Ran across Matt Dillahunty’s lecture on the superiority of Secular Morality over Religious moral systems.
What I took from it was that the secular moral system starts from the subjective reference point that appears to be the most overlapping common goal of humans and human society: Human Well-Being. If after a discussion with everyone, there comes to be a better point of reference, then that will be adopted. No point of reference is held as infallible or unchanging. This does not mean the current reference point is open to just be chucked out without reason. You have to convince people why the target is wrong through argument and discourse and evidence. Everyone is allowed to the table to discuss what paths to use to attain that goal and all ideas are open for discussion but not all ideas are open to be entertained as an equally good idea. Such as in the subjective reference point of a healthy body, eating fruit is clearly better towards that goal of a healthy body over drinking battery acid. Secular systems hold no path as absolute though. This is because we do not know everything and after running the social experiment, we learn that path fails, we update our model with that new data and pick a better path. So if it fails after trying a particular social experiment, everyone is back to the table to discuss the new path to take with the new data from that failed experiment. The secular system can fail, but it has within the system a way to fix itself.
Let me know your thoughts after watching the video. If anyone has a link to a transcript on this, please post the link.