Did I mention anything in the article about the golden rule being related to money? I don’t think I did. Why bring it up?

Similarly, I did not mention altruism at any point. What does it have to do with anything? Altruism is the practice of putting others before yourself. The post is about society and laws. This is based on a social contract. It is not altruistic. It is a mutual, collective relationship benefitting all. Altruism is supposedly a one way relationship benefitting the recipient only, although it could be argued it has a selfish element in that the altruist feels good about him/herself. That kind of pride or self-satisfaction is a very human emotion not requiring a god (and actually a sin, according to some religions).

You don’t present a very logical argument and, in fact, didn’t even address the subject of the post.

Actually, probably not. Most important things get done because of an emotional need to get it done, not because logic or reason dictates that the thing get done. The alternative is nice and orderly, but does not exist in reality.

The Golden Rule is “do unto others” not “he who has the gold makes the rules.” However, throughout history, the faux golden rule has, well, ruled. Yet there are people who follow the Golden Rule. They do unto otehrs as they would have others do unto them.

Where did this attitude come from? I submit that a) man is not capable of altruism on his own, and b) the concept therefore had to come from outside man.

All arguments and explanations come down to this: It had to come from a place with superior moral authority. Nothing fits that concept except God.

If anyone has an argument that belies or confutes this premise, have a go. I’m listening.