As far as I can see most peoples around the world very much had a pre-ethical mindset in pre-Christian times, with just a few exceptions - the later Hindus, the Buddhists, to a degree the ancient Persians, etc.
Otherwise the Gods were worshipped and sacrificed to for purely utilitarian reasons, for the sake of personal and communal well-being in this world. There was no concept of salvation, or of good and evil as universal and objective and not particular or subjective concepts. One sacrificed and followed the rituals such that the rains would fall and the crops would grow as desired, for good fortune and for the confounding of ones enemies.
Laws that are intended merely to establish order and prevent conflict do not require an ethical foundation. A ruler can decree such laws merely as a convenience to himself for instance, such that he is freed from the need to judge, or to permit delegation of authority.
Otherwise the Gods were worshipped and sacrificed to for purely utilitarian reasons, for the sake of personal and communal well-being in this world.
What do you think ethics means? If it isn't for a utilitarian means to the well being of a community then what is it?
eth·ics (et̸h′iks)noun
1. the study of standards of conduct and moral judgment; moral philosophy
2. a treatise on this study
3. the system or code of morals of a particular person, religion, group, profession, etc.
Laws that are intended merely to establish order and prevent conflict do not require an ethical foundation.
Laws intended to establish order are the foundation of ethics.
Your arguments grow tediously ridiculous. Having strayed far away from addressing my main point, that Mohammed's actions are the basis for the barbarism found in Islam, you have taken the discussion into areas where you have even less idea what you're talking about.
Oh, BTW, Buddhism preceded Christianity by 500 years, Hinduism much more than that and the Persians even further.
Otherwise the Gods were worshipped and sacrificed to for purely utilitarian reasons, for the sake of personal and communal well-being in this world.
There are no gods in Buddhism and neither Buddhism or Hinduism are purely or casually used for utilitarian reasons. That's pure BS. They most certainly do have concepts of good and evil as universal and objective principles and they do have concepts of salvation. You may choose not recognize them as such but that doesn't make it true.
I’ve been planning a Hindu Caucus for a long time.
I really should start one. I have a little list of people who wanted to be pinged when I start it. You can add your name if you’re interested.
Actually Hinduism has very deep understanding of different realms of salvation - different levels, in a sense.
The Vedas also detail various methods of demigod worship which were, as you noted, purely for utilitarian purposes - good health, good wife or husband, physical strength victory, good children, wealth, etc.
But such worship, or more accurately, placating the personifications of the forces of material nature, was actaully condemned in the Bhagavad Gita as inferior and temporary. But it was allowed for those who wished to do it.