In a 2004 book I wrote on Ethics, I argued that there is a difference between morals (what we do) and ethics (what we ought to do).  Ethics needs to be rooted in a set of absolute propositions that do not change.  Otherwise, ethics is a system rooted firmly in mid-air and morals are simply the behavior of people without any standards.  Recently, Marvin Olasky reviewed a book by Dartmouth professor Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (WSA) entitled Morality Without God.  WSA argues that we do not need God:  we all should simply agree not to harm others—cause death, pain or disability—unless there is “adequate reason.”  Olasky tested this thesis by emailing WSA on the matter of abortion.  WSA responded that there “is no simple solution to this complex problem. . . the moral problem of abortion cannot be solved by citing religious texts or religious leaders.”  He went on that “What matters is the present and future harm to the fetus and others.  This does not solve the problem, but it tells us where to focus our discussions.”  This did not satisfy Olasky, so he continued the email questions.  WSA finally responded that “The bottom line is that I think some moral problems are insolvable. . . . they are just too difficult for us to figure out. . . . The answer, ‘I do not know,’ should become more common.”  Olasky said that such an answer is rarely satisfactory, to which WSA responded:  “Why not?  People get used to having a belief about everything, but they do not have to.  Life can be lived like an experiment where you guess but do not believe until you see how it turns out.”