If our morals are based on "common sense" and "society"...?

Generally the majority of society determines the norms, so someone that disagrees is either looked at as a visionary or a rebel/outsider. Of course, there could be both opinions in any society. A good example of this process, is that in the late 50's and early 60's divorce was considered to be morally wrong (it still is to some extent in some circles) but as more people were divorced, especially for very good reasons, it became more socially acceptable even in conservative churches.

Some areas for further thought: Ever here of the code of thieves? Many subcultures or groups have their own particular morality and norms, especially in "fringe" groups. Various cliches in High School are a good example.

Edit:

Asserting that god created us knowing right and wrong only makes sense if you have only been exposed to a single moral system. There have been and still are many different moral systems and they do not always intersect with each other on various values. Some central values like not murdering are often similar but still can wildy vary.

Depends on the political system.

Small tribal groups decide by consensus. Larger groups decide according to the will of the tribal chief: in still larger groups such as temple-states there is a balance between the political power of the King and that of the Preistly classes.

Democracy is a further development, but except in the case of referrenda, decisions are still made by a political class - the only difference being that they are ultimately held accountable to the people through elections.

I don't recall the author of these thoughts but non-the-less I agree fully:

All human beings are moral agents created in God’s image and are expected to recognize right from wrong because they all reflect God’s moral character. The fact that human beings are the kinds of creatures that can recognize the moral imperatives that are part of the very fabric of the universe argues strongly against naturalism. Unlike the laws of nature, which even inanimate objects obey, moral imperatives appeal to our will and invite us to make real decisions on real moral issues. The only other parallel experience we have of dos and don’ts comes from minds. Thus when the atheist rejects God while insisting on the validity of morality, he is merely rejecting the cause while clinging to the effect.

Without God, morality is reduced to whatever mode of behavior human beings agree on. There is no action that is objectively right or wrong. Rape, hate, murder and other such acts are only wrong because they have been deemed to be so in the course of human evolution. Had human evolution taken a different course, these acts might well have been the valued elements of our moral code. Even Nazi morality would be right had the Nazis succeeded in their quest for world dominance. Unless the world contains behavioral guidelines that transcend human decisions, there is no reason why anyone should object to such conclusions.

What is acceptable behaviour is dictated by the norms of the society in which you live. A few hundred years ago people thought nothing of owning or selling slaves and drugs such as opium and cocaine were freely and legally available. Society changes and what is defined as moral changes with it.

No invisible being being required.

Morals are based on alot more than just common sense and society

You're right.

Morality refers to a universal law which we all have an obligation to obey. Morality loses all meaning when it is based upon our own authority.

Morality requires a higher moral authority than ourselves and that can only be God. Without God, morality degenerates into "do whatever you feel like doing".

In man's drive for self-preservation, he instinctively 'decides' on just two courses of action: He seeks out that which will cause him pleasure, - and seeks to avoid that which would cause him displeasure.

It is in these two 'choices' within which the human construct of 'morality' is rooted; pleasure being 'good' and displeasure being 'evil'.

In truth, however, 'evil' is not really a moral at all...

Rather, it is the definition given to those conditions which are brought about when one's decisions cause one to fail in avoiding displeasure,...

... particularly when this decision is also directly related to another's success in achieving pleasure.

One man's right is another man's wrong...

One man's pleasure is another man's pain...

One man's good is another man's evil...

...and one man's God becomes another man's Devil,...

... when the Devil's name is "Master"...

-

Some of us, other than christians, are willing to allow different groups to have great flexibility in their own set of morals.

You listen to your conscious. Not all of human law (societal ideals) are in line with God's law. God Bless...

Morals don't come from common sense. They come from good parenting/friends/the environment/etc. Some boy growing up with wolves wouldn't have much of a developed sense of morality; there has to be some sort of influential thing that has shown the person what's right vs. what's wrong. Now, what common sense does tell us is that most of the things that are deemed illegal are most likely in the "bad" catagory. :)