Moral Implications of Atheism

[Ritter]

And he does if he stays with religion? Have you heard of the inquisition by any chance?

I will not deny that atrocities were made in the name of God. It would take a fool not to.

What was the motivation behind these. At the end of the day, who did they say Christ was?

As for the Inquisition, I see your lot of poor Spaniards and raise you Mao's Great Leap Forward.

I can play that game all day, Grey.

 

[Nick01]

That is why I said with exceptions. Western Democracy, conceived by the ancient greeks, only spread when governments started to be secularized. And again all cultures differ when it comes to what is moral, but most agree that things like theft and murder are wrong.

The reason people don't like despots is a logical one, not a moral one. And I would also prefer a law in which lepers weren't treated as morally unclean. For every logical law there is a doubly illogical one given by religion.

That's a lot of exceptions. Arguably more than the actual rule. It would not be difficult to argue that Western morality, against not only the schema of human history, but against evolutionary history, is a blip. And as I pointed out, what is theft and what is murder is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Suppose you said killing anyone was wrong. Suppose I said killing anyone I came into direct contact with who did not come from my town, for instance, was morally acceptable, if not always necessary. What makes your position morally better than mine? Certainly, both of these views have been dominant at different stages in history, if we're going to argue historiographically. Whether Western Democracy grew amidst secularisation as a necessary outcome is debatable, if not also only tangentially related. Feel free to state your case for this in more detail, if you like,

As for logical and moral opposition to despots, it's not illogical if you're the despot, let alone immoral. That's my point. What is it that makes the despot not simply a threat to survival, but actually 'wrong' or 'evil' on some other level? Or would you agree that such labels are actually fictitious, and that all that matters is power of arms? If a despot has power of arms, is he actually wrong? Is it only, therefore, only ever possible to say that a despot was simply 'weak'?

And I didn't say anything about lepers being immoral. Care to clue me in on where you're going with that?

 

[Grey]

I will not deny that atrocities were made in the name of God. It would take a fool not to.

What was the motivation behind these. At the end of the day, who did they say Christ was?

As for the Inquisition, I see your lot of poor Spaniards and raise you Mao's Great Leap Forward.

I can play that game all day, Grey.

I wasn't making the statement that the entirety of religion is B.S and illogical I'm saying that religion doesn't determine whether or not someone is good, bad, or illogical or logical in other aspects of their lives. It all depends on the individual.

 

[Grey]

And as I pointed out, what is theft and what is murder is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Suppose you said killing anyone was wrong. Suppose I said killing anyone I came into direct contact with who did not come from my town, for instance, was morally acceptable, if not always necessary. What makes your position morally better than mine?

As for logical and moral opposition to despots, it's not illogical if you're the despot, let alone immoral. That's my point. What is it that makes the despot not simply a threat to survival, but actually 'wrong' or 'evil' on some other level? Or would you agree that such labels are actually fictitious, and that all that matters is power of arms? If a despot has power of arms, is he actually wrong? Is it only, therefore, only ever possible to say that a despot was simply 'weak'?

And I didn't say anything about lepers being immoral. Care to clue me in on where you're going with that?

That's why the law or moral is what society agrees upon, and almost universally theft and murder are illegal in even ancient societies. There is no moral authority, morality is what individuals feel is right and the whole of society agrees upon of course there are often cultural conflicts on what is right, like now, on the prohibition of substances, but the idea of murder, and theft are universal.

As for the despot were just getting into a political debate, plenty of theist monarchs, even featured monarchs in the bible were despots.

Leprosy for a long time (perhaps even by a few today) was considered a spiritual sickness, that sin had incurred the wrath of Yahweh to cause it.

 

[Imperfect]

but even as a christian do you really need the bible to realize whether things are right or wrong? I mean its not like if God stopped existing tomorrow Id go out and murder and rape to my hearts content because yu know what are morals?

Gods spirit gives us the sense of right and wrong.

also, common sense serves, any action with a bad reaction is wrong.

 

[Ritter]

I wasn't making the statement that the entirety of religion is B.S and illogical I'm saying that religion doesn't determine whether or not someone is good, bad, or illogical or logical in other aspects of their lives. It all depends on the individual.

It appears though that when you do take issue with points made, they have a religious base.

Case in point:

And he does if he stays with religion? Have you heard of the inquisition by any chance?

I could be splitting hairs though. There is also the fact that this is a forum largely populated by Christians with a more conservative worldview with a few notable exceptions. So of course your arguments with Christians would be more prevalent.

As for personal conduct, I agree with you. I think most people on here would agree with you if they got past their initial feelings regarding your post.

I know Christians who are monsters (likely not Christians as the Bible defines them) and agnostics who live their lives in a fashion that puts me to shame. Even if one lived under a rock and simply read history books, they would notice the same phenomena.

The catch here is that these people (well, most of them) are judged from a moral yardstick of some sort. How would you go about having this determined?

Ah, well this is convenient.

That's why the law or moral is what society agrees upon, and almost universally theft and murder are illegal in even ancient societies. There is no moral authority, morality is what individuals feel is right and the whole of society agrees upon of course there are often cultural conflicts on what is right, like now, on the prohibition of substances, but the idea of murder, and theft are universal.

First, let's make a distinction. There is the difference between the moral law and the enaction of law or a magesterial implementation of order. I assume though that this is where we fundamentally disagree.

To reduce this Law to something man can create on an individual or societal basis gives you a serious problem. Sure there are certain things people agree upon (murder, theft, deceit, etc), but humans have an amazing ability to rephrase, distort, and reframe. All these crimes are more common and often justified, but they are called different things.

"I am not stealing! I am taking what is rightfully mine!" a man might say as he swipes money from another man's pocket or a government organization says at it confiscates land.

"I am not murdering!" another says, "I am purging the world of heretics!" or "I am ensuring the racial purity of the next few generations!"

The question ultimately does become political. If morals are merely values agreed upon, the tyranny of the majority, tyranny of the strongman, and, most importantly, tyranny of the moment rule.

Morals, as we classically conceive of them, become baseless if there is no greater force guiding them and determining them. Because fallen man lives under law, he will find every reason to warp morals to suit his fancy.

If you are fine with keeping yourself open, keep in mind what you keep yourself open to.

 

[Grey]

To reduce this Law to something man can create on an individual or societal basis gives you a serious problem. Sure there are certain things people agree upon (murder, theft, deceit, etc), but humans have an amazing ability to rephrase, distort, and reframe. All these crimes are more common and often justified, but they are called different things.

"I am not stealing! I am taking what is rightfully mine!" a man might say as he swipes money from another man's pocket or a government organization says at it confiscates land.

"I am not murdering!" another says, "I am purging the world of heretics!" or "I am ensuring the racial purity of the next few generations!"

The question ultimately does become political. If morals are merely values agreed upon, the tyranny of the majority, tyranny of the strongman, and, most importantly, tyranny of the moment rule.

Morals, as we classically conceive of them, become baseless if there is no greater force guiding them and determining them. Because fallen man lives under law, he will find every reason to warp morals to suit his fancy.

If you are fine with keeping yourself open, keep in mind what you keep yourself open to.

Rephrasing a violation of the universal moral code is just that - a violation of the code, and should be seen as a corruption. Just because there is no absolute authority that backs such morals doesn't make them useless. Democracy for example, (the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried ;]) has no 'divine', or secular justification, self-determination is just well, nice, each person gets a degree of say. Morals have held society more or less together over the course of human existence, I see no reason to dub all useless now. This is by no means an easy question or answer.

 

[Ritter]

Rephrasing a violation of the universal moral code is just that - a violation of the code, and should be seen as a corruption.

So we agree there is a universal moral code. That's a good place to start.

Corruption...good, good. I like some common ground.

Sadly, it is a form of corruption that occurs often and warps the sensibilities of entire societies.

Just because there is no absolute authority that backs such morals doesn't make them useless. Democracy for example, (the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried ;]) has no 'divine', or secular justification, self-determination is just well, nice, each person gets a degree of say. Morals have held society more or less together over the course of human existence, I see no reason to dub all useless now.

Authority goes hand in hand with origin. It tells us why a law or rule is important. The laws seem to be followed at the present moment based on what is "nice" but eventually someone else will come along and find something more "nice" and cause a great deal of destruction.

People are held together by this order. But questions of morality that individuals or societies determine- has this not caused more death and destruction? Had there been a perfect recognition of where laws come from and why they exist, these would not have happened.

Alas, the fallen nature of man rears its head time and time again.

This is by no means an easy question or answer.

It's a question you have to eventually come to terms with though. For a deep thinker like yourself (and I say this with utmost sincerity), the answers you find will determine the course of your life. Leaving yourself completely open (as par your past post) will put you at great risk.

That is the trouble with so many very smart people. They spend so much time feeling out the possibilities or array of answers that they leave themselves open to bipedal monsters of possibly greater intelligence but invariably greater will.

 

[Nick01]

That's why the law or moral is what society agrees upon, and almost universally theft and murder are illegal in even ancient societies. There is no moral authority, morality is what individuals feel is right and the whole of society agrees upon of course there are often cultural conflicts on what is right, like now, on the prohibition of substances, but the idea of murder, and theft are universal.

I feel like you missed the point of my post, then. I'm not arguing whether societies have laws about theft or murder. What I am contending is that what constitutes illegal killings differs markedly, even in contemporary societies. American society says killing criminals can be justified. My society says it is never justified. Other societies say killing people who speak against the ruler is justified. In the last couple of hundred years, in many societies, killing people with a different colour of skin was justified.

I would agree with you that in a secular humanist society, there is no authority, there can only be the immediate will of the society, however that manifests. Would you say, then, that it's futile to describe any society or government in human history as 'immoral' or 'unethical' or 'evil'?

As for the despot were just getting into a political debate, plenty of theist monarchs, even featured monarchs in the bible were despots.

Then you've missed the point of my argument. It's irrelevant what the despots believe. It wouldn't matter to my argument if every violent authoritarian despot in history were a Christian (which, of course, is not true). My question is really quite simple - would you agree that its pointless calling any given despot evil (or for that matter, good), and that as long as they have the power to enforce their will on the wider population, they're totally justified in that use? If not, why not?

Leprosy for a long time (perhaps even by a few today) was considered a spiritual sickness, that sin had incurred the wrath of Yahweh to cause it.

Again, this is a bit of a side point to the main discussion, but I'm happy to answer it. Whether or not leprosy (probably not actual leprosy, but another skin disease) in the Bible is always meant to be a direct result of sin is debatable. I think Uzziah the King was inflicted with leprosy as a judgement, but I think he's the only person where it's clear its a judgement. Everywhere else, it just happens, and makes you ceremonially unclean, same as a whole bunch of other things. IT's a general result of sin, but not necessarily the specific judgement of sin on a particular person. In fact, I'd argue all of the unclean things in Leviticus 12 and 15 make the most sense if you acknowledge that they are all things people have no individual agency over.

Ceremonial uncleanliness doesn't mean you areimmoral, and it's always clear that ceremonial uncleanliness is only a temporary thing. In the time of the Tabernacle (i.e pre-temple), you would have to leave the immediate area of the camp of the people where God's prescence was. The priest would come and check on you every few days and see if you could be readmitted to camp. (Leviticus 14). The problem came when people took this as an excuse to think of themselves as better than those who were unclean, failing to remember that they all needed intercession on their behalf to be in God's presence, and that true uncleanliness ultimately rises from within the fallen human heart. So God describes his own prophets and priests as being unclean in places:

12The kings of the earth did not believe, nor did any of the peoples of the world,
that enemies and foes could enter
the gates of Jerusalem.

13 But it happened because of the sins of her prophets
and the iniquities of her priests,
who shed within her
the blood of the righteous.

14 Now they grope through the streets
as if they were blind.
They are so defiled with blood
that no one dares to touch their garments.

15 “Go away! You are unclean!” people cry to them.
“Away! Away! Don’t touch us!”
When they flee and wander about,
people among the nations say,
“They can stay here no longer.”

16 The Lord himself has scattered them;
he no longer watches over them.
The priests are shown no honor,
the elders no favor.

Jesus himself demonstrates this in the New Testament with what was viewed as a radical take on leprosy - instead of ostracising and harshly treating people with such disease, he hangs out with them. He condemns the religious elders and others within his own country who were obsessed with ritual cleanliness to the detriment of upholding real righteousness. Where before there was always a distance between God and people who were unclean (which is basically everyone), now Christ comes, dwells among the people, and makes things clean, opening the way to be in God's presence through Him.

Now on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled along the border between Samaria and Galilee. As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy met him. They stood at a distance and called out in a loud voice, “Jesus, Master, have pity on us!”When he saw them, he said, “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went, they were cleansed.
One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. He threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him—and he was a Samaritan.
Jesus asked, “Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine?18 Has no one returned to give praise to God except this foreigner?” Then he said to him, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well.”

 

[Grey]

Sadly, it is a form of corruption that occurs often and warps the sensibilities of entire societies.



Authority goes hand in hand with origin. It tells us why a law or rule is important. The laws seem to be followed at the present moment based on what is "nice" but eventually someone else will come along and find something more "nice" and cause a great deal of destruction.

People are held together by this order. But questions of morality that individuals or societies determine- has this not caused more death and destruction? Had there been a perfect recognition of where laws come from and why they exist, these would not have happened.



It's a question you have to eventually come to terms with though. For a deep thinker like yourself (and I say this with utmost sincerity), the answers you find will determine the course of your life. Leaving yourself completely open (as par your past post) will put you at great risk.

Believe me morality isn't flawless. Its something that is valued for long periods of time in socities history, and then occasionally tossed aside for brief spouts of violence when many universal laws are broken and go unpunished throughout a long period of time, like the French Revolution, The Russian Revolution. Anger tosses aside morality. But the universal laws eventually come back its inevitable for a stable society.

Being open-minded may be risky but using a lens that may distort the world is more mentally detrimental.

 

[Grey]

I feel like you missed the point of my post, then. I'm not arguing whether societies have laws about theft or murder. What I am contending is that what constitutes illegal killings differs markedly, even in contemporary societies. American society says killing criminals can be justified. My society says it is never justified. Other societies say killing people who speak against the ruler is justified. In the last couple of hundred years, in many societies, killing people with a different colour of skin was justified.

I would agree with you that in a secular humanist society, there is no authority, there can only be the immediate will of the society, however that manifests. Would you say, then, that it's futile to describe any society or government in human history as 'immoral' or 'unethical' or 'evil'?


Then you've missed the point of my argument. It's irrelevant what the despots believe. It wouldn't matter to my argument if every violent authoritarian despot in history were a Christian (which, of course, is not true). My question is really quite simple - would you agree that its pointless calling any given despot evil (or for that matter, good), and that as long as they have the power to enforce their will on the wider population, they're totally justified in that use? If not, why not?



Again, this is a bit of a side point to the main discussion, but I'm happy to answer it. Whether or not leprosy (probably not actual leprosy, but another skin disease) in the Bible is always meant to be a direct result of sin is debatable. I think Uzziah the King was inflicted with leprosy as a judgement, but I think he's the only person where it's clear its a judgement. Everywhere else, it just happens, and makes you ceremonially unclean, same as a whole bunch of other things. IT's a general result of sin, but not necessarily the specific judgement of sin on a particular person. In fact, I'd argue all of the unclean things in Leviticus 12 and 15 make the most sense if you acknowledge that they are all things people have no individual agency over.

Ceremonial uncleanliness doesn't mean you areimmoral, and it's always clear that ceremonial uncleanliness is only a temporary thing. In the time of the Tabernacle (i.e pre-temple), you would have to leave the immediate area of the camp of the people where God's prescence was. The priest would come and check on you every few days and see if you could be readmitted to camp. (Leviticus 14). The problem came when people took this as an excuse to think of themselves as better than those who were unclean, failing to remember that they all needed intercession on their behalf to be in God's presence, and that true uncleanliness ultimately rises from within the fallen human heart. So God describes his own prophets and priests as being unclean in places:




Jesus himself demonstrates this in the New Testament with what was viewed as a radical take on leprosy - instead of ostracising and harshly treating people with such disease, he hangs out with them. He condemns the religious elders and others within his own country who were obsessed with ritual cleanliness to the detriment of upholding real righteousness. Where before there was always a distance between God and people who were unclean (which is basically everyone), now Christ comes, dwells among the people, and makes things clean, opening the way to be in God's presence through Him.

So whats your society? The ruler coincidentally also agrees with those laws. And there will always be discrepancies amongst societies about extensions of universal moral codes.

"Evil", is a label thrown around with no authority. Its more of a matter of opinion. But that doesn't mean people, things, or societies can't be gauged against how many moral or ethical rules they break. Its almost an unanswerable question what defines 'good' and 'evil' in a secular society.

 

[Nick01]

So whats your society? The ruler coincidentally also agrees with those laws. And there will always be discrepancies amongst societies about extensions of universal moral codes.

My society is Australia. We have formally outlawed it federally since 2010, but practically speaking no one has been sentenced to death since 1984, and no one has actually been executed since 1967.

What do you mean by 'the ruler coincidentally also agrees with those laws'? Certainly, depending on which society you're talking about, the ruler could change the laws if they didn't like them. What decides if that's wrong or right?

"Evil", is a label thrown around with no authority. Its more of a matter of opinion. But that doesn't mean people, things, or societies can't be gauged against how many moral or ethical rules they break. Its almost an unanswerable question what defines 'good' and 'evil' in a secular society.

You say there is no authority, and that it's a matter of opinion. But then you also say people can be gauged by what rules they break. Do you see the problem?

My point is that, within this worldview, working on the basis of these 'rules' is altogether irrelevant and at bottom irrational. They're just made up cultural games that everyone has been taught to unthinkingly buy into. If there's no authority, there's no more basis to say I don't like XYZ person killing someone else than for me to say I don't like the colour blue. Surely if I told a dictator that they couldn't take over a society through violence because it was 'wrong', rationally speaking they would be perfectly entitled to laugh in my face?

It's a social fiction that has no rational basis. The rules are arbitrary and learned, so who's to say that breaking the rules might not be a perfectly valid thing to do? What makes my opinion more valid than a powerful rulers'? Do not the strong prevail over the weak?

Again, to the crux of the question that I'm not sure you've actually answered directly, if someone has the power to subjugate another people, is it rational or irrational for you to have a moral, emotional reaction to that? Is that not simply how the world works? Is that person not justified in using force however they see fit to their own ends?

 

[Grey]

Frankly I don't know the answer to your question. Society seems to function best when people aren't raping and murdering one another.

 

[Nick01]

Frankly I don't know the answer to your question. Society seems to function best when people aren't raping and murdering one another.

Well, it all depends on which people were raping and murdering each other, right? For instance, everyone's going on about overpopulation at the moment. What if we were to rape and murder only select groups of people (and even the most basic of animals are selective in what they rape and murder), as a way to ensure greater resources, safety, and security for my kin? Would that be rational, and therefore justifiable? Why or why not?

The joke is often made about Fascist Italy under Mussolini that it may have been authoritarian, but at least the trains ran to time. In terms of this discussion, what do you mean by society 'functioning' better? If you mean a society with order, efficiency, security and safety for those the powerful decide should have security (and EVERY society has those who are 'in' and those who are 'out), then you could argue a regimented, controlled society is a better way to accomplish that, if you can just get around morality, which we've just decided has no real authority.

What do you think?

 

[Grey]

Well, it all depends on which people were raping and murdering each other, right? For instance, everyone's going on about overpopulation at the moment. What if we were to rape and murder only select groups of people (and even the most basic of animals are selective in what they rape and murder), as a way to ensure greater resources, safety, and security for my kin? Would that be rational, and therefore justifiable? Why or why not?

The joke is often made about Fascist Italy under Mussolini that it may have been authoritarian, but at least the trains ran to time. In terms of this discussion, what do you mean by society 'functioning' better? If you mean a society with order, efficiency, security and safety for those the powerful decide should have security (and EVERY society has those who are 'in' and those who are 'out), then you could argue a regimented, controlled society is a better way to accomplish that, if you can just get around morality, which we've just decided has no real authority.

What do you think?

Or you could just do the rational thing and plan your population according to the available resources.

In my humble opinion society is best in which you are free and safe to do as you will, as long as you are not harming others.

 

[Nick01]

Or you could just do the rational thing and plan your population according to the available resources.

Precisely. Would you argue it's about expediency and efficiency, then?

In my humble opinion society is best in which you are free and safe to do as you will, as long as you are not harming others.

Sure. But again, that's an opinion. What if someone else had an opinion? Perhaps they could back up their opinion with power to accomplish, a clear objective, etc? Can you judge their actions in moral categories, or is the only thing that ultimately matters is whether they can accomplish what they desire? What makes them wrong and you right? And who cares if I harm others, if they're of no use to me? Why does that matter?

 

[Grey]

Precisely. Would you argue it's about expediency and efficiency, then?



Sure. But again, that's an opinion. What if someone else had an opinion? Perhaps they could back up their opinion with power to accomplish, a clear objective, etc? Can you judge their actions in moral categories, or is the only thing that ultimately matters is whether they can accomplish what they desire? What makes them wrong and you right? And who cares if I harm others, if they're of no use to me? Why does that matter?

Sure its about efficiency as long as you aren't violating the universal morals in doing so. Well likely others will feel the need to rise against you -- they will care if others are harmed because they to fear the harm.

 

[GreenNnice]

So whats your society? The ruler coincidentally also agrees with those laws. And there will always be discrepancies amongst societies about extensions of universal moral codes.

"Evil", is a label thrown around with no authority. Its more of a matter of opinion. But that doesn't mean people, things, or societies can't be gauged against how many moral or ethical rules they break. Its almost an unanswerable question what defines 'good' and 'evil' in a secular society.

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone."

ALL wretched, Grey There is NO opinion regarding 'evil,' per Scripture, YOU are evil. Me, too.

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God.

No gray area here,
Grey.

NO one, not one HUMAN BEING has EVER seeked to become a Chrisitian on their own, Christ SEEKED them

But,
BY the precious blood of Christ's, shed for us, we are REDEEMED, we are credited HIS righteousness, and, in His eyes, we are white as snow WE BRING UP our past sins, our evil tendencies, intentions, heartfelt ways daily, because THE ENEMY, who is The Devil, is REAL and he really is OUT THERE working in the lives of ALL believers, heavily, even more so, to those who work in His name more, not that they are better than the next guy, they're not, but, just saying, we all need to work and realize that WITHOUT God, YES, we WILL rape, killl, destory , just will, it's in our nature

But, our God reigns and greater is He who is in me than he who is in the world. Satan is IN the world, Scripture doesn't lie, it tells the Truth

 

[Nick01]

Sure its about efficiency as long as you aren't violating the universal morals in doing so. Well likely others will feel the need to rise against you -- they will care if others are harmed because they to fear the harm.

But you haven't even established that there ARE universal morals! Clearly history shows that killing people groups is not beyond justification in human morality! Again, 21st century Western morality is but a short thing in human history - it's certainly not indicative of even the majority of human moral history! The reason why people care about people with no relevance to them is because they have been taught to care (I would also argue it stems from a Christian legacy, but that's a side issue), and it has become an emotive reaction. But emotive reactions are not necessarily rational ones. Did you know people only a hundred years ago in my culture would have quite visceral and certain reactions of disgust towards indigenous people? They were considered to be fauna in their own country! Who says that the 'feelings' people may have about violence inflicted on others is at all rational? Perhaps their own survival would be better served by not caring? Why would they be wrong? Why have you come to your conclusion?

But look, if we appeal to the rest of evolutionary history, and include animals as well as history, it becomes difficult to justify a universal moral code, at least one that includes not killing people who aren't related to you. A lion will happily kill another lion, even a brother or relative, if it means maintaining dominance, and thus its survival status and the primacy of its own genetic offspring. How do you know the very different human response is any more rational? It could just be a by product of evolutionary adaption that will come back to bite us in the future.

Finally, a question. Part of your response was 'people would feel the need to rise against you' as part of the justification for a moral category. Let's say I had enough power to stave off rebellion, as numerous kings and despots have done through the centuries. Let's take the Gallic rebellion against rome in 52 BC. Rome won, the rebellion was crushed. Was either side wrong or right in that conflict? Why or why not? Was Caesar justified in his use of force, because he won?

 

[Grey]

But you haven't even established that there ARE universal morals! Clearly history shows that killing people groups is not beyond justification in human morality! The reason why people care about people with no relevance to them is because they have been taught to care, and it has become an emotive reaction. But emotive reactions are not necessarily rational ones. Did you know people only a hundred years ago in my culture would have quite visceral and certain reactions of disgust towards indigenous people? They were considered to be fauna in their own country! Who says that the 'feelings' people may have about violence inflicted on others is at all rational? Perhaps their own survival would be better served by not caring? Why would they be wrong? Why have you come to your conclusion?

But look, if we appeal to the rest of evolutionary history, and include animals as well as history, it becomes difficult to justify a universal moral code, at least one that includes not killing people who aren't related to you. A lion will happily kill another lion, even a brother or relative, if it means maintaining dominance, and thus its survival status and the primacy of its own genetic offspring. How do you know the very different human response is any more rational? It could just be a by product of evolutionary adaption that will come back to bite us in the future.

Finally, a question. Part of your response was 'people would feel the need to rise against you' as part of the justification for a moral category. Let's say I had enough power to stave off rebellion, as numerous kings and despots have done through the centuries. Let's take the Gallic rebellion against rome in 52 BC. Rome won, the rebellion was crushed. Was either side wrong or right in that conflict? Why or why not? Was Caesar justified in his use of force, because he won?

Out right unjustified murder is considered a taboo upon universal morals. There are universal morals, as evident by the code of Hammurabi, the Tang code, and Kouroukan Fouga. These are examples of written codes, doubtlessly moral taboos existed in societies without them where individuals exist, morals exist, where groups of individuals exist, societies form, and where these socities form the agreed upon morals are coded into law (though often with the king or warlord throwing in a few laws to justify or demand allegiance to the powers that be).

Keep in mind various species function differently, we don't see individuals within hives of ants (the workers at least) murdering each other at random.

Might doesn't mean right in my opinion, wars very often are meaningless struggles over where the line gets drawn on the map, perhaps it both parties were a bit more logical, they may have spent their efforts on improving their own civilizations.