Punishment for immoral behaviours does not require a god, or men…it comes from the consequences.
Why then do we have moral/ethical rules?
Because men wanted to prevent imbeciles, degenerates, from imposing upon the collective the consequences of their actions.
It was a method of imposing limits to what individuals can do, so as to decrease the probability of them acting in ways that would risk group survival.
Yes. Violating self=other has natural (logical) consequences in character, as well as in circumstances.
You mean artificial consequences for behavior that violates self=other, right?
Alternative narrative: Men wanted to have sex/babies with women who wanted everyone to have fun (AND/OR men wanted to play sports — including business — & I’m in the stands saying WHERE’S the F***ING REF??‽!!!) — which requires they play by the same rules to avoid the conflict resolution process instigated in violating self=other.
No “ref”… power is earned.
The strong tell the weak where their lines rest.
The weak have no lines, so they grovel, trying to find weakness in strength.
The ref is the one who earned the power to blow the whistle on the cheaters (the weak) who can’t win when they play by the rules they pretended to agree (consent) to.
Rules not in line with self=other are no rules at all.