How very heroic of this poster to have waded through the treacly syrup of Mackay's book. I always found his columns of fuzzy generalities far too much for this down to nitty gritty earthling.
He appears to dwell in far away ivory castles where us Aussies would never dare to defile the splendour of his multiculture magic.
I suspect his closest neighbours would be some of the pollies in our parliament.

When everyone thinks they are god they are left with no other conclusion other that they can make up the rules as they go. Hugh Mackays faith in the humans ability to choose good is amazing. Its a shame that history is totally against his assumptions. Amorality (people deriving morals from experience) has failed us miserably for decades. The end result of this flawed reasoning is a Sodom and Gommorah community.

Those who reject absolutes always come up with their own set. The fact that people correct spelling mistakes shows this. Some things are always right while some things will always be wrong.

I find it interesting that this particular person has written this review.

"Graham Preston, is part of group that has, over the last five years, been involved in non-violently intervening to rescue preborn children at Queensland abortion “clinics” by sitting in front of their doors."

Morality is a tough issue. Relativism vs certainties - both exist when it comes to morality, but deciding precisely when certainties become relative is difficult.
I haven't read this book to critique it for myself, though I know it can't be easy to write something that attempts to define these lines - especially when you know people are going to disagree.

Especially on issues such as abortion. Clearly Graham sees this issue as more of a certainty.
I can't help but wonder what book he would write if he were attempting to pin down morality, but I rather suspect I may disagree with it, at least in part.

Again the absolutists have ridden out on pearly white steeds to tell us that, by daring to think for ourselves, we are opening the gates to murder, rape and, presumably, Hell. That without a rigid adherence to a definition of right and wrong (provided conveniently by their God of choice) we are doomed.

I don’t buy it. A person’s moral code isn’t what they profess- it is what they do. My experience is that people handed a code find it easier to rationalize a way around it that those who take the time to develop their own.

An example: Graham states he is a ‘non-violent’ rescuer of the pre-born. Maybe, but many others are not, judging but the death and destruction they’ve wrought.

I’m sure they would argue they are taking right and moral actions, supported by their absolute and God-given moral code. But most Gods tend to be very specific about things like killing your fellow human- ‘Thou shall not kill’ doesn’t seem to leave much wriggle-room.

Seem a little contradictory? If killing can be justified, it can not be an absolute but becomes relative to the situation. Yet these are the very people that reject relativism!

In spite of this, we still know right from wrong (usually). How?

I have attended several philosophy courses. One key thought stuck with me- however you evaluate the benefits (utilitarian, rights-based), a decision can never be right if it is inherently self-serving.

Kindness, respect, courage are inherently selfless and therefore right. Killing, stealing, pedophilia, incest are inherently selfish and therefore wrong. (BTW- so is deciding that your feeling of outrage over abortion is more important that someone else’s life or dignity.)

We know these things in our gut, not because someone needed to tell us it. But what constitutes selfish and selfless, more often than not, depends on the situation. Personally, I’m far more comfortable trusting someone willing to take a moment and think about a decision, than someone who so caught up in absolutes that the merits of the situation don’t matter.

Strewth, here we go again, although I enjoyed the review and the points it makes, I was completely put off by the phrase "fatally flawed". Why on earth do things have to be "fatally" flawed no one seems to be able to use the word flawed without joining it with "fatally" Mind you sometimes we get a daring writer from out left field who says "fundamentally" flawed, now that is a sign of a real writer of wit and grace. Isn't it??

Onemack (Truck?), I'm floored by that, landed on my fundament, hopefully not fatefully or even fatally.

Ultimately, each one of us has to develop the wisdom to act morally, but a guide is a handy starting-point. For example, the panca-sila of many Eastern religions, undertaking not to kill, steal, lie, commit sexual misconduct or take intoxicants; seeking to harm neither others nor oneself. The context for that in the Buddha's teaching is that breaking those rules can be done only with a disturbed mind, e.g. one dominated by greed or lust, following the moral rules quietens the mind, allowing the development of concentration of the mind and, with appropriate practice, wisdom, purification of the mind, eventually developing a volition which does not need a guide, a code, avoiding harm to others becomes inherent. But Mackay seems to know nothing of this.