Wow, I have never known another steamier pile of crap to be put into print.
Here is the problem though- this "morality" you and the book attribute to "god" existed LONG before the god we hear of today, or any gods of various other cultures; Take Stone age man. Now, I'm sure they were pretty violent, but in general, they had this human element known as Compassion.
Compassion, not necessarily "god" or any other form of super-being, is where morality get's it's base.
The book goes on to argue, that the very idea that murder is wrong is brought on by this supposed moral law brought on by the existence of god's laws.
The problem is, that isn't where your so-called "universal moral law" comes from. As mentioned, it's part of us, as human beings, ability to have compassion for other living things, but, more so, our respect for the relationships that us, as human beings, create amongst ourselves.
The basic idea is simple- actions that break these strings are definitely immoral, since they rip apart the fabric of society. Murder, obviously fits this bill. By killing another, you not only.. well- kill another.... but you also negatively impact the people that care about that person. Even more humourous, is that in the Anarchic chaos the book seems to preach, a murder of a families loved ones wouldn't be shrugged off, but rather dealt with quite angrily. More to the point, I find it ironic that, in order to try to justify their supposed right to steal the intellectual property of others, people actually have to go so far as to support the idea of a chaotic and lawless society.
A further irony is found in that, if such a state was to suddenly occur, these people, who, in most circumstances, limit their exercise to less then an hour a day, have stringy arms and legs and can barely lift their kitty-cat, would find that without order there would be no commerce. without commerce, industry collapses. without industry, bowls aren't made. so let me reach my point.
People with meaty strong arms,powerful legs abd a penchant for violence are likely to want to continue to eat soup, and still enjoy the smashing of the bowl afterward.
So, I'm sure we'd find said people quite able to overpower the so-called anarchists and create fashionable soup bowls out of their skulls and matching spoons out of their kitty-cats. All they have to do is smash their face in with a big rock, scoop out the brains, and TADA! it's a new bowl! After all, I mean- It's just a life. Good deal for a new soup bowl.
And even those that do survive for the longest will have difficulty adapting to the very chaos they subscribed to wanting- while order prevailed. Apparently none to aware that the order was what was preserving them, and their ability to support chaos. After all, once all network admins have had their skulls carved out into soup bowls, who will maintain the internet? Nobody. How will the self-proclaimed anarchist survive without his life-line to the virtual world, where he can scream his commitment to chaos, while at the same time adhering to a orderly existence elsewhere.
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Why, quite a lot. The book goes on to essentially say that without the shackles of this moral law (since, the book previously used flawed logic to remove that concept) we can do whatever we want?
Oh really? If everybody were to suddenly believe that, well- then we have complete disorder and chaos! the perfect catalyst for a skulls to be smashed and/or turned into decorative bowls.
