In Reply to: good question posted by porceleindoll on March 15, 2003 at 22:18:36:
the fact that mankind the world over operate by some general sense of right and wrong is presented by c.s.lewis as part of a philosophical argument for a moral creator. i don't type well enough to summarize it here but if you get a chance, check out "mere christianity".. it frames the issue elegantly.
the problem w/ the materialistic veiw of ethics is that ultimately it boils down to a purely subjective affair. nietzsche, in announcing the death of god, also predicted a century of unprecedented cruelty and bloodshed... and was right. when man "moves beyond" the "childish religious perspectives"..the resulting "enlightenment" can be a doosey! if there is no ultimate eternal standard for right and wrong then one man's "leading" is as good as another's. children can be either nutured oor eaten.. it is merely a question of taste.
you mention "a few basic rules"...on what basis can you concoct or justify them? wouldn't hitler or stalin have just as much right to make their own rules?
einstein's distaste for the thought of man only doing what is right based on the concept of reward or punishment actually reflects a deeper spiritual principle embodied in new testament christianity .. that love ought to constrain us. still, i am by and large grateful for the restraints of the law to keep those whose concience is seared from running utterly wild.