"This is fairly simple . You have two different worldviews here . In your view the moral code revolves around you being the standard and everyone should live up to that . In mine , the moral code is set outside of my control and I strive to abide by that . This is very evident in your post when you use the phrases `` I have `` and `` I would not `` . With me , it is n't because I , for some unknown reason , feel a certain way but because and outside moral code says I should live my life a certain way . You could just frame it as you believe you are `` god `` while I believe in a God . This is a little harder for people to swallow and I do n't mean for it to sound like an insult but it is an easy way to put it Both of these worldviews are fairly common and it relates to the abortion debate because one worldview almost has to lead to pro-life while the other could go either way ."
"You are distorting my view . I certainly do not think that I am `` god `` or that everyone has to revolve around my standard . However , I do think that morality has to have a rational basis behind it . This is my particular rational basis . My moral code certainly is n't my own invention but is based on the moral codes which I have often heard expressed by others , as well as the moral code of the German philosopher Kant ( often referenced in secular moral discussions ) . Most people from childhood are taught morals at least partly from the same points of view I use . After all , how often have you heard the phrase `` How would YOU like it if that happenned to you ? `` or something similar . That is essentially the same as my basis of morality . It seems to be very common . Even many religions use a similar basic appoach - `` Do unto others ... `` . Of course , we all differ enough in our psychology that we might have some differences in how we would expect to be treated by others . So , this approach that I present would not lead to the same result in all people . Also , this approach depends on the capabilities of the person to see the big picture and to be able to fully see things from the other person 's point of view . Since we are imperfect in these skills , it certainly helps to have moral discussions , moral mentors , etc . who can enlighten us in various situations . It is not a perfect method but at least it is not arbitrary since it is based on reason . Note that the famous German philosopher Kant gave a similar secular moral code in his Categorical Imperative : `` Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law `` . Your view does n't seem to be based on reason but on a blind trust in a religious authority that tells you that a particular set of rules is right and must not be questioned . For those of us who do not hold the same beliefs as you , those rules often seem quite arbitrary . Sometimes some of the reasons behind those rules are illucidated , often not . Sometimes the rules are the same as those derived by secular reasoning , sometimes not . Personally , I would prefer an imperfect moral code that at least is based on reason and is refineable to one that is immovable and based on arbitrary standards . On a last note , there certainly could be moral codes that are based neither on religion nor on some version of the moral code which I have presented . If so , I would be quite interested in hearing them ."
"You have two different worldviews here"
"I certainly do not think that I am `` god `` or that everyone has to revolve around my standard"