You raise some excellent points. I apologize for the flippant wallet-stealing comment, but I didn't mean it as a brush-off.
The goal of morality in general is usually defined as "happiness" (as distinct from "pleasure"). The ideal moral theory would be one in which the actions encouraged or rejected by the moral system would always maximize happiness in some, usually ill-defined, way. This topic is a hornet's nest of philosophical debate. Start with Plato and go from there ;)
If I did steal your wallet, and you were ok with that, and it made me happy, then no, it wouldn't be immoral (and it wouldn't be stealing either). You can imagine this being the case in a society where there is no conception of personal property, for example. Thus, particular moral rules might be culturally relative to some degree. There may even be many "best" moral theories. My whole point with the wallet analogy was that, presuming that we both live in the same society with similar ideas of property and violence, then your claim that there was no morality was clearly false. It may be no more than a contract governing orderly behavior, with no metaphysics or God backing it up, but that doesn't make it "unreal," because we objectively DO make moral claims on each other. Would treat such a contractarian explanation as a real explanation of a real phenomenon, not a denial or negation of it.
It may seem like moral rules are arbitrary without some God punishing sinners and rewarding the virtuous, but they are not. We have to live with each other on this planet, and we need to have expectations for interacting with each other. Living in safety and security is only possible insofar as other people let you. There are better and worse ways of securing this agreement from other people.
Incidentally, Plato showed that God was unneccessary to morality back in 300BC (in the dialog Euthyphro). The argument goes: if what is good is good ONLY because God says so, then he could have come up with any old arbitrary rules of morality. It is possible that He could have said "Thou shalt not each hotdogs on Fridays" and this would have been objectively, morally wrong. If you think that this is not the case (and most religious people would), then God must have made moral laws based on their value per se. If this is the case, then we can just as well discover these "moral laws" ourselves, and God's yea or nay wouldn't add anything to value of these laws, (except the punishments he metes out). If God had said "Thou shalt torture puppies", then He would have been wrong, it wouldn't have made puppy torture right.
It just doesn't make sense to say that moral laws would exist in the universe even if there were no humans to "instantiate" them. I don't think we need this to talk sensibly and fruitfully about what is the best way to live.
[ Parent ]