In “Ethics and Religion; Moral Relativism” he argues that one cannot equate morality and religion.  One of his reasons was because there are many different religions and it is unknown which religion to follow.  I felt that was a very good argument and that it should have been made in regards to laws.  He argued that simply following laws cannot be all that is considered in morality.  He fails to bring up that different countries and even different states have different laws.  How would a person know which state's or country's laws to follow?  It is unrealistic to assume that morality would change based on where a person is living so some country's or state's laws could be wrong while there is one state or country who's laws are correct.  It would be near impossible for people to know which one and they could risk breaking a law in their own country or state so that they could follow the "moral law" in another country or state.

One could argue that the United Nations would have laws which should be considered moral above all else.  The United Nations creates laws for the entire world instead of just one country so the laws should be obeyed more universally. He could have made his argument stronger if he discussed laws that the United Nations has that either aren't moral or laws that they don't have which could ensure morality.  He could bring up that the laws made by the United Nations are generally written by people in a bias way.  The United States has not been charged when war crimes when it arguably should have because the United States has more power in the United Nations.  I believe that if he had brought up these points he would have made that argument a lot stronger.