Stephen Layman, defends the argument that morality is relative to religions. At the beginning of the essay, the author states clearly the arguments of the secular side, who believes that morality is based on secular power rather than God. Then, he carefully disputes their reasoning by showing the controversies in those points. .
First of all, secular side says that since society cannot function well unless individuals have moral virtue, and since that individuals cannot separate from the society, morality pays for the self-interest. For example, people follow the etiquette because they believe that the society will pay them back in long run with good interpersonal relationships. However, as Layman argues, although it seems that the institution of morality pays for individuals who participate and for those who are consciously thinking about return payment, this is not always true. There is no absolute guarantee that the institution would pay back. In that case, it is hard to comprehend why people should bother with the moral codes if their self-interests are not satisfied.
Secondly, he points out the existence of altruism. From a purely secular view, people may say that it is for the sake of whole society or even the race. Risking the lives of some small portion of the population can ensure the continuation of the whole society. Nevertheless, this seems rather illogical since to those individuals, their losses in altruistic acts, especially those risking their own lives, outweigh far more than the gains for the continuation of race. If death is the eternal termination (without the belief of afterlives), what happen to the society after one's death does not matter to that individual any longer. .
Thirdly, extending its argument, the secular side says that under certain "ifthen" conditions, individuals are allowed to break moral codes. The author lists several cases in which secret violations of morality are possible.
