Morality has been argued as an absolute or a relative endeavor. The religious would have you believe in morals that require blind obedience and others, such as myself, would argue that the moral action is dependent on circumstances. I dare to generalize this deep field of philosophy down to a blind following of rules that equate to morals versus a thinking man's gambit.
The common question from a theist to the atheist is "where do you get your morals?" Of course, the theist is handed their morals and are expected to mindlessly obey them. To do otherwise is sinful. But what does the atheist do if he is indeed moral? Well, he thinks about them, right? Let's consult my friend, Mr. Analogy.
Let's pretend that we are flying on a plane and we get to choose our pilot. Pilot A has flown the same route for years with no problems. He has been instructed on how to fly the plane. His instruction is to perform certain actions at certain times regardless of conditions. He was never told why and has no understanding of how it all works and in the perfect conditions he carried a safe and perfect flight record. He doesn't know what the buttons do that he pushes but he has faith in his instructions.
Pilot B has had less instruction on what actions to perform at certain times. On a perfect flight, it would seem he could become lost or confused since he has not been instructed on each leg of the journey. However, Pilot B went through special training that taught him aerodynamics, flight controls, weather, emergency action, and training simulations of abnormal events. He knows the effects of potential actions.
Who would you choose as you pilot?
The thought I had was that the person who has to think about why something is right or wrong is a better judge of morality. The person enslaved by faith is discouraged from questioning right and wrong and would seem to be ill equipped to deal with morally gray areas.
What do you think?