Morality is Non-Rational

[GrowingSmaller]

True, but the idea of a blanket uniformity was once presumed true. Now its not even a posit. So the idea of uniformity has changed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm confused. Are you saying that there's not a literal social contract?

Sorry, I'm not in the mood for such juvenile arguments.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Is this moral also subject to change?

Yes.

As we learn more about the world and gain more experience in organizing societies, we might draw different conclusions in light of this new knowledge.

The difference between secular morals and religious morals is that for secular morals, one actually requires providing a justification / reason for them.
WHY is x moral or immoral?

Whereas in religion, it's just an assertion from authority. There is no "why" other then "because god says so". And by "god", we off course mean "the scripture of the religion in question", which is simply claimed to be representative of this god.

So religious moralilty is simply mere obedience to a perceived authority.
Whereas secular morality is rather reasoned and discussed. .

Secular morality is derived from an understanding of reality instead of an assertion of (perceived) authority.

 

[DogmaHunter]

By the way, if you say you were abducted then I believe you.

Aaaaaand, you're done.

 

[Dig4truth]

True, but the idea of a blanket uniformity was once presumed true. Now its not even a posit. So the idea of uniformity has changed.

So it's true but it's not.
That's a contradiction.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So it's true but it's not.
That's a contradiction.

Only if you insist on the immutability of words.

What was once understood by the word "uniformity" is not the same as what is understood by it today. Precisely because we have learned new things. As in: there is uniformity, but this uniformity is not as "uniform" as previously thought.

And such new knowledge can have repercussions... For example, if there are certain arguments that are heavily derived or based on the old understanding of "uniformity", then those arguments are affected by this new understanding.

 

[Dig4truth]

Yes.
As we learn more about the world and gain more experience in organizing societies, we might draw different conclusions in light of this new knowledge.
The difference between secular morals and religious morals is that for secular morals, one actually requires providing a justification / reason for them.
WHY is x moral or immoral?
Whereas in religion, it's just an assertion from authority. There is no "why" other then "because god says so". And by "god", we off course mean "the scripture of the religion in question", which is simply claimed to be representative of this god.
So religious moralilty is simply mere obedience to a perceived authority.
Whereas secular morality is rather reasoned and discussed. .
Secular morality is derived from an understanding of reality instead of an assertion of (perceived) authority.

And what do you base your morals on? How one feels? What if the majority doesn't like a smaller group of people? Kill them? It seemed moral to Hitler and most of the German people. Was that ok with your moral standard? Oops, I forgot, there is no standard it is whatever the people discuss and vote on.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And what do you base your morals on?

I just told you: an understanding of reality and the premise that well-being is better then suffering.

How one feels? What if the majority doesn't like a smaller group of people? Kill them?

I didn't say anything about emotions and I said even less about "majorities".

The way *I* approach the problem of morality is by taking a step back.

I'll try to explain with a hypothetical example...
Suppose you are tasked to design a society in which you would want to live. How it works, general rules of conduct, etc.
In a typical modern society, you have lots of different "sub-cultures" / groups.
Some of those are majorities, others are minorities.
These groups can be defined by pretty much anything: ethnicity, sexual orientation, hair color, BMI values, smoker or non-smoker, religious beliefs, profession, age, etc.

When dealing with the ethical / moral aspects for this society, I'ld say that the crucial part here is that you aren't allowed to know in advance to which of these groups or sub-cultures you will belong!

It's easy to see how this would remove the idea of "majorities killing minorities" being "moral", because the majority thinks it's okay.

It's not okay, once you step outside of your little closed world and look at the bigger picture where well-being and freedom for ALL people matter. In fact, it's easy to see how in that case, this "majority" becomes immoral - because they trample the well-being and freedom of the minority group.

To summarize: if you are going to start with warped and (ironically) immoral premises... you're not going to draw moral conclusions.

It seemed moral to Hitler and most of the German people. Was that ok with your moral standard?

I have just explained why not.

Oops, I forgot, there is no standard it is whatever the people discuss and vote on.

There sure IS a standard. It's just one that you seem to be avoiding like the plague.
I never said anything about "voting" either. I never even said that the laws of the lands is what defines morality - nore do I agree to that either.

In fact, I'ld say that not all forms of immoral behaviour should be regulated by the justice department and criminal law.
For example, if I wish to be an impolite, backstabbing, lying douchebag - I am free to do so.

PS: I don't care for youtube video's. Present your own arguments in your own words. I'm having a conversation with YOU, not with some youtube channel.

 

[Dig4truth]

I just told you: an understanding of reality and the premise that well-being is better then suffering.

What if my wellbeing causes you suffering? Is that ok?

I didn't say anything about emotions and I said even less about "majorities".
The way *I* approach the problem of morality is by taking a step back.

That does not sound very forward thinking.

I'll try to explain with a hypothetical example...
Suppose you are tasked to design a society in which you would want to live. How it works, general rules of conduct, etc.
In a typical modern society, you have lots of different "sub-cultures" / groups.
Some of those are majorities, others are minorities.
These groups can be defined by pretty much anything: ethnicity, sexual orientation, hair color, BMI values, smoker or non-smoker, religious beliefs, profession, age, etc.

Sounds like you are trying to play God or asking me to. Does the majority make these decisions? No, you said it is not the majority. Elected officials then? That doesn't sound like a very good idea. The moral police perhaps?

When dealing with the ethical / moral aspects for this society, I'ld say that the crucial part here is that you aren't allowed to know in advance to which of these groups or sub-cultures you will belong!

I knew it, your going to put me in with the smokers. Wait, I can't be with whom I want to be with? Is that moral?

It's easy to see how this would remove the idea of "majorities killing minorities" being "moral", because the majority thinks it's okay.

Why is murder wrong?

It's not okay, once you step outside of your little closed world and look at the bigger picture where well-being and freedom for ALL people matter. In fact, it's easy to see how in that case, this "majority" becomes immoral - because they trample the well-being and freedom of the minority group.

Why is taking someone's freedom away immoral? Why should you care about my well being?

To summarize: if you are going to start with warped and (ironically) immoral premises... you're not going to draw moral conclusions.

On what basis do you determine if my premise is immoral? How can there be morals before the conclusions are made as to what is moral?

I have just explained why not.
There sure IS a standard. It's just one that you seem to be avoiding like the plague.
I never said anything about "voting" either. I never even said that the laws of the lands is what defines morality - nore do I agree to that either.

Ok, what IS the standard?

In fact, I'ld say that not all forms of immoral behaviour should be regulated by the justice department and criminal law.
For example, if I wish to be an impolite, backstabbing, lying douchebag - I am free to do so.

Lying should not be regulated by the justice department? I believe the courts and the IRS may differ with your opinion. Also, if lying is acceptable to you at anytime then I don't want you determining the morals for me.

PS: I don't care for youtube video's. Present your own arguments in your own words. I'm having a conversation with YOU, not with some youtube channel.

I did present my own thoughts (you have just responded to many of them) and provided a video as well. Oh, I get it you were just being impolite. P.S. You should watch the 3 or 4 minute video, it may save you some embarrassment.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What if my wellbeing causes you suffering? Is that ok?

That would depend entirely on the actual specifics.
Try putting in a little more effort as opposed to such vague generalization that could mean anything.

That does not sound very forward thinking.

And that sounds like a juvenile response.

Sounds like you are trying to play God or asking me to.

If you say so.
I think that's a ridiculous proposition, seeing as I don't even believe in any gods.
But good job on completely ignoring the points being raised.

Does the majority make these decisions? No, you said it is not the majority. Elected officials then? That doesn't sound like a very good idea. The moral police perhaps?

You're not even putting in any effort in trying to understand what I'm saying, are you?
The answers to those questions are in the post you are replying to.

I knew it, your going to put me in with the smokers. Wait, I can't be with whom I want to be with? Is that moral?

Again, try to understand the point being made instead of giving such juvenile responses.

What I explained to you is how I deal with the "majority rules!" idea of morals.
It's fine if you disagree, but please at least acknowledge how I approach morality instead of ignoring it.

Why is murder wrong?

You mean, besides the fact that it is defined as unjustified/unlawfull killing?

O well.... let's state the obvious, shall we?
In a free society where freedom and well-being for all and the least amount of suffering possible, is important, you can't just go around killing people without proper justification.

Proper justification would be something like self-defense or security if killing is or seems the only way to resolve the situation.

You couldn't work this out yourself?
You required a bronze-age book for that?

Here's one for you: why is slavery wrong?

Why is taking someone's freedom away immoral? Why should you care about my well being?

Because my well-being is dependend on your well-being if we live in a society that depends on cooperation and the productivity of others.

Our decisions and actions are going to have an impact on others and theirs are going to have an impact on us. And if we are going to share a space cooperatively, we have to recognize that impact.

As for why one group can't "enslave" another group to benefit the first group's well being.... well... I already dealt with that. What if you were in the group being enslaved, would you like that?

Also, we don't even need to go there either. All we need is the premise that the best possible well-being for all sentient creatures is more preferable to the worst possible suffering for all sentient creatures.

If you can't agree to that premise, then what are you even doing in a thread about morals?

The very notion of "well-being is better then suffering" is an embedded aspect of morality. If "moral" is not connected to well-being, safety, freedom, hapiness,.. in contrast to suffering, insecurity, war, etc... then I have no idea what "morality" means or is about....

So if you disagree with the premise... then kindly explain why morality is even a topic to discuss.

On what basis do you determine if my premise is immoral? How can there be morals before the conclusions are made as to what is moral?

Defining what moral behaviour is, is different from making specific moral judgements concerning specific examples of behaviour.

And the premise I was refering to was the idea of "majority rules".

Ok, what IS the standard?

In a simplistic nutshell:

1. Best possible well-being for all = good.
2. Worst possible suffering for all = bad.

From there, you can derive:
A. Moral = that which gets us closer to 1.
B. Immoral = that which gets us closer to 2.

Lying should not be regulated by the justice department?

No.

If my wife asks me if she looks fat in a certain dress and I think that she does, but tell her that she doesn't, I shouldn't be fined or put in prison.

If my friend likes to go to a pool bar that his wife doesn't like him to frequent and she asks me where the dude is and I lie and tell here that he's at the tennis club instead, I shouldn't be fined or put in prison.

If I tell a friend that I won't enter a bidding war with him on an e-bay article and then do it anyway behind his back - I shouldn't be fined or put in prison.

If I tell a friend that I will use his money to invest in a new company, but instead use it to go on a cruise on the mediteranean.... NOW there is a problem. But it's not about the lie. It's about causing material damage. Stealing.

I believe the courts and the IRS may differ with your opinion

Nope. That's not about "lies" in general. That's about causing material dammage or boycotting investigations or whatever. It's not about the principle of lying itself.

Also, if lying is acceptable to you at anytime then I don't want you determining the morals for me.

I never said that "lying is acceptable at anytime".
And I certainly never said that *I* determine morals for others.

I did present my own thoughts (you have just responded to many of them) and provided a video as well. Oh, I get it you were just being impolite.

I'm not being impolite.
I'm just informing you that I skip randomly posted video's in posts.

If there is some point in the video that you find interesting and would like my thoughts on, then present that point. Include the video as a reference if you must, but other then that, I don't see the point.

P.S. You should watch the 3 or 4 minute video, it may save you some embarrassment.

I don't care about the video.
Again, if it has an interesting point that you want to bring to my attention, then you are free to do so.

 

[quatona]

What if the majority doesn't like a smaller group of people? Kill them? It seemed moral to Hitler

Yeah, moral objectivists like Hitler easily feel they have good reason to eradicate others. They feel they are objectively right, after all.

Was that ok with your moral standard?

Why would you care about my subjective opinion?

Oops, I forgot, there is no standard it is whatever the people discuss and vote on.

No, you are confusing things. In the absence of a demonstrable "objective moral standards" we need to be pragmatical and discuss each other´s standards.
The times when people could claim "my god agrees with me" and were therefore automatically considered right are over.

 

[Lukamu]

Whereas in religion, it's just an assertion from authority. There is no "why" other then "because god says so". And by "god", we off course mean "the scripture of the religion in question", which is simply claimed to be representative of this god.

So religious moralilty is simply mere obedience to a perceived authority.
Whereas secular morality is rather reasoned and discussed. .

Secular morality is derived from an understanding of reality instead of an assertion of (perceived) authority.

I like what you said here. Religious morality is an obedience to a perceived authority. Secular morality is arrived at through reasoning and discussion. Finally, "God" and "scripture" are synonymous (John 1:1).
Where we begin to disagree is that I would say God arrived at religious morality through his own, perfect reasoning. Therefore, I consider the title of the thread, "Religious] Morality is Non-Rational," to be incorrect. God is rational, and much better at rationalizing than his creation, us. God has a much better understanding of reality than we do, in my opinion.

Only weak Christians are afraid to question their faith. Most Christians are okay with asking "why" God has said something.

 

[Dig4truth]

Yeah, moral objectivists like Hitler easily feel they have good reason to eradicate others. They feel they are objectively right, after all.

Don't you mean "subjective"? Subjective to his own man-made morality. God's standards are clear, "thou shall not murder". This is based on His own character because He is life.

Why would you care about my subjective opinion?

I would care about your opinion because I care about people. The Scripture says "casting all of your anxiety on Him, because He cares for you". I try to emulate His character.

No, you are confusing things. In the absence of a demonstrable "objective moral standards" we need to be pragmatical and discuss each other´s standards.
The times when people could claim "my god agrees with me" and were therefore automatically considered right are over.

There is no absence of objective morals.
Wouldn't discussing each other's standards be the same as majority opinion? Or would you decide in favor of the minority opinion?
Since there are objective morals the time when it is said, "I agree with God" is not over by a long shot.

 

[Tree of Life]

Yes.

As we learn more about the world and gain more experience in organizing societies, we might draw different conclusions in light of this new knowledge.

If this were the case it would seem that there are higher moral principles that are not subject to change. Otherwise any change in a society's morals would be totally arbitrary. But you seem to be saying that it's not arbitrary, but based on new information. New information doesn't have power to change a moral premise. It only has power to change how moral premises are applied.

The difference between secular morals and religious morals is that for secular morals, one actually requires providing a justification / reason for them.
WHY is x moral or immoral?

Whereas in religion, it's just an assertion from authority. There is no "why" other then "because god says so". And by "god", we off course mean "the scripture of the religion in question", which is simply claimed to be representative of this god.

So religious moralilty is simply mere obedience to a perceived authority.
Whereas secular morality is rather reasoned and discussed.

I'm not persuaded that there is such a difference. In religious thinking, "God said so" is a justification. If God said it then it must be true. This is entirely reasonable. But in non-religious thinking the buck also stops at something in which the secular person invests authority.

It could be that the individual is the source of moral authority. At the end of the day "it just seems right to me".

It could be that some abstract moral principle is the ultimate authority. Something like "do not harm". If a course of action can be shown to violate this principle then it is wrong.

It could be that some sacred text like the US Constitution or the elusive "social contract" that you've mentioned has ultimate authority. Anything that violates these documents is wrong.

Or it could be something else. But the non-religious person gives authority to something in the same way that the religious person gives authority to God. Both people have an ultimate source of authority from which they do their reasoning. Both have a source that provides them with justifications. I know that you think that you and I must be very different. I don't think so.

Secular morality is derived from an understanding of reality instead of an assertion of (perceived) authority.

I'm not persuaded. I could just as easily say that Christian morality is derived from an understanding of reality instead of an assertion of perceived authority like all those secular moralities.

 

[Tree of Life]

Morality is essentially rational. Its behavior that leads to a good life, which is what people really want.

Desire is quite separate from rationality. Morality may have a relationship with rationality. We use rationality to help us apply our moral principles or help us achieve our moral goals. But we don't use reason to form moral principles.

 

[Dig4truth]

That would depend entirely on the actual specifics.
Try putting in a little more effort as opposed to such vague generalization that could mean anything.

[What if my wellbeing causes you suffering? Is that ok?]


What about if I were out of money and I broke into your house and stole some money? Moral? If not why? If so why?

If you say so.
I think that's a ridiculous proposition, seeing as I don't even believe in any gods.
But good job on completely ignoring the points being raised.
You're not even putting in any effort in trying to understand what I'm saying, are you?
The answers to those questions are in the post you are replying to.
Again, try to understand the point being made instead of giving such juvenile responses.

There's really no substance to debate here. Maybe your own words are intended for you.

What I explained to you is how I deal with the "majority rules!" idea of morals.
It's fine if you disagree, but please at least acknowledge how I approach morality instead of ignoring it.

You didn't explain it very well because it still sounds like majority rules. Unless of course the minority rules. Wouldn't it necessarily be one or the other?

You mean, besides the fact that it is defined as unjustified/unlawfull killing?
O well.... let's state the obvious, shall we?
In a free society where freedom and well-being for all and the least amount of suffering possible, is important, you can't just go around killing people without proper justification.
Proper justification would be something like self-defense or security if killing is or seems the only way to resolve the situation.
You couldn't work this out yourself?
You required a bronze-age book for that?

[Why is murder wrong?]
Just saying "you can't just go around killing people without proper justification" is not an answer. Why is it immoral and wrong? On what foundation do you base that on? The animals go around killing and we don't throw them in jail. Aren't we just chemical reactions? Do you throw vinegar into jail when it reacts with baking soda?

Here's one for you: why is slavery wrong?

What kind of slavery are you talking about? Indentured servants who are working off debt or illegally forcing labor without just recompense? One is wrong and one isn't.

Because my well-being is dependend on your well-being if we live in a society that depends on cooperation and the productivity of others.
Our decisions and actions are going to have an impact on others and theirs are going to have an impact on us. And if we are going to share a space cooperatively, we have to recognize that impact.

A lot of people choose to force their well-being on others by stealing, rape or murder. They don't care about your well-being. Their well-being is not dependent on yours or my well-being. They live in our societies and thrive there. They are very happy and laugh at the do-gooders who are idiots in their opinion. Why is their behavior wrong or immoral?

As for why one group can't "enslave" another group to benefit the first group's well being.... well... I already dealt with that. What if you were in the group being enslaved, would you like that?

What I like is irrelevant. I have already stated that some "like" to rape, pillage and murder. The question is why is it immoral?

Also, we don't even need to go there either. All we need is the premise that the best possible well-being for all sentient creatures is more preferable to the worst possible suffering for all sentient creatures.
If you can't agree to that premise, then what are you even doing in a thread about morals?
The very notion of "well-being is better then suffering" is an embedded aspect of morality. If "moral" is not connected to well-being, safety, freedom, hapiness,.. in contrast to suffering, insecurity, war, etc... then I have no idea what "morality" means or is about....
So if you disagree with the premise... then kindly explain why morality is even a topic to discuss.

So the majority rules? What is best for most sentient creatures in certain parts of the Middle East is to strap bombs of their children and kill innocent people. That is what that society has chosen as "best" for their people. Is this wrong? Why?

You see the problem is not that we necessarily disagree with what is best for society, in fact we probably agree on most of it, the problem is I have a basis on which I place this morality. It is God and His nature. What is your basis?

Morality is connected to all of the things that you mentioned but you are very vague as to what you are basing these things on. Personal happiness? General hygiene? What?

Defining what moral behaviour is, is different from making specific moral judgements concerning specific examples of behaviour.
And the premise I was refering to was the idea of "majority rules".

God forbid that you are ever in the minority. As for me I will stick to the character of God, He is just, loving and merciful. You shall not murder because God is life, you shall not be a false witness because God is truth. And God will hold us accountable to His commands.

In a simplistic nutshell:

1. Best possible well-being for all = good.
2. Worst possible suffering for all = bad.

From there, you can derive:
A. Moral = that which gets us closer to 1.
B. Immoral = that which gets us closer to 2.

Who makes up the rules? What if they are not moral? Or do we just all sit around the campfire and sing Kum Ba Ya and decide together? Do you see one of the problems with your idea? In order to come to agreement on the best morals one must assume good morals exist. If so where do these morals come from and what makes you think that a majority would recognize them if they didn't already exist?

No.

[Lying should be judged by the Justice Dept.]
Really? It's Ok to lie in Court? Is this one of your "morals"?
For brevity I didn't repost your examples of "harmless lies" which probably do not fall under the category of bearing false witness. A witness can do harm to the guilty or the innocent. It bears much weight in the course of justice. That is what is being discussed.

 

[quatona]

Don't you mean "subjective"?

No, he felt it was objective. Just like you do about your morality.

Subjective to his own man-made morality.

So you think it isnt enough to merely claim to be in hold of an objective standard for one´s morality being considered "objective"?
I agree fully - and that´s exactly where the problem of moral objectivism starts.

God's standards are clear, "thou shall not murder".

I don´t even know there´s a God. So let´s not rash things.

I would care about your opinion because I care about people.

Indeed, people care about people. That´s why - in the absence of a demonstrably existing "objective morality" - they decide to try to come to agreements.

There is no absence of objective morals.

Please try to read more carefully: keyword was "demonstrable".
Of course there is no shortage of people claiming their morality to be "objective". Unfortunately they can´t substantiate their claims. See above: Hitler couldn´t, you can´t.
This is why we need a different approach for finding functioning rules of conduct and interactions.

Wouldn't discussing each other's standards be the same as majority opinion?

No, it wouldn´t.

Or would you decide in favor of the minority opinion?

Majority/minority would be a factor, but not the only one.
You know, nobody said it´s an easy task to come to agreements. In reality, it´s a very complex process.
This problem (how do we come to agreements), btw., exists in the same way when people claim their moralities to be objective.

Since there are objective morals the time when it is said, "I agree with God" is not over by a long shot.

Well, as soon as you can demonstrate that your morality is objective (which would first require you to demonstrate that your God exists, next to demonstrate that you understand this God´s moral edicts correctly), people might start thinking of accepting your claim. Until then, your opinion counts as your subjective opinion - and you will have to participate in the discussion/agreement efforts, if you don´t want to either be left behind or try to enforce your allegedly "objective morality" with violent means (see: Hitler).

 

[DogmaHunter]

I like what you said here. Religious morality is an obedience to a perceived authority. Secular morality is arrived at through reasoning and discussion.

Yes. Which is exactly why secular morality is superior.

Finally, "God" and "scripture" are synonymous (John 1:1).

Only to the one who actually believes and follows the religion of said scripture.
Understand that to someone like me, the bible is about as relevant as the illiad or the bagavad ghita is to you...

Where we begin to disagree is that I would say God arrived at religious morality through his own, perfect reasoning.

That's just your religious belief.
And it doesn't change anything, because god is not on this planet laying down the law. It's humans that are on this planet laying down the law.

No matter how this "god" get his moral standards - human followers of that religion are still simply making assertions from perceived authority. It's still mere obedience to a perceived authority.

It changes nothing.

Therefore, I consider the title of the thread, "Religious] Morality is Non-Rational," to be incorrect. God is rational, and much better at rationalizing than his creation, us. God has a much better understanding of reality than we do, in my opinion.

This is again just what you believe (on faith - of all things)
Again, it changes nothing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If this were the case...

This demonstrably IS the case.
Do we still think keeping slaves is okay?
Do we still think animal abuse is okay?
Do we still think exploiting workers is okay?
Do we still think public executions by burning people at the stake is okay?
Do we still think that public stoning is okay?

Our moral compass of today is CLEARLY different then even only a couple centuries ago.

Yes, it very much is demonstrably the case.

it would seem that there are higher moral principles that are not subject to change. Otherwise any change in a society's morals would be totally arbitrary. But you seem to be saying that it's not arbitrary, but based on new information. New information doesn't have power to change a moral premise. It only has power to change how moral premises are applied.

Who said anything about moral premises?
You didn't read my other posts here, did you?

What changes are moral conclusions.

One only requires one premise: best possible well-being for all is better then worst possible suffering for all.

Perhaps the only thing that changed about that premise is who exactly is included in "all". Because these days, animals are also in there.

New information has the ability to change how we view the world and how we understand the world.

I'm not persuaded that there is such a difference. In religious thinking, "God said so" is a justification. If God said it then it must be true. This is entirely reasonable. But in non-religious thinking the buck also stops at something in which the secular person invests authority.

You're not persuaded that there is such a difference, but then in the next breath you go on and literally repeat what I said with different words......

You're flat out admitting that the theists simply argues from an assertion of perceived authority while the secular person actually needs to think about things and come to a conclusion through his own reasoning.

Exactly like I said.

It could be that the individual is the source of moral authority. At the end of the day "it just seems right to me".

If "feels" / "seems" right is not a proper justification for a moral judgement.

It could be that some abstract moral principle is the ultimate authority

Not really.

Something like "do not harm". If a course of action can be shown to violate this principle then it is wrong.

Like I said, one only requires to agree on 2 points:
- best possible well-being for all = good
- worst possible suffering for all = bad

From there, you can reason about what is moral and what isn't.
If you can't agree to these two points, then I wonder why you are even participating in a discussion about morality.

It could be that some sacred text like the US Constitution or the elusive "social contract" that you've mentioned has ultimate authority. Anything that violates these documents is wrong.

No.

Laws of the land are about protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens.
They are not to "enforce" moral behaviour.

As I explained in other posts as well, there are no laws against being an impolite, backstabbing, cursing douchebag.

Or it could be something else. But the non-religious person gives authority to something in the same way that the religious person gives authority to God

Nope.

Both people have an ultimate source of authority from which they do their reasoning.

Nope. All I requires is the premise of those 2 points I mentioned.
And then I derive what is moral and what isn't based on an understanding of reality.

I'm not persuaded. I could just as easily say that Christian morality is derived from an understanding of reality instead of an assertion of perceived authority like all those secular moralities.

But you'ld be wrong, because when asked why this or that is (im)moral, all you could do would be citing your religious book as an authority.

You wouldn't be able to give me an actual reason.
And if you could give me an actual reason - you wouldn't need your bible to do so.

 

[quatona]

Just one other thing:

Kill them? It seemed moral to Hitler and most of the German people.

It´s kind of ironic for the advocate of a bible based "objective" morality to point to genocide as that which is possible in the absence of the morality depicted in the bible. It´s not like biblegod were principally opposed to genocide.