If you are an atheist, and out-of-the-closet, chances are you have come across the argument that atheists have no source of morality. When they do this, they imply that an atheist cannot know the difference between right and wrong etc. In-fact, many atheists use the argument that all morality is relative. It seems both sides (atheists and believers) let their imagination get the better of them. For those atheists that view morality as being relative are ignoring the function of morality. Morality is (at least in my opinion) behavior that is beneficial for the functionality of a society (consciously or unconsciously).
For example, the statement "it is immoral to cheat on a spouse" is a true statement. However, many atheists will use their imagination to think of a scenario in which this statement wouldn't be true. This kind of moral reasoning misses the point. It cannot be denied that a society full of cheaters (especially before birth control) would leave many individuals without a fully-functioning family. A woman is hard-wired to not want their husband to run away with another woman, leaving her all of the burden of raising the kids; on the flip-side the guy doesn't want to waste energy raising some other man's child (the fruit of his energy-input is the passing on of his genes). If morality is behavior that is beneficial for the functionality of a society, then cheating in the general, realistic sense, is morally wrong.
The famous atheist author Sam Harris wrote a book claiming that morality is behavior that is beneficial for the well-being of conscious creatures. But I'm feel that this misses the evolutionary purpose of pain and pleasure (psychological or physiological). While it is true that there is a hardwired desire to feel good, and to avoid pain, the purpose of both are not for our enjoyment, but our survival (and exclusive to humanity, unless applying a certain morality to animals is beneficial for human-society). When we notice a certain behavior causes pain, this is the body/brain's way of telling us that we need to change course. Also, if we feel good, that is the body/mind's way of rewarding/creating incentive to continue what it perceives as good behavior. As stated before, the purpose of this is to provide behavioral guidelines.
As a social species, there are certain behaviors that are harmful to functionality of a society, and behaviors that are beneficial (but this does not imply relativity). While not all societies have the same functioning characteristics (morality), it cannot be denied that some societies function better than others. The reason morality is not completely instinctual is because human society is taking on factors that are previously unknown.
Also, I think morality should be divided up into two groups: instinctual/learned (i.e. hard-wired/soft-wired). Being that our species, from an evolutionary standpoint, is going into uncharted territory everyday, the old hard-wired behavior can be very problematic—this is where our learned-morality comes into play. Learned-morality is cognition that overrides perceived harmful-instinctual behavior.
All of this is to enunciate the point that not all behavior is created equal within a human society. There are moral truths within this society. An atheist can imagine circumstances in which a behavior that is normally beneficial to the functionality of a society (moral) would not be, but this is dodging the question. I.e. moral relativism is a pseudo-intellectual's way of dodging reality. No thoughtful atheist should argue moral relativism. If this is to become an atheist-world, we must stop dodging moral questions. Whether we atheists want to admit it or not, religion took on a big role for providing our soft-wired morality. As religion goes, so goes the soft-wiring we have relied upon as a society for many many years. As our society continues to evolves, so will evolve our hard-wired/soft-wired morality. It is not good that we have relied so heavily on religion to provide our soft-wired morality, with it gone, we are left with a void that must be filled (otherwise the functionality of society will suffer).
If you are an atheist reading this, try to think about moral questions in the context that I laid out; there are moral-truths to be found in this reality, never dodge the questions by imagining other realities (makes you and the atheism you represent appear void of morality). If you are a believer, then continue to argue against atheists that continue to believe in moral relativism by using secular-reasoning (instead of religious, which an atheist will easily brush off).
Be a thinking atheist, not one that avoids the truth.
