No universal morals exist. Nothing is absolutely right or wrong. At the same time, everyone has values and therefore everyone lives up to their own relative moral code.
One does not need religion to live morally (unless your definition of morality is inclusive of God). Even though many of our morals are directed by laws (for instance, it’s probably not a good idea to steal from your neighbour), we form our values around these laws whether we agree with them or not. I may want to steal from someone despite the law (this surrenders the question of if I even have morals), but inspite of the ludicrousness, the rights and wrongs still exist. Although this behaviour does not coincide with society’s moral code, I am following my own code. Let’s define morality as the principles outlining right and wrong. To me stealing is right, to society it’s wrong. This sounds like a rather absurd thing to say. First of all, I don’t actually think stealing is right, nor do I promote it. 
Secondly, who’s to say stealing is universally wrong in the first place? We may have great reasons to make these rules, but they are our own made rules. I suppose if you’re a religious person, these rules are God’s, and you may instead believe that it is therefore universally wrong to break them, but not everyone is religious. Assuming the atheist is correct, the rules are purely man-made. We could extend this to the idea of inequalities. We, humans, have established that everyone should be treated equal. To some it is morally right to treat women as inferior. Are we wrong for wanting to impose our beliefs of equality on these people? Morality is relative, do we need to interfere with cultures we clearly do not understand?
From my perspective (a perspective that is laced with disposition to follow a certain Western moral code), it would be appealing to enforce many of the things the United Nations was founded upon. We may not have universal morality, but we should have worldly consistency…to a very slight degree. If nothing else, everyone should have the right to life. Unless one is suicidal, nobody wants to be dead or physically abused. And if we take this to the biology classroom (as I have the great tendency to gravitate towards 
), the basis of evolution is that an organism must survive (well, survive and then reproduce, but that’s another story ). Not everyone will believe that it is wrong to kill others, but in the least societies should uphold and live by this single rule, if none other. When it comes to other issues like equality, for one, is it a Westerner’s business to want to impose their codes on others? Not really. We don’t really have the business saying what’s right and what’s wrong for others. That’s arrogant.
Everyone claims to be or want to be this wholesome, moral, individual with all the right beliefs. Is it not interesting then that the morals of the religious often alienate so many? Perhaps this alienation is a product of foolish interpretations, but there is still no denying they exist. Morality is strongly associated with religion, yet could an atheist technically be more moral than God’s child? This again brings up the issue of what is more moral and what is ideally moral. I’m not so sure anyone is in the position to make a judgment of moral ideals; we can’t dictate one foot infront of us. This sounds odd to say, but I feel that the moral code of a non-religious fellow holds more power than that of the religious follower. As a religious man, you follow guidelines you have not set for yourself, unless your beliefs are independent of any denomination. Even when you are controlling what religion you follow, the guidelines set are ones limited to boundaries. The non-religous creates his own moral code. What empowers him is the ability to distinguish right from wrong by his own confidence.
Of course, no blog is complete without a reference to xkcd, just for the hell of it:
Filed under: Religion, Science | Tagged: atheist, culture, equality, god, law, moral relativity, Religion, Western, xkcd
