What if I chose not to subscribe? By what standard can you or anyone force me to submit.
If morality is nothing more than a set of rules man has reasoned to and forced upon by others, it has no bind on anyone who chooses to ignore.
If however morality is a set of rules set by a moral (un-corruptible, in-fallible) authority. A moral authority gained through authorship. Then what?
You cannot have it both ways, either
killing is wrong because the author of life says it is
or
killing is wrong because man has reasoned it to be so.
If you subscribe to the later I'd say that is fairly communist of you, or at least fascist. A body of men ruling morality from intellectualism or power.
I am a Free man and no reasoning of another will constrain me. I will not be kept from killing simply because society says it is wrong. Society has no hold on me, it has no Moral Authority over me.
Are you a free man or are you told what is right and wrong by the ruling society of men.
Well, as I see it, you have two choices. You can go to a place where your moral views are not subject to outside domination (Somalia or Afghanistan) or you can go to jail. In this country, the majority get to set the rules that everybody else live by. And if you don't have rules, you have chaos. I, personally, support a minimum of rules, but you've got to have rules nonetheless.
If morality is nothing more than a set of rules man has reasoned to and forced upon by others, it has no bind on anyone who chooses to ignore.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Everybody wants their morality to be universal. Due to the realities of human existence, that will always be impossible. What we've done, nevertheless, is to create a framework of a few rules by which most of us can agree (i.e. murder is wrong). Many other moral points are far more contentious, but at least we've agreed to set up a framework where each side to an issue can present their view without fear of being in physical danger.
If however morality is a set of rules set by a moral (un-corruptible, in-fallible) authority. A moral authority gained through authorship. Then what?
Again, I must be slow today, because I don't understand what you're trying to argue. As an atheist, I don't believe in any sort of supreme moral authority.
killing is wrong because man has reasoned it to be so.
Exactly
If you subscribe to the later I'd say that is fairly communist of you, or at least fascist. A body of men ruling morality from intellectualism or power.
Huh? I don't mean to pass judgement, I'm only reflecting on what I see as the reality of the world.
I am a Free man and no reasoning of another will constrain me. I will not be kept from killing simply because society says it is wrong.
Fine. Kill. But we will impose our morality on you, whether you like it or not, and you'll go to prison. Because murder poses a threat to the continued existence of any sort of society, free or not.
Society has no hold on me, it has no Moral Authority over me.
Tell that to the Judge.
Are you a free man or are you told what is right and wrong by the ruling society of men.
I can have enough freedom living within the wide bounds of acceptable behavior determined by society at-large. The small degree of freedom I relinquish(to punch my neighbor in the nose, for example) is inconsequential in comparison to the security I gain.
The standard is the initiation of force. If you initiate force, the rest will punish you.