It applies to everyone and doesnt allow for moral relativism

u can attempt to explain it without religion but that will hold no meaning

But Human "good" is not God's version of good.

but what authority is there to enforce that if not God? the state?

It holds meaning just fine

the state becomes corrupt and is unwilling to further enforce it

The states job isnt to enforce it

This is beginning to tread into Humanism territory

who does?

The law is the minimum bar for ethical behavior

laws differ from culture to culture

and we're back to moral relativism

Sort of but not really

unless u think all cultures are equal

What is good in Man's mind changes and is usuitable to be a useful stance of morals/ethics

^

Ethical behavior over all is when you multiply the good while avpiding the bad as it applies to everyone

Its suppose to be farily black and whit unless you use utilitarianism

But we've been told by God that our "Good" is but mere filthy rags

Which allows for less unsavory things to be done in pursuit of a larger good

what is ur point exactly? there's no one to enforce it, there's no one to prevent unethical behavior and that man can justify it trough the moral relativism that he was good and his group is now better off

while commiting some bad

That if taught uniformly it doesnt allow for moral relativism

moral subjectivism is unavoidable if u reject God. By rejecting him you reject the objective truth

Virtue is one of the most revered words in all languages. It is associated with character, good judgment, and ethical decision making. Moral virtue can be defined as “the habit of right desire” or the disposition to make right choices.1

you're essentially advocating for another dogma

>that if taugh uniformly

why bother replacing religion then

just leave it as it is, achieves the same thing

The ultimate good is happiness, according to Aristotle. All the other real goods we pursue are for the sake of happiness (or eudaimonia), which is the life that is most desirable (i.e., much more than contentment or joy commonly associated with the term happiness). We choose happiness not for anything other than itself. Aristotle believed further that happiness is the final good, the ultimate end of all desire achieved at the end of a complete life. Therefore, happiness cannot be experienced at a given moment; it can be achieved only through virtuous action (not thought alone).

Except it isnt a religion. Its a common ground sharable by all peoples without the baggage of enforcing a belief system on others while also appealing to atheist as it examines real people and their effects on on another.

You can teach it to religion and not contradict their beliefs and it escapes skepticism by athiests by being more scientific and not based on the imaginary at all.

>The other real goods we pursue are for the sake of happiness.

That is still advocating Moral Relativism. So if I go kill someone because it makes me happy it is therefore "good."

No that is tou twisting it

This is an ideal and not something that is grounded in reality.
Again, I'm telling you Aristotle was just a man with plenty of critique behind his back. God is an ultimate authority and such a pursuit can only be commanded by an ultimate authority.

You cant kill someone because that isnt a real good

Real goods being described as those things you meed to live

you can justify and rationalise it, because fuck it a man can be convinced that you did good by killing that man

But if Moralism and Ethics are defined by man what makes murder bad? The animal kingdom kills their own children and they don't care.

Whether or not it was needed in order to preserve a real good