1) You argue that the ends justify the means and that any and all actions and crimes can be justified if one can get away with them as the free market and survival of the fittest at work.
Logic fail. Try again to read what I wrote and correctly comprehend it.
I stated that I would not want to live in a society that did not punish such actions and doubted whether one could find a society that would tolerate them.
I distinguished moralistic (absolute truth) ideological ends and stated these arent ever valid thus never justify means. For the remaining ends, I stated these are not ends because they have no total ordering. Thus there are no ends. Instead we live in societies and follow the rules of our chosen society.
Youre trying to demonize my thoughts, because your always moralizing everything, which I vehemently dislike about you. Instead of attempting to understand my analysis with an open mind, youre approaching it with an ideological bias, wherein you hope to prove that my philosophy is inconsistent and your moralism is consistent, but you have lost that debate already whether you fail to recognize it, is not my problem.
2) You argue that the definition of evil is supporting a belief as a universal truth. Thus you define following an ideology or morality as the most amoral thing a person can do.
Correct. It can only lead to outcomes which deceive society and prevent society from acting rationally, because there is no check-and-balance (no feedback loop) of observable reality to test whether absolute/universal truths are actually true and functioning.
3) You argue that morals are just the traditions and norms of a particular society nothing more.
No I argue that morals are the absolute truths nonsense you and others promulgate.
Societal norms, laws, culture, and customs, are just that and not morals.
I find it interesting that under your code the worst taboo is proclaiming the universal truth of God. The slaver, the murderer, and the thief are all to be praised as successful alpha men as long as they get away with their actions undetected.
There you go again trying to put words in my mouth that I never wrote. You attempt to demonize my words, but you exhibit a lack of comprehension of my statements.
I clearly stated that anyone is free to have their own beliefs as long as their beliefs do not impinge on me.
You can proclaim all you want, as long as you are not trying to establish that your truths are superior to my beliefs and thereby subjugate me by getting society to act irrationally and adopt your beliefs which are not verifiable.
It is quite simple. I think ideologues are evil. And youve done more to convince me of that than anyone else Ive ever known. I fear or wonder what you may slide into in the future (you presumably have the same thought about me). I often wonder if your a wolf in sheepskin who will pounce one day ramming I told you ideological crap down my throat.
I tried in exasperation to establish a mutually respectful dialogue and even perhaps intellectual friendship with you, but your ideological subversion makes it impossible. Unfortunately, the antagonism creeps into every discussion we have.
In contrast the priest and the rabbi who spend their time in the slums spreading the word of God and warning people against sin are in your world the epitome of evil proclaiming and spreading their "false" belief of a universal truth.
As brain washing, yes very evil.
It should be taught more as questions about beliefs and logic about how to respect the autonomy of others (which is what part of 10 commandments is about).
If taught as a private relationship with God in each individuals closet and taught not to impinge their beliefs on others, but rather spread it in the same very humble and not antagonist against non-believers principles, then maybe I can say they are not interested in create an ideological subversion and genuinely interested in the welfare and free will of people.
Even a society which wishes to not emancipate females in order to get more k selection strategy, should not brain wash females with unprovable universal theories as the justification for such subjugation. Rather simply tell them frankly that woman cant make rational decisions during their fertile years due to hypergamy.
A meaningful relationship with God can only be a very personal thing (maybe even family/clan oriented) any way. All that ideological subversion is antithetical to the cause it purports to achieve.
Suffice to say I strongly disagree with your views and find them to be internally incoherent.
That said I wish you well on your spiritual journey.
Passing false witness is condemned in the Bible. Please be more circumspect.