AJ Phillips I concur with your well articulated response.

JP: "One belief is as valid as another because they are both constructs by human beings and, in the absence of any source of moral value that is above human opinion, there is no non-arbitrary way to give one belief priority over the other."

There is - human wellbeing and survival are best served by 'do no harm' community outlook.

"You want to believe that your moral values are better than the moral values of those whom you disagree with, but you are unable to provide any grounds for making that judgment. Doesn’t that, by definition, make you a bigot?"

JP
What is the foundation or legitimacy to just make up stuff to obtain a framework of 'morality' (human wellbeing). What foundation or evidence do you provide that defines morality?

As AJ Phillips wrote, it is about maximising human wellbeing. We don't need folklore to aspire to that purpose although folklore or a belief in the supernatural worked to achieve the same end (at it's best interpretation, control at the worst).

Other than on some issues like treatment of homosexuals, non-believers and the way women are regarded in the Bible, my morals are pretty much in step with Christian ideas of morality - because it is also a human construct. Why are so many people scared of this possibility?

This is unsurprising as Christian ideals were written and perpetuated by man. Even in primitive times, on available evidence, tribes worked to protect the wellbeing of their members (albeit with some primitive rituals at times) which eventually with population movement and advancement grew to include all people, including those outside the 'tribe'.

I don't believe myself to be a bigot but I do have a strong set of values and I would argue that the value (for example) in not approving of random murder is a better one than those who believe in killing indiscriminately. Murder is not conducive to the advancement or wellbing of human beings.

How is that belief a bigoted one?

My apologies; yes my last comments were in response to A J Phillips more so than to McReal but probably apply to you both and to pelican also.

You all want to say that morality is about the collective’s interests rather than the interests of the individual. But again this is simply an assertion you make without providing any rationale to try and justify the claim.

Who says that morality is about the collective’s interests? You do. But who are you to make this pronouncement? What makes your claim right as opposed to the person who says that morality is not about the collective’s interests?

Again I would ask, if the majority of the population believe that same sex marriage is wrong, would you say, ‘Yes same sex marriage must be wrong because a majority of the people believe that is the case’? Really?

I don’t think you would, yet your philosophy would require you to do so. Can you justify your inconsistency?

Pelican – you simply assert that maximising the wellbeing of the collective and their survival are absolute objective moral values. Obviously plenty of people disagree with you (those in jail for example, as well as all those who have not been caught) so you need to justify your claims if you want to be taken credibly.

Why should any individual care about the survival interests of the collective if the collective’s interests should be in conflict with the individual’s personal interests?

The best you all seem to be able to come up with is an implied, might makes right: the collective can force dissenters to comply.

But should you be the dissenters (as perhaps above), then somehow you don’t want the rules to apply to you. You have no solid basis for your moral philosophy.

You must be skimming our posts, JP. I already answered your same sex marriage question, and all the answers and clarifications to your to you last post (without any assertions) can be found in our responses too.

Perhaps you should re-read them, but with the understanding that there is very little subjectiveness in defining wellbeing and maximising it for everyone overall.

You rights end where mine start.

But since you still don’t understand, I’ll put it another way by introducing you to a little thing called The Euthyphro Dilemma:

Is what god commands right because god commands it, or is it right in and of itself and god just informs us of it?

If it’s the former, then god could change his mind tomorrow (as he’s supposedly done before) and morals would be as arbitrary as what you claim secular morals to be.

If it’s the latter, then god is a redundant middle-man that can be skipped.

Most Christians will say it’s the latter, but that the good morals are inherent in god’s nature.

The problem for Christians here though, is that if god created himself (and therefore the laws) then, again, they’re just as arbitrary as what you claim secular morals to be. If god didn’t create himself, then he is just the middle-man and can, again, be discarded.

Another point...

If our point about maximising wellbeing doesn’t work, then how do you know god is the good one and Satan is the bad one? What yardstick do you have to measure each of their claims?

What if god is evil and Satan is sitting around waiting to see if you’ll ever figure out that what god was saying, was wrong all along?

Think about it.

So JP, we have demonstrated, in many ways, why our ideas work, and now I’ve shown why yours don’t. Now it’s time for you to demonstrate why your god is the source and authority of our morality because - just as with Creation and evolution - even if you had already discredited our claims, that doesn’t mean that yours win by default.

Morality surely is about the rights and being of people,to live their lives as to whom they are, without hinderance to themselves or others.

As a long-time observer of the relentless juggernaut of homosexual activism I often like to speculate on the next stage of the ongoing travesty.
What claim will they come up with that's wilder and whackier than the current one?
How much further can they erode civilisation?
For example, when they started demanding the "fundamental human right" to marry anyone they want to (only them mind you, no other sexual preferences need apply, lest the useful idiots wake up) I amused myself by wondering about what other human rights they might invent.
Well they've outdone themselves yet again, imaginative little buggers!
How about the "fundamental human right" not to reveal your HIV status to your latest sexual partner, anonymous or not!
"You have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose your HIV status."
http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/B4462DDE-487D-4194-B0E0-193A04095819/0/HappyHealthyHot.pdf
Aahhh...
The transcendental morality of it all.
That's what you call progress!

Not just collective or community interests and wellbeing JP but an individual one as well. Individal wellbeing and community wellbeing are often linked. The reason why many people are in jail is because their actions infringed on another's rights in some way.

Sometimes, as in this case, individual rights outweigh community opinion where there is no harm to others and where there is only remnants of historical prejudice dictating to a minority on sexual preference. If the act of homosexuality was to do harm then the community interest is not served by legalisation, however there is no harm. There is no infringement of another's rights by allowing same-sex marriage between two consenting adults.

Homosexuality has existed throughout history, it is not a new trend or 'choice' for many who are born a certain way and who have no 'choice' in their sexual preference.

How is your morality formed? You have not answered this to any degree other than saying it has to be dictated from a higher power other than human.