Lisa Weisenstein writes that I am a cultural relativist when it comes to morality and implies, because I don't believe in a morality derived from religion (which she characterizes) as absolute, that societal whims are the only standards left by which to judge an action to be moral or immoral. Ms. Weisenstein falls into the trap of assuming that morality can only be derived by reference to rules or edicts, while failing to address exactly why morality is needed. Morality is simply a code of values to guide one's life and is indispensable for survival. An action is moral when it promotes one's survival. What determines whether something is moral or not is whether it, objectively, furthers one life. For example, being productive is moral because it provides one the means by which to procure the elements necessary to survive while being chronically unproductive (as a matter of choice) is immoral. The same analysis could be applied to her examples of pedophilia and bestiality. Regarding her likening my position to that of Machiavelli or Mao, nothing could be further from the truth. The respecting of other's rights to their lives is part of a moral existence not because a deity wills it, but because no one's genuine long range interests and livelihood are best served by murdering or pillaging others. Morality is a guide to living on earth not a ticket to the realm of the supernatural.