Originally Posted by Law&Order
I am saying that how you define living a moral life will be different than how every other man on earth defines morality. Yeah, maybe from 5000ft away we will agree but once you get down to the minute details and situations we will disagree as to what is morally acceptable and what isn't. How do you define living a moral life? Did someone who lived 51% of their life being moral, live a moral life? The majority of his life was lived morally, was it not? Do you say there is no room for any immorality for someone to live a moral life? Where that even one instance of immorality keeps you from having lived that moral life. Where do you draw the line and the sand and say this is a moral life and this isn't? And who is to say they are right and who is wrong? Pre-marital sex is that moral and immoral? Logic says moral but their are millions of people in the world who will say its immoral. I am asking you how to determine what it means to lead a moral life and who is to say you are right or wrong? How can we even argue about being moral with or with out religion when we can't agree on the definition of what is moral or immoral?
So, basically, on the plane of moral relativity, morals are impossible to argue.
However, on the basis of the initial point made by the thread creator, I believe we're talking about morals affiliated to a specific religion(s). You have to work from there.
Let's say stealing without need is immoral.
A man that isn't religion can indeed, live this morally, because he can easily make the decision to not be a thief. Whether it be by some personal prerogative or because he knows he has no need to.
We can apply this to a lot of religious morals. Up to and including staying a virgin until marriage.
Again, correct me if I've taken an improper turn.