, "Do this, don't do that." And it's just arbitrary; to find out if these commands are actually harmful or helpful we'd have to think about them and judge them moral or immoral. Or else we'd have no idea if we're helping or hindering anyone and are amoral agents. To be objective they must be somehow inherent to reality itself, and apply as much to god as to anyone. If "god" is subject to different morality than us, then clearly it's not objective!

I can understand people feeling uncomfortable at the idea that morality is ultimately a matter of opinion. But that doesn't stop it being true. However, if we can agree as a society on some fundamental values then we can find the best ways to accomplish those values.

The opinion of "a god" is still an opinion. And an opinion on morality can't be objective. Those who presume to speak for god can never agree either!