Let's not even say religions. Let's say cultures.
Many Native American religions and cultures have similar pearls of wisdom.
If you go to any society in the world and endeavor to behave respectfully, with caring and kindness, with an open mind and an open heart and the desire to help where help is wanted, you will probably be welcomed barring the notion that there is prejudice or hatred against your ethnicity or creed...
(and even then, the love and kindness shown can melt as much; as the years passed away love and hope triumphed with the election of a black man to a Presidency who 60 years ago would not be allowed to even drink from the same water fountain as a white in some parts fo the nation he now rules.
I don't like his politics but I admire his kindness and good words, and he is nwo a symbol of a great American dream coming true).
The objective morality we see is that the human being is wired to like these inherently good things.
I really think that this is a thoroughly bogus line of reasoning.
For starters, you make a fairly major assumption to state that because similar concepts are considered "good" or "moral" in different cultural circumstances, they
must therefore be objectively good and moral. Are there not other possible explanations here?
Your sentence about human beings being "wired" to do things (I'm assuming this is reference to some form of instinct, yes?) brings up more problems. Human beings are animals. We have survival instincts. Are these instincts necessarily moral? I'm going to suggest to you that they aren't necessarily so - not to say that they are necessarily immoral, rather that our individual instincts are
amoral.
Is it possible that, given our instincts are in fact amoral, independently different groups of people formed societies which require certain behaviours from the individuals in order to function, and in responding to this relationship between the instinctual and basic needs of the individual and the needs of the society, people intersubjectively construct their own set of beliefs, called morality, in order to balance the needs of both?
Different societies will therefore generally develop moralities that are in equal parts the same and different to other societies to the extent to which those other societies are the same and different - there is no
objective morality because morality only exists in societies, and societies are created by the intersubjective interaction of individuals.
You can list a whole bunch of similarities in the morality of different groups, but you can also list a whole bunch of differences. I would identify the cause of both the similarities and the differences in the fact that amoral individuals have found it necessary to interact with others and that in order to make this interaction work they have had to deal with many similar problems and have therefore found fairly similar solutions.
Religion is a good example of this - there are many answers that escape us as human beings, questions like "how was everything created?", for example. Basically all religions have an answer to that question - a creation myth - some god/gods did something to create the world. The reason why is not because it is objectively true that human kind was created by god/gods, but because the same answer has been asked by different people which provokes a similar response (something more powerful than us did it).
In the end all you get is that similar situations give similar responses (be it in morality, religion, societal rules and norms, etc.). I don't see how that is proof that there is an objectively true response to the situations.
