In a world of moral relativism, rules are ultimately determined by what keeps people living together relatively happily. In our society enforcing a rule prohibiting pedophilia contributes to a "safer feeling" environment. Similarly laws against theft don't need a religious reason - people live better closer together when things like theft, murder, and assault are prohibited and offenders are prosecuted.

We don't need a god to tell us it's wrong to steal stuff - prohibiting such actions makes our environment safer and ultimately allows us to be more productive.

Compare and contrast with the taliban which had very strictly enforced morals based on religion. According to their "morals" women should be kept almost completely out of society. Ultimately this experiment would have failed because they were shutting 50% of the economy down and thus greatly hampering their productivity and greatly increasing their own poverty.

I would classify myself as a moral relativist. If you're not a relativist, then you believe that there is some ultimate objective list of what is right and wrong. And then it's a question of where that list comes from and by who's authority it's backed up, which begs the question of god again. Since I don't think that god should or cares to (if he/she/it/them exists) be involved in human afairs, then there's not really an ultimate authority in my point of view. Therefore I have to be a relativist.

I think that the reality is that everyone is a relativist whether they admit it or not because regardless of WHERE you get your moral standards from, YOU decided to live by them. And your selections will probably not completely jive with your neighbors even if you share the same religious or cultural background.

Morals are basically conventions that allow groups of humans to live together. There are some that seem to be common within most communities, and some that are radically different between communities. The one universal constant is that no community is WITHOUT a set of rules to live by.

Those rules are usually set up by a general consensus, which is only an agreement by the majority. There are lots of people in the minority who may disagree with the morals of a community but, in the interest of remaining with the group, will keep those differences hidden, or depending on how radical their views are from the rest of the group, become exhiled because of them. Since the morals are established to promote the well being of the group, the group won't be able to deal with someone who doesn't share the same programming for long.

What is "right" and "wrong" is a matter of what your community thinks is right and wrong. If you disagree, then you face the consequences. That doesn't mean you can't take a stand for yourself if you believe something different. As long as you are willing to be an adult and accept responsibilty for your actions, then it shouldn't matter whether people label them right or wrong as long as you feel your actions are right. Your moral conviction won't exclude you from the judgement of your community, however! But sometimes it's necessary to transcend group mentality for a community to evolve.