God’s moral commandments should be followed if one is attempting to follow a correct moral code. The argument can be made that following another individual’s commandments, even God, would make morality arbitrary and based off subjective opinion, however this is does not imply that certain subjective opinions are not better than ours. God is a higher being than us, this does not imply that he is an omniscient being and knows exactly what is right and what is wrong. What this does imply is that he is comparable to a Principal at grade school that makes and administers the rules. Yes the Principal is not a perfect rule maker or person, but he or she is generally more qualified to create and administer rules than the underage students. The Principal, …show more content…
With this in mind it would be much safer to go with the Principal's opinion because it would be difficult to verify which grade school students point of view is better. One could make the case that as the children grow up and continue to develop their education and knowledge through academics and their experiences in life, they eventually will surpass the Principal. Generally, this is what happens because our society and education are in constant development, meaning that at some point a good portion of the children will have grown to become superior rational decision makers than the Principal. The argument stating that we have already surpassed God intellectually and should be following our own moral commandments as a collective society can then be made. The issue with this is that it is highly unlikely, based on known human history, that we have arrived at this point in our developmental process. It seems as though, instead of using practical critical thinking and reasoning to assess morality, humans conform to the current social and political normalities of their …show more content…
Considering this time period was less than 300 years ago, which is not much on the human time scale, it would be statistically wise to conclude that we have not reached a stable point of rational decision making on morality. Let us say one is to argue that the technological and societal advances in the last 300 years have been rising exponentially more than most of human history combined. That must mean that the time since early United States history has increased humans’ rational intellect as a collective society enough to be able to defy our statistical conclusion. For this to be true then humans would generally as a collective reasonably agree on most morality issues, give or take small ones that may be too controversial to have set ideologies on. Today in westernized countries it has become common knowledge that that murder and abuse is not a morally correct