Originally Posted by DAISHI
You allude to my point, yes. I can only exist in one of two realities. One, that nothing is right or wrong, and that all things are subjective. Under this system, morality is utilitarian, used only to settle on what general framework allows a society to exist without cannibalizing itself. Under this system, because all things are subjective, there is no right. It's all alterable or subjective.
I'm not inherently opposed to such a system per se, but I've found that an objective morality is at least more appealing in that it establishes a framework in which there can be a definite right and wrong. Now, I can also be tolerant of other people's differences and live side by side with them under this objective system. I can think a person is existing wrongly without imposing my morality on them (thus I have no problem with the notion of legalized drug use, for instance, which I don't believe the government should regulate), and still coexist and maintain my personal beliefs.
Are you implying that this is an argument for following an organised religion? If so, it's a false dichotomy. There are plenty of normative ethical theories
that aren't coupled with a specific religion and go beyond utilitarianism. You can have an objective moral framework (i.e. believe that some things are inviolably right or wrong, as in natural rights theories) without believing in a deity.