The Man: Who Really Makes the Rules?

I'm not sure why, but I've been pondering these things more and more, specifically the idea of who we answer to on a moral level. The idea of whether or not there is such a thing as morality and such, and where it comes from, how our ethics are determined, etc... I'm not really here to discuss the existence of morality and ethics and the like, however, I believe in order for us to really get anywhere with this sort of discourse, it is required that we take a slight line of tangency and first discuss the merits of morality, ethics, what they are, and how they affect us. So let us begin there.

Now there are several definitions of morality or morals that we can draw from, but for extensive purposes let us use the following:

"1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical"

Then what is ethics? Let's see, it is redundantly defined thus:

"the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group"

I'm not sure of any official definition, but for all extensive purposes, we will assume that the definitions above provided by www.dictionary.com are indeed sufficient for our needs. If I may, I am going to truncate the definition to a fragment of what is above mentioned, that fragment being, "the distinction between right and wrong".

I like trying to appeal to one's intuition because intuition is a very strong thing, granted, our intuitions may fail us, but mostly we don't want our intuitions to be wrong. Now, I believe that the concept of right and wrong, good and bad, in essence, morality is a very intuitive thing. Sure we need laws and regulation to tell us the specifics, such as what punishments are merited if you do something wrong, and what specifically is wrong about what you do, however, the feeling of whether or not that is right or wrong is inherently there without the regulation or legal trappings.

Inherently we make a decision determining what is right and what is wrong, what is better and what is worse, in every crossroad we come across, it'll be that sort of decision, even if we can't explain it, and it's just some "hunch". What I ultimately want to come across is that there is a certain degree of universality that is inherent in morals of mankind. If there is no objective standard, there is no perfection, there is no good, there is no bad, there is no right, there is no wrong. Middle Eastern terrorists have every right to slam planes into civilian buildings in the claim of Islamic Jihad, and they're not wrong, because if morals are man made then no one has any more of a legitimate claim on what is right than anyone else, save that perhaps one is stronger than the other. We trust the opinion of a doctor because he has studied the body and understands how it functions, not because he made up how the body functions. Likewise, if a man is to be an expert on morals it cannot really be because he "made it up", otherwise, we're all experts and we're all perfect people.