Thinking further, this whole issue is even more complex than it appears. I said in an earlier post that if everyone were natural anarchists things would work out; that may have been premature and foolish on my part. After all, my personal sense of ethics not only stem from being a natural anarchist but by being one who grew up in a culture of "pack-hunters", so to speak. Perhaps the very reason fairness and non-aggession were so important to me is that I instinctively perceived that if I aggressed, the other person's whole pack would respond and I had none of my own to fall back on. If everyone were like me, that would be negated, and maybe aggressive selfishness would be common (if not the desire to control)? Who knows?
I also acknowledge that some people's minds are naturally different from mine and do indeed acknowledge a truly objective ethical standard intrinsic to the universe. One who truly believes in God or gods, for instance, perceives the universe as having intrinsic ethical qualities, like the Hamalki in the Trek novels. This because their mind naturally understands the universe in terms of a creative ethical intention.
This is perhaps my biggest personal obstacle in terms of ethical debate; I know that so much of my ethical worldview is natural to the way I am rather than a true choice. We can challenge our nature if we feel we should - and, again, I recognize that other angles are necessary - but I never quite know how to explain myself. After all, how can someone come to share my worldview if they're originating in a totally different place? Is it wrong for me to even try? For them to even try? I guess not; we can all only live as we believe best. But, to return to DevilEyes'
argument, does that not implicitly excuse maltreatment of others?