The thing that gets under my skin a lot in dealing with Christians is this business many of them like to bring up about morality. They seem to think that they have a corner on the market, which is extremely puzzling to me. The minute Jesus made it a sin to think certain thoughts, Christianity lost whatever moral high ground it might otherwise have had. But that's only part of the problem.
What is morality anyway?
Going to the dictionary, the first definition says "concerned with distinction between right and wrong; concerned with accepted rules and standards of human behavior." I like this definition, because it focuses on human behavior. In other words, it should revolve only around a person's actions. As an aside, I note that most moral codes I know of include prohibitions against certain thoughts. I find it ironic that many of the amature moralists I hear from think it's evil to attempt to control others' thoughts, then they go to church and chant "thou shalt not covet" on Sunday mornings. But getting back to the main theme here, what standard is to be used to determine what is "acceptable behavior"?
Many believers would have us accept that the "universal standard" is an arbitrary one, that can only be defined by a supernatural being of a higher order of existence from us. Anyone who has watched "Star Trek: The Next Generation" will know the fun that can result from that concept, by watching the episodes devoted to that interesting, lovable villain "Q." The issue should be obvious. If you need a god of some sort to conjure up morality from thin air, then the rules can change at the whim of that god. Also, that god would not be bound to obey that morality, thereby making such a code of conduct non-objective. Since objectivity is so desirable (it would seem), the concept of an objective morality that is defined by a "higher being" must logically be tossed out.
So what are we left with? We still need to determine what human actions are acceptable. Before going on, there's something that most people would think is a no-brainer, but I can't help wondering about it. Why do we have this need in the first place? One thought that pops to my mind is simply because there are more than one person in the world. If you were alone, there would be no real need to regulate your actions. But we all live among other humans, and there is a need in a group of the same species for them to find a way to be successful as a species. What I mean by "successful" here is what it means for any species. The ability to survive and procreate at least as quickly as we die off.
In this manner, it is possible to determine objectively what human morality should consist of at the very least. If you want to define a set of rules that is truly universal to all humans, it is merely necessary to find out what rules will assist a group of humans to live successfully together. If you look at all the many versions of moral codes throughout history, you'll see that this is the goal of all of them. At least, it's the goal of the successful ones.
There will always be some commonalities among moral codes. The prohibition against harming fellow members of the community, and rules for assisting procreation and child-rearing, for instance. The fact that details of these rules differ greatly over time and distance does not alter the fact that their aims are the same. At their most basic level, moral codes are created and built in order to assist the process of human communal survival.
One interesting part of this whole business is the study of how morality changes over time. For instance, while the Bible was being written, the people who wrote it all thought that slavery was a natural thing in human societies. They never questioned that moral issue, and as a result, the Bible has nothing to say against it. Yet today, most people consider it self-evident and natural that slavery is a thing to be abhorred. In fact, it seems to be one of the things that distinguishes "civilized" people from "barbarians." Why? Maybe humanity is growing up morally. Maybe this is just a phase in the life of the species, and things will change again 1000 years from now. The point is that if one has the attitude that a revelation of morality from a perfect being is to be believed as a "final word" on the subject, then you'd expect that such moral issues and their solutions wouldn't change. Also, you would expect that an omniscient law-giver would provide a complete compendium of moral rules that would not need updating or debate.
Another instance of the changes in civil behavior is the way people of opposite sexes view each other. This is definitely a subject for a wide range of variation around the world. Yet, whether a religious man respects women as equals or feels a need to dominate them as his personal property, he'll find verses in any "holy book" to support his view. What does this mean? To me it means that the moral direction assumed to come from God, or from people who talk with God -- either way, it isn't really there. Attitudes change because of societal pressures, not at the direction of a supreme judge.
The point here is that, regardless of how much people might want to believe that all morality is set in stone and handed down by some ultra-wise being, it just ain't so. While there are some rules that appear not to change much over time, they really are very few, and can be more realistically attributed to "common sense" than to holy fiat.
Take for instance the rule against killing humans. Any person with a modicum of intelligence knows that there are few societies that consider this rule as being absolute. Nearly all societies make a distinction between "murder" and "killing in self-defense" or "killing in war." What this boils down to is really a prohibition against killing a member of the community without just reason. Humans outside the commmunity have different protections, if any. Now, what I want to know is can anyone envision a society where killing upstanding, productive members of a community, or children in the community, at will and for no reason is acceptable? Maybe in suicide cults, but those aren't stable societies, are they? No, it's a part of the definition of a social structure that assisting the survival of each member enhances the survival of the society as a whole. So, how could you say that this prohibition was "made up" by a god?
What about the Judeo-Christian-Muslim commandment against stealing? This is another very interesting issue. The prohibition against stealing pre-supposes the social convention known as "private property." However, this concept is not universal to all human communities. There are many social structures, both primitive and modern, where personal belongings are an alien idea. One really can't steal anything when no one possesses anything, and this "universal command" can't even apply.
Let's next look at the rules regarding family structure. Once again, we come into an interesting quagmire. Christians point to the Bible as a model of perfect family instructions, yet we see a variety of contradictory items there. Some families in the Bible are polygamous, some monogamous. Who got it right? There's no way to really tell. But the thing that I find most interesting is that societies exist... stable, peaceful societies... that don't adhere to the strictly-defined structure that Christians seem to think of as "objective" and "natural." What is the "perfect" way to arrange families? I think the question is meaningless. There is no perfect way. However, there are many ways that all societies attempt to answer that question, all of which have their advantages and drawbacks. But whatever arrangement is settled on by a society, it is sure to become viewed as "natural" by those who grow up in it.
So -- how should anyone go about figuring out whether an action (or lack of action) he wants to engage in is morally acceptable? The only truly objective lens one needs is to judge whether any other member of one's society would be harmed by it. If this is the case, then the action (or lack of action!) is immoral. While such a guideline would be difficult to use, and result in many variations over time and between societies, it is still the best that can be hoped for, given the facts.
One thing that tends to throw such discussions off the track is the fact that societies tend to create far more rules for their members than are, strictly speaking, necessary. Included in this class of rule are those that control thought (you shall follow the community's chosen religion) and those that codify and attempt to stabilize the position of those in power (show respect to the head man and the shaman; never question their pronouncements).
In some sense, these moral rules do contribute to the ability of a society to survive. The result of following them ends up enhancing the stability of a society, which in turn assists the survival of the members by virtue of giving everyone a social "home" to live in. Yet these are assisting survival only in an indirect manner, being geared more to the survival of the society, rather than to extending or otherwise enhancing the lives of the members that make it up. For this reason, you'll find many different approaches to the matter of keeping a social order intact, and you'd expect those will be far different from one place to another. Whether those answers are acceptable to outside societies shouldn't be important.
Naturally, this won't satisfy many people. The folks who want their rules handed down "from on high" can pontificate all they want. The fact is that there is no one to hand such a set of rules down to us, and even if there were, that wouldn't make them truly "objective" anyway -- unless said lawgiver were subject to them as well, removing the need for the lawgiver in the first place. I believe that morality can be determined through rational processes. If we are to continue to survive and flourish, it will be more and more necessary to use rational thinking to solve our problems, rather than wasting our time, arguing over which revelation is "correct."