First of all, secular side says that since society cannot function well unless individuals have moral virtue, and since that individuals cannot separate from the society, morality pays for the self-interest. For example, people follow the etiquette because they believe that the society will pay them back in long run with good interpersonal relationships. However, as Layman argues, although it seems that the institution of morality pays for individuals who participate and for those who are consciously thinking about return payment, this is not always true.

Thirdly, extending its argument, the secular side says that under certain ¡§if¡Kthen¡¨ conditions, individuals are allowed to break moral codes. The author lists several cases in which secret violations of morality are possible. Although following the moral codes can ensure the peace in the society, when people weigh the gains and losses, they may find that secret violations pay off better in terms of physical goods than the intangible morality.

Fourthly, although secular sides says that people do good things to achieve inner peace, this logic does not apply to people who have less moral feelings than others. The violation of morality does not always lead to chaos in the inner peace, and chaos do not always lead to obedience to moral virtues. Furthermore, this argument also does not apply to individuals who revise their moral standards. People with less idealistic standards than others do

Some topics in this essay:
Stephen Layman, Form God, inner peace, moral codes, plato¡¦s form god, Plato¡¦s Form, plato¡¦s form, , moral virtues, morality pays, emergent phenomenon, argument morality, form god, secret violations,