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.
Good point! In discussing morality, we are necessarily talking about principles. And principles are by definition universally applicable to everyone in a similar context. This is something that the Dostoyevsky argument ("without God all things are permitted") misses. (I guess HV would call it the "Dostoyevsky gambit", since he's just playing chess. :-)
When a sociopath declares they have the right to murder people for the thrill/money/etc., he automatically declares that people in general have the right to murder innocents as well. Such a society would quickly collapse. It would also collapse if people in general were allowed to cheat, steal, rape, & extort.
What's also usually not appreciated is the power of moral judgement. A society flourishes when most people are willing to pass judgement on the statements & actions of others, and it tends to collapse when "good men do nothing". As Ayn Rand put it, "Judge, and prepare to be judged!"
Societies also flourish when people approach the world with an attitude of justice, biased a bit towards benevolence. For example, businesspeople extend credit & cheerfully accept returns, and the most successful companies are always trying to find better ways to please their customers; meanwhile the credit & checking industry has evolved ways to comprehensively track a person's reputation, business fraud earns a CFO the perp walk on TV, etc.
These truths are by no means self-evident. They were only learned thru lots of trial & error. But underlying it all is the fact that human nature is essentially the same for all of us. Our rational minds are the only thing we have going for us against the elements & the other animals. And some kind of libertarian society is by far the best framework for letting rational beings with free will to thrive. All that rational beings need to thrive is an underlying consistency to the world. We don't need to create a supernatural Authority Figure to come down like a deus-ex-machina to impose some arbitrary standard of right & wrong to provide that consistency. It's already there.
Do you truly believe that man can force others to obey whatever law the majority deems fit? That morality is relative and that the majority decides on the final standard?
By what standard can the most people pass judgment on the statements & actions of others? Who sets that Standard and how can we know it is correct? There are majorities that believe killing Christians is Moral and just, how can you argue otherwise. You have no moral authority over them.