Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

Frank Apisa wrote:

A human does not need a god to understand either version of the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would want to be treated...or...don't treat others as you would resent others treating you.

That just makes sense...and allows life to function more easily.

No... You are making a religious statement. There is natural or scientific reason that you should treat other people. It certainly isnt a constant in human nature.

This is something that is true because you believe it os true. It is a matter of faith.

A crucial feature of moral reasons is that they are always based (or ‘supervenient’) on other, ordinary facts that can be specified without reference to morality. Suppose for example that you are considering doing X. You notice that doing X will cause someone pain. That might strike you as a reason not to do X. Call that reason A. Another fact might also strike you as a reason against X: that it will be boring, perhaps, or too expensive. Call that reason B. Moralists will tell you that your reason A, but not your reason B, also ‘grounds’ another reason not to do X, namely that it would be immoral. And on that basis, reason A but not reason B now gets to be ‘inescapable’, ‘overriding’ any reason you had in favour of X: that it would be exciting, say, or memorable. So now it seems that reason A, unlike reason B, gives you two reasons not to do X: reason A (that it will cause pain), plus the fact that X is immoral. But since this second reason was just grounded on reason A, what can it possibly add to it? How can it suddenly make reason A override all other reasons? It seems to be just a way of counting it twice.