Goodness Without God is Good Enough: William Lane Craig vs Paul Kurtz 7/7

Jones and Green are stranded in the Arctic. Jones has a coat. Green doesn't. Green is going to die. Is it morally correc for Jones to give Green his coat? Maybe. But lets complicate things. Jones is a life-saving surgeon. Green is a common theif and drug user. Is the altruistic act of giving up the coat STILL a moral imperative? Morality can change from religion to religion, scenario to scenario. It is not so simple, in my opinion, as infallable rules from different Gods with conflicting ideas.

And no. Everything is not simply permitted because there is no God. We impose rule upon ourselves. We know, for example that it is "wrong" to steal because we would not want to be stolen from. Likewise, it is not a productive means of acquiring wealth. One person benefits, others lose. Simple. Furthermore, Altruism is NOT always the morally correct thing. It is something that we in a resource-rich society can flatter ourselves with. I'll continue with this scenario:

First of all, the butterfly effect does not play into this. I was being quite general in my statement before. In fact, the moral act is the act that produces the most positive FORSEEABLE result. If you could look into the future to see how the results of your actions would pan out, morality would not need to exist at all. We should do what seems like it will create the most positive result without actually knowing.