When you treat others as yourself and wouldnt do something to others that you wouldnt want done to you

Except that slaughter is bad because slaughtering the poor family would be bad for the poor family

What if I deem it better to take your things so I can "help" others?

Therefore its not right

Its only right if it would also be better to the same to you in that situation which it isnt

But what if that slaughter was done for the greater good?

And what gives this "Golden rule" you propose any more legitimacy than communism, survival of the fittest, or any other system?

It cant be the greater good because no person would advocate their own slaughter

Who are you to decide good?

When you divide into groups it becomes immoral

Is what is good for one man the same for all men?

We know this through intelligence.

If you try and slaughter the rich they use the riches to protect and enslave the poor trying to rise up

Where does intelligence come from? What determines more intelligent from less intelligent?

And take others down for your own benefit

Intelligence comes from examining life and learning the way to resolve situations with the least conflict

What if something can't be resolved?

And again, why is your system any more legitimate than another?

It can always be resolved

What makes your system better than mine?

Better? Define better.

Define good. Define moral. Define right.

Im speaking to rule from experience where as you are simply making it supernatural authoritarianism

Where did these concepts come from?

So where were these ideas before you were born?

The concepts stem from intelligence

No, because stupid people still know right from wrong

Which still stems from intelligence

Right and wrong are absolute concepts. Though not everything is necessarily right or wrong, what is right is right.

Of weighing consequence vs gain

It's an absolute concept. You can't be a little pregnant

Morality isnt absolutely though

And for you to say, it's righteous to "do unto others..." then where does that come from? Where did the idea first originate?

Isn't it? So are you saying there is an instance in which murder, rape, theft, etc are okay?

It came from the clever philosophers who wrote the bible

Where did those philosophers get the idea?

There is a difference between mala in se and mala prohibita

And what makes malum in se?

For instance is raping a child the same as being called a rapist for not reading a girls mind that she isnt comfortable

A tax collector, a fisherman, and a doctor who followed some new age philosopher?

Its the difference between things that are cleary wrong from things like speeding tickets

Also it all dates back to Socrates. Hardly new age

So the day before Socrates was born, it was okay to do something?

Socrates and other philosophers have influenced more than religion in many aspects

Okay so they are the origin of morality?

The concept as we study it not as an intangible aspect

You say these ideas go back to Socrates

Just like love still existed before the word did

Or pain or comfort

Who lived from 470 BC to 399 BC.

The Code of Ur Nammu was written around 2100 BC and includes things like, don't murder

And they were a western religion?

Judaism and Christianity aren't Western religions in your definition either

But you're deflecting

Socrates died 399 BC. The oldest discovered "written" law to date was chiseled 2100 BC

But the origin of the current study of morality is based on Socrates

In it, it forbids murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping, lying, and so on

Which are mala en se

Things people have always regarded as wrong

So where did the Sumerians get the idea? WHY did people always regard them as wrong?

They got it from intelligence

Where did that intelligence come from?

Those thing have always been short term in their gains and far more detrimental

The intelligence came from learning

Learning how? Reading? So prior to the invention of writing, no morality could exist?

Even animals will not engage in many of those things alone

Oh yes they will

Animals rape, kill, eat each other, steal, a whole list of things

What animal only rapes?

What animals only kill with no need to eat?

Surplus killing is rare in animals

Ducks, geese, bottlenose dolphins, chimps, orangutans

Rape isnt common in animals nor is wanton murder

It bears too much risk

And therefore is wrong

Up to half of all matings of orangutans are rape

So if there's no risk, it's right?

Which is a small amount compared to the entire animal kingdom

Its only humans who have developed minds to understand vastly complex risks and benefits that true morals appeared

Risk and benefit doesn't weigh into it

There's very little risk in many immoral acts

There is very little benefit in those acts most likely

Such as lies

I can probably kill someone and take a lot of his shit and get away with it

47% chance of being convicted

But there is greater risk

That's less than half

And that also is taking into account that the vast majority of murderers are dumber than dog shit

If you lied to that same person there is 0 chance of being convicted

Of those same murderer though how many have gone to hell?

Most

The correct answer to that if I remember correctly is that only god could possibly know. Anything else is you assuming you know better than god.

Did God not say, thou shalt not murder?

How do you know that most of those people actually commited murder?

How do you know they were injustly charged?

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, including their own confessions

It is only for god to know those things

The vast majority of people who believe in God also believe in Hell

And?

Anyone who truly believes in Hell would be absolutely terrified of it