If I kill others, others might find me to be a potential threat and do me harm.
If I steal from others, others might feel justified in taking from me.
If I lie to others, others will lie to me, or stop talking to me altogether.
Sounds like the golden rule, to me.
The Golden Rule is a product of normal brain physiology. It’s empathic response. That’s why it’s universal. It’s derived internally, not externally.
That was very well stated!
I think people act “morally” as defined in that society so that people can get along with each other in the society. I do not believe that it’s innate or universal or internally derived, but taught by our parents and others in society. If the older people did not teach youngsters how to act in society, they would not know how to get along with others in the society - what was expected of them and what they could reasonably expect from others.
I do not think “God” is necessary for “morality” to exist. Many communities have had moral codes (rules of conduct) that did/do not include “God.” Yes, religions of all kinds have been around, I guess as long as man has, but not all societies believed that “goodness” resulted in “heaven” post-death and “badness” resulted in “hell.” And they got along all right.
Frankly I find it kind of off-putting when religious people are “good” only to get the big payoff at the end (e.g., streets paved with gold). That just seems self-serving and greedy to me. Or that people need the threat of everlasting hell-fire to act with kindness and compassion toward their fellow community member. I think people/community/society would be better served if people didn’t kill, steal, lie, etc., and took care of the less fortunate because that was the best thing for the community. As **Czarcasm **said, the “moral code” defines expectations. Society sets the rules. If it served the community’s purposes to offer human sacrifice, that would occur. Murder? Not to them. Nothing innate there. Depends on the society. Just my humble two cents.