Interpersonal moral decisions can be made without referencing a religious framework.

Interpersonal moral decisions are choices amongst possible actions that allow for several alternatives, but accept that one alternative is superior to the others not solely by virtue of personal gain, as other decisions are, but by impact of that action's effect on others. Traditionally, moral choices were made according to adherence to an ideological framework, encapsulated in social laws that outlined proscribed behavior. Moral arguments were then derived from what amounted to legal interpretations of those laws. I will refer to this methodology as the argument from ideological epistemology. The ideological epistemology presupposes that there are abstract concepts, such as good and evil and right and wrong, that humans are aware of and crudely attempt to develop or encourage in others by enforcement of social taboos or, in more developed society, legal theory. For a time, religion, the authoritarian social construct formed as a philosophy of social taboos, was necessary to assure curious minds that the ideals providing support to these taboos were justified. Religions provided the necessary justification by crediting a god or gods with their development, leaving their base nature beyond mortal valuation. The framework of religion was the reference that people drew upon when faced to make an interpersonal moral decision. The morals they adhered to included concepts such as honor, justice, fairness, etc. In our modern society, a curious change is taking place. A significant number of people are setting aside their reference to a religious framework, yet retaining their ability to function morally. They accomplish this by observing their actions and the actions of others, noting the effects of their actions, and limiting their actions where observation and experience show them that the consequences of their actions would be harmful to themselves or others. One might claim that direct observations are the only relevant criteria on the morality of the action, as the beneficial/detrimental effects of an action can be directly witnessed and do not require reliance upon presupposed mystic forces. I shall refer to this as the argument from empirical epistemology. I believe that this argument for morality is superior to the ideological argument because: 1. Contrary to what one may believe, lack of faith in a god or absolute morality does not mean that there is no cause to care for anyone. Individual members of human society are protected from the ravages of their environment by virtue of a society, and each individual member thereof contributes to that society. When one person's actions threaten to harm other members of that society, the negative impact of that person's actions outweigh the positive, as harm to society is equivalent to striking one's own support structure and harming one's self. This results in a net loss to society at no gain to the organism taking the action, and that organism is in need of correction. Conversely, a person who acts to aid society by helping others provides support to society, which in turns provides support to oneself. This results in a net gain to society and, if the action can be taken safely by other members of society, deserves emulation. People already recognize this and act accordingly, but they couch their rationale in vague and mystical sounding language. It is time for that to end, as there is no need for it and it may well do more harm than good. 2. Lack of absolute moral ideals does not mean that moral ideals can not be propounded. If observation shows that individuals who consider the ramifications of their actions on others as though they themselves were the individuals to be affected cause harm to fewer people than others not similarly equipped do, then that impulse has a positive advantage and can be provided a name and treated as a moral ideal: compassion, in this case. As a result, morals are not lost, they are merely replaceable (if something better is discovered) and not ascribed supernatural justification. 3. Lack of commands by a deity or religious institution are unnecessary to enforce adherence to morality, as the most important taboos developed around moral principles will be enforced by law and the least important will be followed in emulation (see point one) of those individuals acting in a socially beneficial manner or in criticism of those acting in a detrimental manner. As people continue to advance society, there can be no doubt that moral ideals will change to suit the times, as they always have. Even if this is so, however, people can rest assured that interpersonal moral decisions can be made without reference to a religious framework.