Then I wish some people without erhics would not reproduce.

By the way, I didn't capitalize god, the app "corrected" me.

Maybe all that is true. But how can some people think those things are "right" for themselves, but not necessarily for others?

I think it is because of what I call egotism. My definition of ego; "The self regarded as acting independent of causes and conditions" This view of what a person is, sets people against each other, rather than in harmony with each other, like they would naturally be without such an idea.

That is my short answer. Hope it helps. I should probably write a book on this.

@SKDeitch -- That was going to be my question. You beat me to it.

@TommyMeador it's the intolerance of what they do not agree with that bothers me.

The statement " I am tolerant and accepting of other cultures" for example while being outraged at genital mutilation.

I am all for tolerance, and against genital mutilation myself, but I do note the hyporocracy.

Or another more personal example, in AUS we recently have an overwhelming plebicite, at great public expense to determine that by and large Aussies didn't give two hoots about who marries whom as long as both are consenting adults.

As a test, I posted in various places the comment "About time the poofs got a bloody break" (in living history homosexual acts of love were illegal in some states, and locally it was fairly recently that the "moral panic" defense was removed for men who killed other men who tried to hit on them.

The mildest response I received was a polite request as to why I choose to use the "P" word, which after my references to 1984 newspeak and some commentary on how I had observed that these techniques being effective, I none the less stood with Voltaire when he said something along the lines of "I disagree with what you are saying but will defend to the death your right to say it" and observing that while my statement contained one of the proscribed words in the new left's theology, it was none the less a clearly supportive statement.

It was explained to me they adhered to the belief that only intolerance is intolerable.

Which made me want to enlist them in my program of eliminating cannibalism, by eating anyone who practiced it.

I believe the standard trope on the paradox of tolerance is along the lines of "if we tolerate natzi's we'll all end up goose stepping"

If you can't see the logical flaws in that one, I'll expand further.

As to the other part of your question, morality and ethics make a subjective choice to form the core of the moral or ethical system. Actions and decisions can be judged objectively as to how well the consequences of those support the core choice. As an example, I believe that the support of human dignity and respect for all and the promotion of human and environmental well-being are the core of my moral code. My actions and decisions can and should be judged as to how well they support the attainment of those goals.

The rule of thumb is... if it's found in all locations and across all times, it's most likely an adaptive trait. It's not stuff we just think up. It's an emergent quality of human nature, wherever humans are found. It has already been deeply subjected to scientific study.

@skado Thank you for your reply. Religion and gods also falls under the said rule. Is it an adaptive trait? The modern human came from one place. Thats somewhere in east africa. Around 70000 years ago its started migrating to various parts of the world. The only difference sapiens had over other human species was the heightened cognitive ability. The ability to think not only what was existing but also what was non existent like, religion, gods, rumours, social constructs. This ability brought the group together. That could be the reason why other human species lost in the race and subsequently became extinct. Morality , ethics, culture, traditions all were such social constucts. With regards to the scientific study, I believe it will be more of a cognitive analysis. Please do correct me if I m wrong.

@skado I agree with you. Morality is not just a creation of human imagination. Dawkins explains that in ‘The God Delusion’, so if anyone wanted to read up on it, you can find it there. Also, for the proof that we are most likely born with a primitive version of morals, read ‘Just Babies’ by Paul Bloom.

@KarolinaMakuch thanks for the reply. Paul Bloom says that some morals are innate due to biological evolution. Richard Dawkins was also talking about the biological evolution and altruistic genes. He advocates one need not believe in God to be moral. One may also look into a book by Yuval Noah Hariri - Sapien - a brief history of humankind. It tells you about evolution of humans.

Thanks @KarolinaMakuch

Yes, I think the general tendency to believe in gods is either a direct adaptation itself or an indirect result of adaptations that were originally made for other purposes, then modified. Like fear of spiders, etc. @Srijith

yeah, beat me to it.