There's an odd dynamic out there in the netherworld where secularists and Christians debate morals. Secularists, of course, argue that we can derive the moral code from considering what is the best way for societies to live and interact with each other. For example, it's pretty obvious that theft is bad. Who would want to live in a society where everybody is constantly stealing from one another? Right and wrong are pretty easy to discern, really, at least on the major issues.
Christians are appalled by the secularist approach, or (as their talk-show hosts often call it) humanist approach, to defining morals. They know that God is the source of all morality. They know what is right and what is wrong by reading God's word. However, most Christians do not follow God's Law from the Old Testament. Sure, they will proudly post the ten commandments in front of courthouses, but that's about all you hear about obeying God's Law from the mainstream.
As my recent debate with David* had demonstrated, many Christians look at Matthew 22:36-40, where Jesus says the two most important commandments are to love God and to love your neighbor, and they take this as a license of freedom from God's Law. If they want to know how to act, they need only to think of how to love their neighbor.
The great paradox here is that this puts this type of Christian on the same footing as the secularist in determining morality. Each is judging morality as they see fit from their own hearts. Yet, oddly enough, Christians espousing this belief feels like they are somehow better at it. Their golden rule is somehow better than the golden rule of someone else. Go figure.
* This post is not directed at David, as I had not detected this unjustly superlative position in him. This post is based more off of my experience with others and listening to Christian radio.