as are all. The trick is to move the consensus to yours.
And it would have to be a trick for there is no rational reason that could change a person's preferences.
No, not anymore than arguing which system of government is better, or which tax code would be better. It is important to building a society that I think is better.
Which works if there your preferences regarding what is 'better' are already aligned. If there is no such agreement, the argument is pointless. No more meaningful than arguing that chocolate ice cream is 'better' than vanilla ice cream.
And that's pretty much it. I live now in a society where many people assume a vastly different goal to their lives than those in my home country. In the absence of any true 'best' that applies to both groups, it is simply impossible to argue that one or other of the resulting moralities is 'better'.
There is no 'case' to 'convince' people to change their preferences. There is only force or trickery - whether that involves deities or not.
Because that shows that it is completely possible for a society to develop morals without a god dictating them, which you claimed it wasnt.
All you have shown is the people can make stuff up, which is hardly surprising. Needless to say, that isn't what I was claiming for a morality from God.
Cheers,
sparky