The only reason your argument carries any weight is if the people of that time were judged through human-centrism. The fact is, they were Theo-centric.
Since theology was created by humans within a society, it circles back on itself.
Morality makes no sense once it is taken out of the human context. If God ordered humanity to do something that went against our most basic moral sense then it is immoral for God to make that command. There is no way around it. If morality is simply based on what God commands then we are no different than dogs who take commands or computers. Following orders isn't morality.
But this is an assumption made by secular humanists. While the ideas about God were written by humans, God the concept is Himself Creator of all things---including humans.
So says a human.
God was testing Abraham, so the story goes. If human justice places God no higher of an authority than humans, your argument has merit. Critics would argue that God by definition represented the main authority in those times. Just as presidents enjoy diplomatic immunity for a season, so would God.
If someone claims that God ordered them to slay a bunch of innocent people, what do we do? Do we throw them in jail?
I'm simply saying that if there is a morality that exists outside of human existence then there needs to be a source for that. If however, there is no morality outside of human existence then morality is simply what any group or even individual decides it to be.
Morality doesn't make any sense outside of human existence. If there was this alleged objective morality that existed outside of human existence and it went against everything humans believed to be moral, then what good is that objective morality? If an objective morality told us that we should randomly kill half of all children under the age of 5, would we obey that objective moral code? Would we even want to?
The source of morality is interaction between emotional beings. When one person can harm another it gives birth to morality. Morality doesn't exist outside of that interaction. Furthermore, each intelligent, sentient, and emotional species is going to have their own moral code defined by their specific interactions and emotions. We even see this with life on Earth. We don't arrest animals that kill another member of their species like we do in our own species.
The Golden Rule is an entirely subjective morality. It is based solely on our own subjective opinions of how we want to be treated, what would harm us, and what would benefit us. It is based entirely on the human condition.
Morality isn't an emotion.
You may want to think about that one for a while. Injustice, pain, harm, and well being are all emotions, and they form the foundation of morality.
It does mean however that it allows for other subjective views that we would consider to be immoral to be moral.
Absolutely. This is why views on morality have changed through many ages. As our philosophies and worldviews change our morality changes with it. That's the way it should be. How awful would it be to have an unchanging moral code that no longer reflects the beliefs of the human population?
They effect our moral behaviour but they aren't morality itself.
Here are a couple of good references I have found on objective and subjective morality. They reflect my own conclusions on the subject.
quote:Is it even possible to have an objective morality? I would argue that it is not possible, and even if such existed it would be irrelevant because we could not know about it. Further, there is no compelling evidence that anyone, any group or society, has access to an objective morality.
The notion of an objective morality assumes that morality is something that can make sense apart from the context in which it is used (in our case, human society). Is it objectively wrong, according to some moral law of the universe, to harm another creature? If you try to justify this moral position, then you are actually engaging in moral philosophy – the complex and messy human understanding of morals.
This is what leads proponents of objective morality to the conclusion that objective morals require a lawgiver (actually, I think they work backward from their desire to prove a lawgiver, but that is a separate point). This does not solve the problem, however, just removes it one degree. How, then, does the lawgiver derive their morality? This leads to Euthyprho’s dilemma – are the morals of God right because God says so or does God say so because they are objectively right? Of course, it can be both, but that does not really solve anything. We are still left with the problem of what possible basis there can be for objective morality. If it’s not “God says so” then what is it? Objective vs Subjective Morality | NeuroLogica Blog
quote:Thus, if morality were an absolute set by a god, something could be immoral even if every human disagreed. If, instead, human feelings and desires are what ultimately count, then that is a subjective morality.
Thus, a subjective morality is strongly preferable to an objective one! That’s because, by definition, it is about what we humans want. Would we prefer to be told by some third party what we should do, even if it is directly contrary to our own deeply held sense of morality?
Given that an objective morality would be highly undesirable, why do so many philosophers and others continue to try hard to rescue an objective morality?
I suspect that they’re actually trying to attain objective backing for what is merely their own subjective opinion of what is moral. This is the trick the religious have long played, inventing a god in their own image who can back them up by turning “I want …” into “God wants …”. Six reasons why objective morality is nonsense
It also begs the question of why different gods have different moral codes. For all the effort spent propping up a theistic objective morality, we see those same people objecting to the idea of having to follow Sharia law, an objective moral law laid down by God (allegedly). The massive contradictions between alleged objective moral codes should be a big warning sign for those who ascribe to an absolute objective morality.
Are you following a religion made in the image of someone else?
My Christian faith is based on the belief that God resurrected Jesus. If I am wrong in that, they my Christian faith is a waste of time. However if I am right then I have good reason for my belief in a universal morality that is based on the Golden Rule.
The Golden Rule isn't universal. It only applies to humans.