First of all, everyone has morals. Even Hitler had morals. For example, Hitler was an avid vegetarian because he loved animals, and the Nazi party passed the most progressive laws to date to protect animals for such things as scientific experimentation. The Nazi party was also advocates of the environment as they created the first National parks in Europe, were the first to put animals and plants on endangered species list to protect them and were horrified at the prospect of talk about putting a damn on the Rhine due to the possible environmental consequences.
They also adopted the view that the human race could be genetically improved, which would be for the general "good" of society.
For example, Charles Darwin wrote this:
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
So, the question must be asked, if you can genetically alter sheep and cows to achieve what is best for society, why can't you do this with human beings? The odd part of Darwin's writing is what I highlighted. What does a "noble" nature have to do with science? Nothing. Hitler then adopted a moral view that science is what is real and not the God talk about some noble nature that has nothing to do with science. So, Hitler went into hospitals and assessed who in the hospital was a benefit to the Fatherland, and who was a liability. Those that were a liability, the terminally ill, the insane, etc., were then sent to the basement and never seen again. And those who had genetic flaws, like hemophilia, were prevented from having children, etc. The Left is also headed down this road by championing things like euthanasia and abortion. Also, I have heard that the global Climate cult has been limited farming around the globe due to their crusade against carbon emissions from fertilizers as the UN glibly declares that about a billion people will starve to death next year. Is this mass genocide on a scale so huge it has never been seen before?
It then all comes to whose morality you go by, doesn't it? Oddly enough, the godless morality of the Left is creepily similar to that of the Nazi party, especially now that the Left now hates Jews.
Is God necessary from going down this dark moral path? He apparently is. again, by nothing more than observation of the past and present.
In fact, look at abortion today. When society was influenced more by the church, it was seen as immoral. However, as society divorced itself from the church and the state made it legal, the general view is that it is OK. This shows that people are basically sheep when it comes to morality. That is a fact by observation. It then comes down to, which shepherd do you then choose to guide your morality? Is it God or the state or something or someone else?
And why do most people have abortions today? It is due to financial concerns. Oddly enough, pagan religions used to frequently sacrifice their children to the pagan gods as well for such things as better crops, victory at war, and oddly enough, better fertility, just like people do today for a better financial position by having an abortion. The love of money truly is the root of all evil.
This is why when Abraham was told to sacrifice his son, Abraham did not think it an odd request because that sort of thing was done around him all the time. But when God stopped him, it sent a message to Abraham and to everyone during that time that the God of the Bible is different and is not like this.
Some things never change without the true God in our lives.
A godless morality is a huge conundrum for those not of faith because without mankind being made in the image of God, thus special and protected, you then are no better than a glorified animal As I have said before, look at how humans treat animals. They lock them in zoos for our entertainment, use them as beasts of burden, and kill and eat them. And yes, only the God of the Bible teaches that mankind is made in his image, thus special and separate from the animal kingdom and must be treated accordingly.
The choice society has it to choose the morality that best suits them.
