More from Steve Cornell:

In fact, the atheist must conclude that evil is an illusion. For there to be evil, there must also be some real, objective standard of right and wrong. But if the physical universe is all there is, there can be no such standard (How could arrangements of matter and energy make judgments about good and evil true?). So, there are no real evils, just violations of human customs or conventions. How hard it would be to think of murderers as merely having bad manners.

Um, excuse me?  Steve? When you say “objective (as in free of bias or prejudice, based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions) standard of right and wrong”, you actually mean “arbitrarily declared (based solely on personal wishes, feelings or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons or principles) standard of right and wrong”, right?

I mean, if it’s wrong objectively, its wrongness is independent of anybody’s wishes or beliefs.  If it is wrong because God wants it to be wrong, then it is arbitrary.  Granted, it has a lot of weight given the power and authority of the wisher…but still arbitrary.

So, that’s what you meant, right?

That’s what I thought.  No, no need to apologize.  We all make mistakes from time-to-time.  Just don’t let it happen again.

The historical purpose of codified law is civic order.  The rules are the rules because those are the rules that work for a given culture at a given time.  They provide a sense of consistency, reliability, and workable justice that leaves most people able to expect that they system will protect them and theirs most of the time, and thus gives them incentive to participate and cooperate.

There are some pervasive baseline rules that might qualify as baseline or, consensual standards of right and wrong.  Though not “objective” they are certainly “definitive” and are consistent regardless of culture or religion (or lack of religion).

Most human beings, regardless of culture recognize that killing another human being is wrong.  Different cultures and religions have different rules for how one handles the subject of how to make someone account for a killing, but “Thou shall not kill” is a moral constant that persists throughout humanity.

Same thing with stealing, and a number of other behaviors that are definitive “don’ts”.

Even the Bible is less than definitive on these things, as there are clearly ways to allow for killing that is seen as necessary.  The Bible states clearly that it is OK to kill your children if they don’t do what you say.  You can kill an entire nation of people if the prophet says that God says it’s OK (hence the designation of “arbitrary” as opposed to “objective”.)  It’s OK to kill your daughter if you promised to sacrifice the first thing that runs out of your house in exchange for a military victory, and that thing is, unhappily, your daughter.  Also, God doesn’t get as mad about some murders as others.  When Cain killed Able, for instance, Cain was exiled and forced to roam the earth as a fugitive with no home.  When Solomon’s son tried to kill his father, he was hanged to death in the crotch of a tree (God caused this to happen).  When David killed Urias so that he could get a little action from Urias’ wife, he got a stern talking to, but still got to keep the woman that he wanted enough to kill in order to get her.

It would appear that these different killings were all viewed as being of different severity and consequence.  A “hierarchy” of sin, as it were…almost as if it were dependant on circumstance.  It’s almost as if the severity of the crime and the resulting punishment were subjected to moral standards that were “relative” to the situation of the killing, and the cultural conditions of the times.  (But don’t call it “moral relativism”.

It truly WOULD be difficult to think of murder as being merely rude.  Especially if, like Urias, you were the victim of a “godly” king’s “bad form.”