> God is not the only possible foundation of ethics, and not the most sound at that. Absent God (or some sort of other mind-body dualism that's largely suspect

> God is not the only possible foundation of ethics, and not the most sound at that. Absent God (or some sort of other mind-body dualism that's largely suspect otherwise), I don't see how ethics can approach anything that resembles "universals." The ontology of morality in a naturalistic or materialist worldview seems committed to something like emotivism, unless one feels like attempting to bridge the is/ought divide. How can we ascertain what the "universal" is when so many rational beings can hold diametrically opposed moral values? Is it democratically decided? If one is examining morality as the values of different groups of people, and another is debating what we ought to consider universally moral, there isn't going to be much consensus, and probably a fair bit of confusion.