>Dragan,
>
>I know you didn't say it, but I don't see how we can be both "intrinsically moral" and still need to develop morality through nurturing and/or training. Have you read "Lord of the Flies"? Anybody with kids knows how easily if could come to that.
>
>If you say that it is society that sets morality, then the fact that some societies decline quickly into corruption and barbarism indicates they had it "wrong".
>
>Which does tend to indicate that "morality" and stability have an intrinsic "rightness" or value which is independent of what any human grouping might think. History shows that selecting a tried-and-true morality gives a better result. If it is community benefit that motivates us, we cannot afford to ignore this point, no matter how much we may disagree with some aspects of it.

Didn't read the "Lord of the flies" (dang, I first wrote "files" :).

As for the rest - my points exactly. The societies which dissolved, most probably failed to develop a few necessary traits in their morality, which cost them in the end... or allowed them to influence the conquerors from within with some other traits.

Now we may narrow the dispute to what's the "tried and true" stuff. I figure it also changes with the times. Just a few centuries ago "thou shalt not kill" didn't apply to witches, then horse thieves, runaway slaves... and today applies to humans in general, except enemy fighters in a regular (or now regularity is out the window?) war, looters during a disaster, and self-defense. And though each one of us would like to add a few favorite politicians to this list, we still don't think it would be a moral thing to do personally.

OTOH, the decline of some societies doesn't necessarily mean their morality was wrong - it may just not have been strong enough, didn't take real root.