[BipiewExifese]

OK, I'll take a shot at this. To understand where I'm coming from to begin with, I think that morality is nearly universal--that is, it doesn't vary much by which culture or group you belong to--and derives principally from human behavior and biology (so not exactly a "higher power"). I also tend to approach ethical issues from a deontological perspective rather than a consequentialist one. The reason I do that is mostly for practical reasons rather than some idea of deontological ethics being somehow more universally correct... I think that even a weakly skeptical epistemology derives deontological ethics as the most practicable. In layman's terms, it is way easier to tell people what they can or cannot do than it is to expect them to calculate consequences.

Good observation, most people will choose easy way with deontological ethics than put themselves in pain agonizing over moral dilemmas.
I'd be surprised if you found that on this (highly intellectual) forum, unless some of us are conservative theologians. Or did you mean people in general? I think your counterexample to "Thou shalt not kill" is mostly good, although... Yes, I meant people in general.
This assumes that there is no such thing as forfeiture of rights, which just about every rights-based ethical system has. After all, if there is no possible forfeiture of rights when breaking the rights of others, what is the use of defining rights to begin with? That’s right; it is only a problem from deontological perspective. Group will always set its survival, therefore morality, above an individual.
Rights mostly cater to group survival and not individuals anyway. Surely, individuals, the citizens have rights in today’s societies. We have rights and we feel important, better self esteem, better citizens,…not sure, can’t put my finger on it yet. Maybe we have only these rights that are not in conflict with group well being.
One thing is for sure, as soon as individual rights threaten the group, there goes your rights, prohibition, suspension of driving license, imprisonment.

I disagree. I think that the holy books are thick because they try to chronicle so much nonsense, not because they are seriously interested in deriving morality from the human condition. And theologians have so much output because they work within the religious paradigm, trying to make sense of something that has a tremendous amount of ambiguity in it. I have to agree.

But I fail to see how it follows that therefore, right and wrong is wholly dependent on what is best for the group. If that was the case, then we wouldn't be able to think of counterexamples, but the counterexamples are numerous, obviously--genocide etc. So why do we need to draw this out to group-based consequentialism, rather than simply noting it as a fact of the human condition that this is how ethical systems have tended to arise? It really seems to me that you're drawing a universal here, which is what you've said that others shouldn't be doing, and drawing a universal that is obviously not a universal. It seems to me that instead, we should be placing the fact that people tend to derive ethical systems based on group dynamics into our knowledge base that we use to review and revise the rules and rights that we already have in our existing culture(s). Yep, the genocide, I still wrestle with this… Many times I don’t like the consequences I’m arriving at… I would still have to go with consequentialism in this regard.
Often we have to uncouple ourselves from human emotions to understand forces of nature. They work same way if we like it or not. And yes I know it is not easy, it doesn’t feel right, but it might be the only way to do it.


That seems problematic. What are you measuring to determine what is the best economic system, purely by outcome? Is it measurable? Don’t take my word for it (even from my personal experience in both economic systems). Millions of people in many countries in Eastern Europe and Asia has spoken, decided and switched the sides.

I agree that this is a consequence of your understanding of ethics, but I can't imagine why you would be advertising it. A more powerful group killing another, "right" in some ethical system? Surely we ought to count that as "wrong" and make a rule against it in the real world... That’s my quest, to understand the world, the life, human evolution and emotions. I see beauty in simplicity too, and this was my exercise to understand morality and where it comes from. It would be great for understanding of morality, if morality could adhere to these two simple rules. And no, I’m not 100% sure that it is the right one. Possibly never ending work in progress, lol.
I thought it would be cool to bounce it off few brainiacs here and check the results.
A more powerful group killing another, "right" in some ethical system? Surely we ought to count that as "wrong" and make a rule against it in the real world... Sparkey, my all heart goes to you bud. I wish the world was the way you see it, and if I was a god I would create it exactly using deontological ethics.
According to GSML both groups will see it as right to kill enemy, both will see it wrong to be killed by enemy. It was always like this, till maybe end of twentieth century when many "citizens of the world" were born. We (me included) want to see it as a wrong thing.
The question is “Why do we like thinking this way”. The answer might be, because we are very socially motivated creatures, we care about well being of all people on earth. We wish all well, and this feels really, really good. Does it bring benefits to human kind, is it right or wrong? We honestly don’t know that, it just feels good and right.
But, when the dust settles few centuries later, only history and evolution of human kind will tell us if our way of thinking and acting was the right one. Our right and wrong is arbitrary and subjective. The truth is more relativistic and consequential like the whole universe.

PS. Really appreciated your comments.