Quote from Exilement

Well yeah, but those laws aren't entirely rooted in morality. At least the theft one isn't.

Say you're running the only small general store in town, and a Wal-Mart opens up across the street selling the same stuff at prices you can't compete with. You go out of business, lose your income, your home, your wife and 3 children become desolate. Is it immoral to steal one loaf of bread from that Wal-mart if it'll keep your family from starving to death before tomorrow?

I don't think so. It's certainly illegal, though. Kind of a convoluted example but you get my point.

Then our society-upholding system of ethics is incomplete. We need to add social security, since the lower echelons of society seem to break down without it. Just because we haven't worked out all the details perfectly yet it doesn't mean the basic idea is wrong

Beyond that, there's no way you determine one universal "ideal" morality for all societies to agree upon. The definition is just what is "good" and what is "bad". Religion, culture, tradition, politics, geographic location, all of these things influence how people view the world and what's good and bad.

We've picked out three things so far which, taken together, seem universal. There might be some ambiguous areas but pinning down one or two absolute facts is a good start. These are rules by which mankind must necessarily live if we are to function as a society. That sounds like as good a definition of objective morality as any other.

I think the golden rule is the only thing that can universally be agreed upon.

I think once we answer the question of where our morals come from then we may have a better understanding of which morals are more or less universal. And I mean in the long term. Is it all evolution?

In many ways evolution includes non-genetic stuff like society. I'd say it's almost certainly a factor but it's such a broad one it's difficult to get anywhere from it. Within the context of evolution ethics can still come from peer pressure or religion (although probably not God).

Quote from Exilement

I think the golden rule is the only thing that can universally be agreed upon.

So would you rule out sacrificing one or two people for the greater good?

I've always been a supporter of utilitarianism. I mean, if it were something that was deeply personal to me such as sacrificing my family for the "greater good" then I probably couldn't do it, but I still agree with the philosophy. This poses a problem for the idea of universal morality, however, because it makes what would seem like immoral acts perceived as being completely moral in the right context. If anything it shows that there's more complicated morals than just the golden rule, as it's all context dependent.

Quote from Zed

So would you rule out sacrificing one or two people for the greater good?

Morality specifically deals with good and bad, if that sacrifice is inherently good (or more specifically, less bad) then it's the morally superior choice.

The whole "do unto others" thing falls apart when circumstances force you to act in a way you normally wouldn't.

MILL!!!!