Might be si, but the likelihood of what you are suggesting in our lifetime is pretty close to zero

This only furthers my point that treating people the way I want to be treated rather than the way that they want to be treated is an objective (lowercase) moral principle, even if it does have the religious historical basis.

Rejecting objective philosophical principles for pragmatism does not "work". A collectivist "everyone adhering" to a collective subjectivist "everyone wants" is profoundly immoral and does not "work".

Collective subjectivism is not scientific objectivity and does not establish "universal laws".

The collectivist "greater good" should not apply anywhere. The right of private property right is the opposite of feudalism and does not "enslave serfs", which is imposed by statist, feudalist government.

It’s not philosophy, and it requires everyone adhere to it in order to even work. But I would surely like people to simply adhere to the idea of doing to others as i would want them to do to me - as opposed to rampant collectivism. The subject of the post as I remember was a comment obout some elements of various religions that were better than others

Those "universal" rules of morality may be common across many cultures yet not all philosophically sound.

The stuff about the "greater good" may apply to societies where the main means of production is land and whoever owns it can effectively enslave the serfs.

Consider the common concept of revenge, which is common across many cultures. Before criminal justice systems, it was a deterrent for crime. A person committing a crime knew that the victims or their families might come after them for revenge, even if it was illogical in that the revenge wouldn't undo the wrong, e.g. bring back a murder victim or recover the stolen property. There's a good reason for revenge to be so common, yet it's not the way to deal with crime in a society with a criminal justice system.

I also wonder if there might have been some selective advantage for sexual assault. The religions of the world seem to tolerate abhorrent ancient practices of enslaving and abusing non-combatants in war. It was apparently a fact of life then, although beyond the pale in modern morality. Might this horrible behavior have been selected for when it passed down the perpetrators' genes? I do not know. I'm not sure if this happened.

But I'm sure not all behaviors that are part of our basic proclivities are a good idea. Not all notions of morality that crop up frequently in human societies are sound.

They shouldn't exist at all. Whether they are outliers or dominant depends on the intellectual state of the culture. What should be is objective. A principle of treating people in accordance with what they want is subjective and not a valid principle.

They should be outliers, but if you continue to punish the productive and reward the entitled, you will get more of the entitled and less of the productive. The collectivist’s other People’s Money principal allows for this.

"Trade" is not a better term for what they mean. How altruists and collectivists "want to be treated" is not exchange of value for value under a principle of mutual self interest acknowledged and accepted as the good.

Even the supposed observation of property rights isn't correct because it's compromised in principle by qualifications of 'not too much'. They did not observe what Ayn Rand meant by property rights in their field studies of 60 collectivist cultures sampled around the world.

The entire collective subjectivist premise of collectivism collectively observed is contrary to a rational basis of ethics. Their "research" is acknowledge to be based on a "long-hypothesized idea arguing human morality is fundamentally driven to promote cooperative behavior. This suggests the moral valence of any action is determined by its social outcomes. So a morally 'good' action can be defined as one that benefits cooperative behaviors that serve the collective."

Calling this "non religious morality" appealing to the "non religious" misses the whole point. "Non-religious" says what one does not believe, not why or what one does accept as true. The negative "non religion" cannot be a basis for morality. These collectivist sociologists/anthropologists have nothing in common with us.

It's also not primarily a matter of social relations, which leaves everyone without moral standards in their own lives.

Full fledged communism is the least of it, "sampling" tribalism and collectivism in all forms that is all over the world is not a basis for morality.

Their "research" is acknowledge to be based on a "long-hypothesized idea arguing human morality is fundamentally driven to promote cooperative behavior. This suggests the moral valence of any action is determined by its social outcomes. So a morally 'good' action can be defined as one that benefits cooperative behaviors that serve the collective."

A subjectivist "want" is not the basis of a reasonable moral principle. "Reciprocal altruism" is the intended meaning in the article and there is no excusing it.

No duties are a "good set of rules". Morality requires rational choice, not commandments. Most of the Big 10 are destructive no matter how they are construed. It is "hard" to follow them because they are destructive and impossible for a rational individual.

Only "outliers"? They are everywhere. The principle is subjectivist from the beginning.

You take into account what someone else prefers when he is a friend with rational preferences. It's not a fundamental principle to treat others however they want.

The underlying assumption is subjectivism. It's not a matter of what one "wants" with no objective basis. What people "want" does not necessarily mean they aren't "insane" or seeking to "defy reality". Altruists do it all the time.

If you live by a rational ethics you have nothing to apologize for at all, nor would they accept an apology.

It leaves out how you should want to be treated and why. Rejecting pragmatism as not based on reason is not a matter of "postulates" and a subjectivist "not liking" it.

Ayn Rand's "The Objectivist Ethics" "beats" the 10 Commandments. It shows why a new morality is required, based on the nature of the individual and the requirement to use his rational mind to live as an objective basis of ethics.

"Thou shalt not" is not a matter of "putting things in order". They are prescribed duties pronounced without rational basis as edicts claimed to be from the supernatural. CBJ did not "invent his own rules about what counts as reason" based on "prejudice". Constantly accusing others here as "biased" and "prejudiced" for not being "open" to your religion and personal "translations" is not rational argument.

Ayn Rand showed why a new morality was required, based on the nature of the individual and the requirement to use his rational mind to live . That is in contrast to the supernaturalism and mysticism of religion, whose morality did not "work" and should be rejected. The 10 commandments are not principles of "highly successful cultures" and no list of injunctions to be accepted as "duty" could be.

You have to take them out of context and rewrite the meaning to get any of them to make ethical sense. They are all duties from the start.

Well, those rules look to me to be a bunch of nonsense (especially when brought into the Gulch).
Ayn Rand said that a social environment was better for man than living alone--"but only on certain conditions."
And she reiterated that man had to right to his own life and his own property.
It is not for others to get together and gang up on a man because they disapprove of the way he got his property (provided he got it honestly and without violating anybody else's rights. Just another way of trying to sneak in the altruist morality and strangling free enterprise.

Please re-read my post that you responded to. All of the ten commandments are "religious portions" - edicts handed down by a deity - even though some of them make ethical sense in an Objectivist context. It is not necessary to be a theist in order to identify something as religious.