Not very well, since as noted I don't understand how it can be meaningful (how can an action can have an objectively real metaphysical prescriptive property?) If it helps, moral realists generally believe the same thing about numbers & mathematical axioms and sometimes other irreducible concepts like logical axioms - they simply exist as a part of reality independent from our minds (and/or the mind of God). Very complicated subject, a lot of it over my head.
It's not just for the better of society/species. The only time it makes sense to do anything you want, is when you know you can get away with it all of the time. If you have rules and obey the rules, and everyone else obeys the rules, you can expect to live longer because there are far more Eastoff's who would die by the hands of the few Lebron James physical freaks.
I was just responding to your question about why atheists don't try to get away with whatever they can at the expense of others. It may actually be more beneficial to treat others as you would want to be treated, both in terms of survival benefits and, in particular, psychologically.
So in other words, notions like the golden rule weren't conceived by man, they simply always existed prior to man "discovering" them?
because all of those are modern functioning societies? I would argue that the Romans were operating on the morals of the day and Rwanda and Nazi Germany are examples of hijacked societies or break downs in societies.
But my battle isn't "Because we need laws to survive" doesn't give solid reasoning, nor does it answer how evolving now works without genetic reasoning. Like is this trait carried from mother to son, to grandchild and so on? And I go back to the "Well who makes these rules and are they really looking out for our interest?"
Obviously societal morals depend on the society and the times. At one point, this society banned alcohol. In Roman times, they certainly did to others what they would not want done to themselves. They thrived, too. The Mayans played sports games and the losing team was routinely killed. I don't see any golden rule in that. Rwanda was a case where there was no real society anymore; the one they had broke down. The result wasn't golden rule in action, but what looks to me to be Man's true nature. It is that we reason, and that if I don't kill you/you won't kill me is a fair trade, that we generally (in the West) don't act like the Rwandans.
Assuming the golden rule is an objective moral axiom then supposedly, yeah - in the same sense 2+2 = 4 before anyone discovered that, or even before there were 4 things in the universe.
That's what really interests me about this philosophy. Like even those that kill are actually going against the grain of nature. It would be like those apposed of the "Golden Rule" saying "Hey I can tell you 2 + 2 is really 40".
This is why I don't agree that society is the determining factor. When society breaks, man resorts back to human nature... That would only prove that "The Golden Rule" is not natural.
The golden rule is not natural. It only makes sense when you consider property rights. I don't think I care if I insult you and you insult me back. Do unto you as you do to me. No real harm there. But fuck with what you own (including your person)? Watch out. So yeah, it is a societal thing. A general agreement among the people.
It's really obvious. The Chinese have no problem with a one child rule and forced abortions and we are constantly pushing our concept of human rights on them and upon others. There are modern civilizations that have slavery and women are treated as chattel, and so on. Those aren't of our (USA) compass.
The US is a "closed system". Within the system, the ones with most power dictate the people's compass? You agree with this?
