Were it true that morals resulted from infitesimal small steps through evolution; that it came about through humanity's need to preserve itself and that it is not based on some universal ideal, transcendant from the material world, than, what reason now do we have (knowing this) to follow these morals?
Furthermore, apart from the natural laws supposedly put in place through evolution, why should we pay heed to any rules or punishment put in place by other people merely based on their status? Who are these people to be imposing laws on us? On what basis is another man declaring right from wrong? On what authority? All laws are then subjective to the person imposing them.
If I firmly believe that stealing from someone else will result in me receiving a better, more fulfilling life and that I would not get caught doing it, than what is stopping me? What standard am I comparing myself to?
If all morals are subjective to the person, than no universal standard can exist. Right and wrong become blurred and will inevitably lead to chaos.
Let me know your thoughts on this please.
This is a weak argument in which your claim of the net result is bullocks. There is no data which indicates that chaos is the inevitable result of subjective morality, but there is ample reason to state the opposite in fact. Looking at the countries in the world that would have the largest populations that do not believe in a absolute or divine moral authority are in fact the countries with the least chaos, violence, and corruption.
This is more a question of moral responsibility. Do you wish to be murdered ? Do you wished to be stolen from ? Do you wished to be lied to ? No, you do not ! Moral reciprocity is an evolutionary trait that develops in most rational individuals as a result of the moral responsibility that they
have to their own
Does moral conduct go awry ? Of course it does. However, even with the belief that there is
an absolute or divine moral code, we are currently seeing faulty morality within those individuals and/or groups. Why ? Because there will always be a subjective interpretation
of that divine code. The practice of witch burning by the religious dogmas of the centuries past is the perfect example of an immoral practice that was based on a subjective interpretation of a supposedly divine moral fiat.
Morality is a mind dependent principle. Without mind there is no such thing as morality. This fact makes it an absolute truth
that morality is, and can only be, and should only be
, principles practiced that come out of subjective roots.
It is not mentally, morally, or intellectually healthy to believe that there is a universal or divine source of morality that exists outside of the mind and that this source demands adherence to and practice of its decrees, and most certainly one is foolish to believe that this source is waiting with eternal punishment for those who fail to comply.
One has made a grave mental error to submit to faulty thinking and allow their minds to be given over to the belief that a dictatorial, totalitarian, autocratic source is where principles of right and wrong come from and that they must be obeyed.