The Golden Rule ? Sense or Bullshit?

[genkaus]

If objective morality exists, then there must have been a point when it went from non-existence to existence. So, then. When might that have been? Christian apologists use objective morality as "proof" that their god exists. I'm interested to see what arse-above-elbow machinations an atheist is going to use in order to do likewise.

I'd say the first objective morality came into existence sometime around 1772 BC when the Hammurabi's code was written down and thenceforth became independent of anyone's subjective opinion. Since then, there have been many other such moralities all of which have come from humans without the need for any divine intervention.

---

Yes I agree the GR does not give anybody anything else but a subjective warm and fuzzy feeling.

Not even remotely close to what I said.

In reality things are rather chaotic and not even restricted or limited by application of law enforcement. You still get criminals or should we say people who disobey the law even though they subjectively act according to the GR.

Redundancy check: Criminals are those who disobey the law. Compliance with the golden rule is irrelevant.

The GR is a Maxim and without value unless their is an universally accepted intent of good moral action following the idea that results in a law.

Baseless generalization. It can be beneficial without universal acceptance and it can be harmful with it.

Generally the idea of producing moral codes and laws according to the will of either a leader or the collective is only one way of looking at ethics.

Ridiculous notion - given that we know many ways of looking at ethics while disregarding both the collective and the leader.

The question is weather moral codes and laws can be produced that are not based on the will (subjective) of people but rather on scientific fact (objective) which would then rule out the GR?

And which scientific fact is to be chosen as the basis for morality?