The question I was discussing was if god is relevant to morality. You admitted that he was. The question you are discussing is if the existence of god, apart from whatever reality we take as a given, is relevant to morality. I admitted that it wasn’t.
blowero reacts to my discomfort of religious relativism by saying
Which really answers the op. You need to make an assumption. “It is obvious that … was Wrong” is an assumption. What evidence is there that this is wrong without evoking another assumption of what is right and wrong. Without assuming some universal morality that exists independent of our beliefs, Hitler’s “Right” is equally valid to my “Right” and both really have small "r"s. It is obvious because it appeals to what you believe is right and wrong and you assume that those beliefs are universal.
As to what is reality vs what I believe … we all have only our perceptions of reality. We can only percieve through the limitted instruments that are our minds. What model do I accept of differrent possibilities in the abscence of proof? What assumption do I accept where doubt exists? There is no clear evidence for or against a universal morality that exists independent of our beliefs. We must make assumptions and our world view follows from it.
I don’t assume they are universal; I observe that they are universal. And they are universal among our species only. Even as Hitler committed his atrocities, he knew this universal concept. Otherwise, he would have had no reason to lie about what he was doing. I observe this to be true, and I also make a choice (not an assumption) to try my best to behave morally, because that is what I want to do.
The most likely one.
None.
I disagree. We do not HAVE to make any assumptions. We need only believe what is demonstrably true. We can observe that “murder is wrong” is a universally held concept among almost all people. We can choose to subscribe to that code of behavior. But we do not have to assume that invisible supernatural being(s) placed the idea in our brains. It may very well make you uncomfortable to accept this. For me, my own discomfort is not a good enough reason to believe in fantastic things.
FWIW, my theism does not involve “invisible supernatural being(s).” It merely involves the idea that there is some universal that is beyond human comprehension. But that is a different discussion.
To your points.
First off, your “observation” is false. (Unless you define “murder” in a self-fufilling manner as the taking of human life that is not accepted within a society.) Many cultures allow, nay, mandate taking the lives of others against their will and not in self-defense. Human sacrifice was part of many human cultures … that’s what was notable about the “binding of Issac” story (myth, what-have-you), this God didn’t want that! we had to be taught that lesson, it was new. Killing others over resources, females, beliefs, kinship, for entertainment … all these have been acceptable to many societies throughout humankind’s history. Do you really need the examples? Were these beliefs just as “right” as the belief that to murder is wrong?
Secondly, off what if all human societies did subscribe to a very similar moral code? It doesn’t prove right or wrong unless such are popular votes. All that it proves is that all human cultures have responded to the same evolutionary and sociocultural selection pressures. Change the genetic transmission details by any means and “right” and “wrong” would be different. Just as valid? Maybe.
Perhaps morality is only relative to the standards of the plurality. This conclusion implies the assumption that there is no universal standard of morality. I f the majority of a society believes that behavior X is “right” then dabnabit, it is. Such a position can “mandate” ethics only as a consequence of informed self-interest from consequences.
Perhaps morality is more absolute; Hitler would still be wrong even if supported in his view by the plurality. This conclusion implies the assumption of a universal standard of morality that exists independently of our beliefs. It “mandates” ethics as a result of these assumptions, not out of fear of consequences. Now, if “God” to you means the Man on the throne, sentient and conscious in a way that makes sense to you and me and my seven year old, then, no, this does not imply theism. But if your concept of God is that God is beyond our understanding but resides in the reality that we will never know or comprehend, is in the universals of the universe of which we are but a small part, then yes, it implies theism.
Is one assumption more likely? Well, different posters here on these boards have some divergent thoughts about that question. Personally, I don’t see any evidence to settle the question of which is more likely one way or another. I fear it is the first. I pray it is the second. 