Without God there can be no absolute morals.

I would like to start out by defining morality. I don't mean morals that help you, like Aristotle's. Because any egoistic moral code is circumstantial, and therefore not absolute. I am talking specifically about Kantian, Utilitarian, or any other altruistic moral system. These systems claim that you should act out of someone else's best interest, instead of your own. They both are based on the idea that we are all equals, and should look as if from a third perspective at our own action. This is false. If there is no God and no after life then the only person you can really know is yourself. Other people although they almost for sure do exist, they don't really exist from your perspective. A good way to look at this from here may be mathematically. You take the amount of goodness that happens to a person and multiply that by how much they exist. A person exists to the extent that you experience them. So if your good friend suffers you can somewhat experience that, and it causes you an empathetic pain. It is unlikely that it would be worth killing your best friend for a cheap pair of shoes. It would cause you a large amount of grief because you know them pretty well, and only a little happiness. Now suppose there is some child in China dying in a sweat shop to make you this pair of shoes. If you spend the extra money for fair trade shoes, then you won't be able to afford a coffee. Now you know almost nothing about this Chinese child and you will likely not even notice that they die. On the other hand that coffee can make your whole morning nicer. The obvious choice is to get the cheap shoes and the coffee. The amount you can experience yourself is orders of magnitude than how much you can experience a friend, and the amount you can experience a friend is orders of magnitude more than you experience a stranger you never meat. Here comes the big assumption of my argument. I assume that you as a person would like to have as good as an experience as possible. I think this is a safe assumption, because most of what we do either directly or indirectly is aimed at this goal. In addition we enjoy it when we are having a good experience, and we get upset when we are not. Most things we do are aimed at this goal, Aristotle says that everything we do is aimed at happiness, but I won't even go that far. Think about what you do, whether it be working, studying, playing, eating, going to sleep, listening to music . These are all aimed at the goal of improving your experience. Now I will grant that some acts are truly altruistic, but many are actually disguised forms of self gratification. When people give to charity, help a homeless person, or work at a food kitchen, these people admit that it makes them feel good to help others. To summarize my argument. 1 Some Immorality is a cause of happiness. 2 All causes of happiness are good(what you want). 3 Some Immorality is good(what you want). A commonly made argument for morality is that you are no more valuable than any other person. To their perspective this certainly is true. But to your perspective you should know that this is not true. When a tornado is coming do you hope that it hits you and misses the next block, or would you rather it hit them? There are a rare few that have bought into equality so much that they do not value themselves over anyone else, and a difference in values is not something you can be argued out of. It is more of a persuasion than anything. In fact, It may be futile to even argue this debate, but an exchange of perspectives is always interesting. Now in the past there has always been an argument to convince anyone who didn't believe in morals to accept morality. That has been the everlasting torture or bliss of the afterlife. These arguments do make for a good reason to be good. If you notice though they are solely based on a power structure. A power structure is really the only thing that could convince an amoralist to act morally. Now that there is no absolute power structure there can be no absolute imposition of morality, and good and evil are reduced to subjective valuations of the world. Some of the words I used can be ambiguous, so here are some definitions. They are from dictionary.com Amoralist: someone who adheres to the doctrine that ordinary moral distinctions are invalid. moral: expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work. Absolute: As opposed to relative (listed as an antonym) I would also like to pose this argument as a question. If there will be no punishment for my action and I will enjoy it, then why shouldn't I do it? For this debate I would say that the Burden of Proof should be shared. Because my position is a rejection of another position, but I will make positive arguments because the position I reject is the statis qou for most people.