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