I don't believe in ethics or morality.

[Stevil]

Aside from the survival factor, it also bonds us as a community, makes life a lot more tolerable, a bit more joyful, and a bit more fun, to know that we live in a community that cares for us and will have our back, just as we'll have theirs.

Yes, the nature of humans seems to be sociability as opposed to cats which are generally solo creatures.

[DeterminedJuliet]

As interesting as this thread is, there seems to be a certain level of thick-headedness amongst philosophers about this sort of question. For example, "Good" can easily be defined if we understand that the word only exists in relation to some fixed concept that can, therefore, be compared with other concepts in a relative fashion. To elaborate, if I take the concept of driving a car very quickly, certain motor and engine parts can be ascribed the quality of "good", in that they are more effective in achieving the state of a fast-driven car.

So really, what all these arm-chair philosophers are worried about, is the question of how one is to live his or her life. I think we can all agree that there is no such thing as a one-size fits all approach to living life. But what might not be so obvious is that if you have chosen to pursue the question of what to do with one's life as a life pursuit in itself, then you are obviously lacking a centralized, fixed concept by which to measure actions in terms of "good" or "bad".

What does this mean? It means that to have a concept of what is good or bad, you must first have a picture of reality that is reasonably accurate. This is why people of the same religion find it so easy to agree on moral principles: They share a common reference point with which they experience and understand reality, a la, the universe.

Of course, the wish for an objective understanding of the universe has been going on for ages. Science might come closest to describing mathematically what the universe is, but it's not the only approach. Furthermore, to have a one-sized fits all approach to viewing reality is not only stupid, but amounts to imposing one view on others, even if they do not wish to hold that view. Of course, if you have the view that this is permissible, then you don't have a problem with it. But there's gonna be a lot of blood spilled.

I think the debate here is mostly how does one take any kind of construction of morality and turn it into law? Most of us agree that some kind of laws are necessary. And to create laws, you need some kind of defendable, structured definition of what is or isn't acceptable.

[Hector Valdez]

It is simple enough to derive laws from ethical principles, so long as those affected by said laws share the same perspective of reality. Of course, when different views of perspective arise, then conflicting laws also will come into contention. For example, a law banning contraception and abortion in america will be looked favorably upon by catholics, who generally share the same viewpoint. Those that disagree with the underlying principles of such an action will also, necessarily, dissagree with the worldview contributing to the belief in such principles.

Any society, to have agreed upon laws, must be uniform enough in how it views the world to avoid civil war.

[Stevil]

It is simple enough to derive laws from ethical principles, so long as those affected by said laws share the same perspective of reality. Of course, when different views of perspective arise, then conflicting laws also will come into contention. For example, a law banning contraception and abortion in america will be looked favorably upon by catholics, who generally share the same viewpoint. Those that disagree with the underlying principles of such an action will also, necessarily, dissagree with the worldview contributing to the belief in such principles.

Any society, to have agreed upon laws, must be uniform enough in how it views the world to avoid civil war.

If we remove ethics and morality out of the equation then we don't have the conflict, we don't have the war.
The religious people can feel happy that their all powerful god will seek perfect vengeance for ethical misconduct in the afterlife.
But on earth we only need rules for a stable and functional society, one where our earthly lives can be safe and free from unnecessary oppression.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Any society, to have agreed upon laws, must be uniform enough in how it views the world to avoid civil war.

I don't think so, I think the only thing that is necessary is that everyone acknowledges that the rule of law is important. If we only make laws that are absolutely essential to bettering society, and we mostly leave the issues of morality alone, I think many different worldviews could adjust to that. Civil wars break out when one faction of society feel like they are being unfairly managed by another faction of society. I don't think that feeling of injustice in inevitable if laws are based on solid, logical, scientific principals about what makes the society more functional.

[pytheas]

to have a concept of what is good or bad, you must first have a picture of reality that is reasonably accurate.  Science might come closest to describing mathematically what the universe is, but it's not the only approach. Furthermore, to have a one-sized fits all approach to viewing reality is not only stupid, but amounts to imposing one view on others,

minimally correspondant by lowest common denominator reality

lower common denominator is any homo sapiens-christian.cretins, atheist, whatever, but they have to bleed and pain, feel and express have a normative range of psychologic dynamics

minimally correspondant relies on science, verifiable, testable, replicatory and demonstration-prone

the king is naked, because when I wear the same "clothes" I go COLD

[Hector Valdez]

Any society, to have agreed upon laws, must be uniform enough in how it views the world to avoid civil war.

...only thing that is necessary is that everyone acknowledges that the rule of law is important...

Thank you for proving my point. This is a precise example of what I mean.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Any society, to have agreed upon laws, must be uniform enough in how it views the world to avoid civil war.

...only thing that is necessary is that everyone acknowledges that the rule of law is important...

Thank you for proving my point. This is a precise example of what I mean.

Uh, which society doesn't acknowledge a need for laws?

[Hector Valdez]

to have a concept of what is good or bad, you must first have a picture of reality that is reasonably accurate.  Science might come closest to describing mathematically what the universe is, but it's not the only approach. Furthermore, to have a one-sized fits all approach to viewing reality is not only stupid, but amounts to imposing one view on others,

minimally correspondant by lowest common denominator reality

lower common denominator is any homo sapiens-christian.cretins, atheist, whatever, but they have to bleed and pain, feel and express have a normative range of psychologic dynamics

minimally correspondant relies on science, verifiable, testable, replicatory and demonstration-prone

the king is naked, because when I wear the same "clothes" I go COLD

I don't think you even understand what you are saying with this post.

[Hector Valdez]

Any society, to have agreed upon laws, must be uniform enough in how it views the world to avoid civil war.

...only thing that is necessary is that everyone acknowledges that the rule of law is important...

Thank you for proving my point. This is a precise example of what I mean.

Uh, which society doesn't acknowledge a need for laws?

Precisely, Determined Juiliet. 

[DeterminedJuliet]

What?!

Edit:
Just so I make sure I understand this:
-You said that a society needs people with a similar worldview, or there'll be civil war.
-I said they don't need a similar worldview, they just need to acknowledge the need for rule of law.
- You said "thanks for explaining my point" (which I wasn't).
- So I asked you to point out which society functions without acknowledging the need for rule of law.
- You said "precisely" and gave me a kissy face (which you can keep, by the way).

In conclusion, WTF?
 

[DeterminedJuliet]

Acknowledging the need for the rule of law isn't a whole "worldview", was my point.

world·view  (wûrldvy)
n. In both senses also called Weltanschauung.
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group

[Hector Valdez]

Perhaps I misspoke. By "worldview" I was referring to the entire collections of beliefs that an individual has/accumulates throughout one's life. A society does not need to have every individual therein have the exact same beliefs as every other individual. However, certain beliefs must be held by a significant amount of others that common ground can be found. My equating this common belief to a "worldview", while probably not literally appropriate, was meant only in the sense that a belief is considered a worldview to the extent that the belief has, as it's focus, an element of the world. Naturally, all beliefs/statements do this(excluding goedel statements).

In plain english: Everybody's gotta get a long.

:edit:Sorry for making the kissy face.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Ah, I see. It's just hard to know how to take something when there are only a couple word responses. No worries, though!

[pytheas]

to have a concept of what is good or bad, you must first have a picture of reality that is reasonably accurate.  Science might come closest to describing mathematically what the universe is, but it's not the only approach. Furthermore, to have a one-sized fits all approach to viewing reality is not only stupid, but amounts to imposing one view on others,

minimally correspondant by lowest common denominator reality
lower common denominator is any homo sapiens-christian.cretins, atheist, whatever, but they have to bleed and pain, feel and express have a normative range of psychologic dynamics
minimally correspondant relies on science, verifiable, testable, replicatory and demonstration-prone
the king is naked, because when I wear the same "clothes" I go COLD

I don't think you even understand what you are saying with this post.

I'll break it down for you in digestible fragments

The reality which can be trans-communicated, explained, shown with the least effort, the least interpretation, without explanation. Self-evident.

So in considering society, the people, we have to include the lowest common denominator  and  any homo sapiens within  a normative range of psychologic dynamics.
The only unavoidable split in viewpoints can only be justified in the cuckoo's nest.

So any "normal"person that eg.  bleeds and pains, , feels and expresses themselves.
In belief or IQ or worldview they can be christian/cretins, atheist, whatever, so long as they have a basic understanding

Metaphor/example based on known fairy tale:
"the king is naked, because when I wear the same "clothes" I go COLD"

reality through observation, example mimetics, replication and verification of causal effect : 
no clothes=cold   
naked=view

This approach relies on scientific reasoning, verifiable, testable, replicatory and demonstration-prone 

It is the only approach and it does fit all. The level of resolution allows for the range of understandings. It is not stupid and in having various levels of resolution it does not impose anything on anyone that cannot witness it directly, as it is, for themselves.