I understand your argument, but I'm wondering what your belief is as to the source of morals. Evolution, by definition, means that morals have evolved over time. There must be a source, however. Were we born with morals or did someone at some time at or near the beginning of man determine what those core morals should be, which later evolved into what we have today?
As a side note (an important one though) we need to define once what morals are for you.
Basically all mankind has a similar core set of morals, so i wouldnt confine "morals" as the exact teachings of the bible or the quran or.....
Anyway ... indeed i think morals evolved.
For a great part we get much of our morals from our parents. Which means that many of the things we do we do because we were educated that this or that is good or bad.
Basically we do not need any big source for morals if you assume that over generations more and more reasoned morals and learned patterns of behaviour can be added.
One of the most important aspects for a social species is the realization that groups generally are more effective than singles. On the other hand we all have individualistic goals and a certain amount of egoism. Morals then tend to be a traitoff between these two aspects of life. If one understands that and teaches that to his offspring then already we start with a basic system that gets more and more complex.
The realization that certain restrictions on everybodies individual freedoms also garantees protection and strengthens the society is crucial and handed down from generation to generation. As the society grows so does a need for codification of the moral guidelines.
And indeed we DO change a lot concerning our behavious and our morals.
This is observable.
As for my "ideas about God," they are as legitimate an explanation to the source of morality as anything else. To deny this fact is to cloak yourself with one heck of a superiority complex.
I am not very susceptible for the superiority/arrogance claim.
I think any "opinion" is "legitimate". Each one may have an opinion and it is none of my business what opinion he has.
Legitimate however differs from justified.
For a justification i would see evidence and explanatory models as a requirement.
I have not seen any explanatory model when it comes to a "God did it". Because the "how" is always missing. Not even partially but totally.
I do not think this is an arrogant stance or a sign of a superiority complex.
If morals are man-made, they are arbitrary and may be changed at the whim of man.
Well frankly there is no difference between morals being made by man and morals being made by god. They both would be arbitrary and changed at the whim of its creator(s).
Anyway. I think your argument has one big flaw:
Who says morals cant by definition be changed and must be fixed or absolute? There is no conclusive chain of arguments that demands that it is so. In my view it is more of a wish of people than reality.
Example: 500 years from now the earth is hit with a major catstrophe leaving a very small population of men and even fewer women. The authority at that time may come to the conclusion that rape is the best way to reproduce; i.e. It is morally right to do so. The point is that if morals are man-made, they can be changed at any time.
Actually morals DO change over time. In the past 2000 years they have greatly changed in many aspects. What remained constant were only certain core ideas.
For example the ideas about homosexuality have changed multiple times depending upon the time and the society.
Your example is not so far from reality.
If we take a look at history we find a lot of supposed moral code that changed over time. So actually you are rather making MY argument then yours. People change.
Slavery has not allways been considered evil.
A caste system with great differences between the classes was once considered fine.
You might wish for some absolute morals. But frankly there is neither an indication that those exist nor could we actually ever draw the conclusion that they are.
