My take on the moral argument

"The final argument I’ll give you is, I feel, the most important. It’s the moral argument.

1. Unless there is an objective moral authority there cannot be objective moral absolutes.
2. There are objective moral absolutes.
3. Therefore an objective universal moral authority exists.

The atheist, on this point, is wrong to justify being kind rather than cruel, or to be nice rather than mean, or to be helpful rather than selfish.

If there is no God then there are no moral absolutes. Thus you get ethical subjectivism or ethical relativism.

Ethical relativism is the view that right and wrong are established be the time and culture in which people live. For example, if a culture thinks it’s right to rape woman then we can’t say they are wrong in doing so. All we can say is it’s right for them and wrong for us. That’s absurd. The problems with ethical relativism are as follows.

1. The relativist wants to say that there are no absolute truths about morals. (This is self refuting as it is a moral statement)
2. It’s usually difficult to determine what a culture is.
3. If there are two cultures which one is the normative one, which one is the authoritative one?
4. How many people in a culture have to think something is wrong before it’s wrong?
5. If the majority says it’s right, what if the majority says Relativism is wrong?

Ethical subjectivism is the belief that right and wrong are simply the matter of ones own feeling, tastes, preferences, etc. So the atheist can’t say that any one behavior or act is preferable over another."

I'll make my position clear right from the get-go:

I'm an atheist, and moral absolutes exist.

(To be honest, I don't like that phrasing. I simply have an avoidance of the word "absolute", because to me it signifies a kind of arrogance. I'm much more comfortable saying that I believe right and wrong answers to moral questions exist, which means essentially the same thing.)

It should be obvious, then, that my disagreement lies with premise one. I would not ever describe myself as a moral or ethical relativist. I do believe that moral absolutes can and do exist with no need for a moral authority. How can this be so? Well, let's begin with definitions:

It is clear that not everyone believes that morality consists of the same actions. A suicide bomber thinks death for Allah is a moral action. I do not. We both claim that our version of morality is more true. This scenario can be found in the comparison of almost any two human beings. People simply have different ideas about which actions are moral, and which actions are immoral. So in that subjective sense, moral relativism is an obvious truth. The actions or thoughts labeled as moral and immoral change relative to the person in question. It is these views that are subject to factors in culture, upbringing, trauma, religion, etc. I will use a lowercase m when discussing this personal, subjective morality.
But I don't believe that all moralities are equally right, or even worthy of equal respect. Certain moralities are more or less right, because right answers to moral questions exist. Now it becomes necessary for me to define this "right-or-wrong" style morality I'm speaking of, and it is on this definition that my argument hinges. It is clear that actions taken by humans have affects on other conscious beings. Some of these effects lower the overall happiness and quality of life for other beings, and some raise the overall happiness and quality of life for other beings. I define (absolute) morality as those actions which result in the best possible scenario of life, that is, the maximum happiness and maximum quality of life, for the greatest number of conscious beings. So clearly, actions can be split into two categories: those which lower the maximum good for the maximum beings, and those which raise the maximum good for the maximum beings. From now on, I'll use an uppercase M when referring this Morality.

I understand the objections to this view:
"How can we know which actions will result in the maximum good for the maximum people?"
-This is good point. Sam Harris, for example, hopes that since the maximum good is a condition created by certain types of behavior across society, science will one day be able to discover and list these conditions. I'm skeptical of his enthusiasm and don't know how science can develop methodology to study this ethically, but he is right, at least in theory. It is possible to observe which actions result in the greatest good for the greatest number of beings. Humans have been doing it for a long time, and we've learned some pretty useful things about Morality. We're discovering Morality all the time, albeit to different degrees between cultures and individuals. It is now almost uniformly agreed that the owning of another human being as property is immoral. But go back 200 or 300 years, and very few people indeed would find this immoral. Does this mean Morals are relative? No! (though morals are). Slavery is Morally wrong today, it was Morally wrong 200 years ago, and it was Morally wrong when Yahweh commanded it. (And don't say he didn't...it's in the bible, after all.) It is clear why slavery is Morally wrong: it robs people of happiness and a good quality of life, it does not create the maximum good for the maximum number of people.
So although we lack a streamlined process to discover Moral truth, we are able to do so in our own slow, trial-and-error way.

"Morality requires an authority"
-I've tried to explain that Morality does not need an authority, and hopefully I've done so in a clear manner. If we take this criticism as truth, however, we run in to more problems. I'm sure anyone who's ever studied philosophy knows Euthyphro's Dilemma. Does the divine command Moral actions because they are Moral? If so, the divine merely support that which is already Morally true. Or are Moral actions simply whatever the divine commands? If so, Morality is no more than the arbitrary dictates of the divine. I've never read a sufficient theistic response to this dilemma. But at any rate, it doesn't apply in my discussion of Morality.

"If we can't always know which actions are Moral, how can one ever construct a Moral code?"
-I'm reminded of the quotation from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies: "They're more like guidelines.."
I'm very skeptical that the formation of an absolute Moral code is a worthwhile or even good endeavor. I'm more keen to liken my view of Moral truth to my epistemological view of truth in general. We may never know absolute Morality or absolute Truth, but we can use evidence and reason in order to construct the best approximation possible for both of these. We are able to say what is wrong and what is right, what is true and what is false, based on a scale of probabilities, rather than unjustified certainties. So yes, unfortunately, we can never accumulate all the relevant data to understand and codify an absolute Morality. That is why morality exists; it is an individual's (theoretically) best attempt at understanding Morality. If we were to construct a code, such as the Ten Commandments, it would only, at best, serve as the best approximation of Morality currently available. It certainly would not be Morality itself. Sticking only with the Ten Commandments, we can find several exceptions to these rules:

For example, "Thou shall not kill/murder."
Imagine you are stationed at the switch of a railway intersection. The approaching train is on track to turn left. However, to the left are three people tied to the track. If you throw the switch, the train will go right, and unfortunately, right off a cliff. The conductor is the only person on the train. What is the Moral action? To throw the switch is to inevitably cause the death of the conductor. To not throw the switch is to passively allow the death of three people. Even though you will be killing the conductor, the Moral action is to throw the switch. This contradicts an absolute command to never kill, however, highlighting the foolishness of a single code.

Or another example, "Thou shall not steal"
What if an evil dictator has released poison into the water supply of an impoverished neighborhood, and he alone is housing the antidote in his government headquarters? As you family and neighborhood gets sick, the Moral option is to break in and steal the antidote.

Even these seemingly obvious moral standards have exceptions, and a code is not a good idea. What should we use to guide our moral actions then? Reason. Unfortunately for some unfamiliar with tough thought who'd prefer a code, discovering Morality is a sometimes tricky and thought-provoking business. Our only way to discern right from wrong is to use our experience and our reason, and not to rely on authority, codes, or commandments. Morality is to be discovered, not commanded. If one only follows rules blindly because they believe such rules have been commanded from a reputable source, I'd argue that their actions are not based on true Morality but only on obedience. Coming to know Morality requires critical and independent thought, not unthinking deference.

So I, as an atheist, AM able to justify being kind rather than cruel, nice rather than mean, and helpful rather than selfish, and I'm able to say why these types of actions are preferable. These are the types of actions that evidence and reason tell us result in an increase in well-being, of goodness, and happiness for conscious beings. So long as I care about my fellow man and woman, as well as my own well-being, that is all the justification I or anyone needs.
And, since I know the objection, I do realize that not everyone does care for their fellow human beings. Those are frankly immoral people. And genuine care for others cannot be commanded by an authority, or forced by threats. Care for others based on those reasons, (the reasons religion offers) only create obedience. Genuine care must be fostered and nurtured through the interactions of humans everywhere. How to go about that...is a topic for another day.