[JediGirl]

But suppose that Joe Slobotnik somehow manages to propel himself into a dictatorship wherein all were required to serve him. You've given yourself no grounds for complaint, other than that you won't like it. Nevertheless, as long as he holds power Joe can kill you, or rape you, or both, as he chooses, and his actions are moral, by your own definition.

twist, twist, twist......

if there is an uprising by the subjects of the dictator, then what he is doing is immoral. our society will view Castro as an immoral man, while some in the Cuban society will view him as a moral man because they either believe it or are afraid to say otherwise. What is moral varies from society to society.

[Diamond]

if there is an uprising by the subjects of the dictator, then what he is doing is immoral

By your definition of morality, in which one is morally obligated to obey society, whatever society says, an uprising is immoral.

Cordially,

[r9etb]

if there is an uprising by the subjects of the dictator, then what he is doing is immoral. our society will view Castro as an immoral man, while some in the Cuban society will view him as a moral man because they either believe it or are afraid to say otherwise. What is moral varies from society to society.

Not according to libertarians, which was my point.

Again, what you've described is a morality defined by "whatever I (or we) can get away with, by whatever means."

In that sense, your definition requires us to conclude that the Constitution is not grounded in "unalienable rights," but rather in the power of the government to enforce the will of the rulers. Again -- totally contrary to libertarian thought.

I happen to disagree with you (I believe that the basic elements of morality are revealed to us by God). However, I do give you a great deal of credit for taking a logically consistent position, as opposed to the illogical claims made by the "atheist libertarians."