On Moral Authorities

[GrandizerII]

Allowable by whom or what rules? Think about what you're arguing here.

As for your second point:

"If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself." — Mozi (c. 400 BC)

I stand corrected in my second point.

Please help me understand your question on whose or what rules it is allowable. You are asking of whose or what rules. Doesn't it imply subjectivity, especially if your talking about human rules?

Ok, let's think of it this way. Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that God exists, that God is the source of objective morality, and that God has made clear to all his moral rules. He's also made clear that killing another human being is wrong.

In such case, clearly everyone should know that killing is wrong. Would acknowledging that killing is wrong prevent someone from killing someone regardless? Not likely, since people are known to do things they know are wrong but they do them anyway for whatever reasons.

Just a reminder, you said this:

If I follow your logic, then if I have a personal goal which includes hurting and killing other people, it follows that it is allowable to hurt or kill other people.

So would it be right to conclude that, despite God, it is still allowable to kill other people just because they may have a reason to do so?

If your answer is no, then the answer should hold for cases of no God as well. Because even with no God, there are still laws to abide by. Even without God, we still have a conscience that nags at us. Even without God, we still feel obligations towards ourselves and others.