I shouldn't have to prove that respecting the local mores or manners is a cooperative necessity, so I won't. However, since the proof is based on cooperativeness, if the mores are inherently treacherous or deviant, the necessity doesn't apply. Domains and ranges.
Christians, due to Athenian influence, started trying investigate universal mores. Surely a system of manners that applies in all times and all places is better than some local peccadilloes?
Well, spoiler: no. The universal law is that local conditions matter and you ought to adapt to them. Rejecting local conditions is local Gnosticism. You're supposed to look, see and know. You're supposed to be the opposite of an autistic-mode narcissist. Pretending local conditions don't matter is next door to pretending they don't exist; a lie. Gnosticism is a lie, so it's a proper subset of Satanism.
As I keep saying, Christianity is inherently Gnostic and if it appears otherwise it's because it's compromising its own values. Gnosticism proper is merely rejecting "physics" as too local to be morally relevant; using an unusually broad version of [local]. In fact physics is a divine instrument. Turns out, in shocking news, Creation was created by the Creator.
Physics, seen properly, is one of the most beautiful things observable, and it's not even close. it displays perfect unity of form and function - the function is the form, and the form is the function. Transcendentally gorgeous. It's also unimaginably consistent. Harmonious across inconceivable gulfs. Every physical law sings in perfect symphony with every other. The greatest composer is here. Your "Bachs" and "Beethovens" are pathetic wannabes by comparison. Feeble echoes of the the depthless glory of physics.
Utter slavish fanaticism for Logic, well beyond anything a human is capable of.
Math and physics is seeing the mind of God? Yes. Simply, yes. Turns out they were on the ball there.
Universal morality is anti-physics.
Universal morality, styled these days as simply morality, is a lie. Local mores arise because they work better than the alternatives that were discarded. It's prudence, not "morality."
P.S. Frankly it's super weird that morality has its own quale. Why do moral things feel different than non-moral things? Is this the power of being raised in a lie? Is this the incomprehensibly adaptive nature of the qualia system?
The idea that "pragmatism" is somehow opposed to morality is absurd. The idea that self-sacrifice can possibly be moral is absurd. Let's do the self-sacrifice thing as a concrete example. Spoilers: if can be good if it's not really self-sacrifice.
Example one: you really value your town, so you lay down your life trying to kill some criminals who are afflicting the town. Is this self-sacrifice? Nope. This person valued a non-criminal town above their own life. To them, this is simply a good trade. Being prudent and pragmatic. The idea that everyone always values their life above all other things is a lie. A secular-materialist lie. Also a narcissist/Gnostic lie.
Example two: you really value your town, so you give away your entire life savings to the town. Is this self-sacrifice? Nope. Indeed you're likely to make your investment back with interest. If the town deserves the love (you're not plain delusional) then they will spend it wisely, and you will benefit. Further, someone in town is likely to respond to your "altruism" with "altruism" of their own. If two or three such folk exist, you will end up being given more than you gave away. It was prudent and pragmatic. Even if it's not materially pragmatic, if you did it, it's because you valued giving the money away more than keeping it, and it was a good trade.
If you commit self-sacrifice and it's a good trade, it's not sacrifice. If you commit self-sacrifice and it's not a good trade, then you dun fukt up. That was just stupid. It's not a moral thing, it's an ROI thing. There's a small part of universal morality that's true: there is always a tension between the long term and the short term. The things called "evil" have short-term benefits and long-term costs. The things called "not-evil" are goods because they have short-term costs and long-term benefits. 2 > 1. It's not a moral thing, it's just accounting. Short-term "altruism" is feeding parasites. "Altruism" with long-term benefits isn't altruistic, now is it? Is the stock market a endless font of altruism? Morality isn't a moral thing. Self-sacrifice is always thing-called-evil. Don't reject the incomprehensible generosity of the heavens: do as you're told and be rich.
Pragmatism: it's true that things-Americas-call-pragmatism are opposed to cooperation and long termism. Parasites love promoting self-sacrifice, because you have to sacrifice to a parasite or it will die. Pragmatism arose to try to counter these pro-"altrusim" deviants, but it was co-opted. The incentive is for parasites to say that feeding the parasite is pragmatic for the parasite (hardly untrue) and thus co-opt pragmatism as letting the parasites be pragmatic.
Example three: you donate to a homeless bum. You don't see them again and don't see any return. Is this altruism? Self-sacrifice?
If what you wanted is for the bum to do bum things with the money, then it was a good trade. You wanted the money less than you wanted the bum to have it.
If you didn't want the bum to have the money, then you're an idiot. Congrats on accelerating his alcohol-induced cognitive collapse in exchange for making yourself marginally more immiserated. I guess that's exactly what you deserved, dumbass.
Subjectivity is subjective and therefore psychological egoism is true. Nobody can be altruistic or unselfish. It's logically impossible. You values drive your decisions - that's what it means to be a value. You can't feel the values of others, because that's the nature of subjective ontology. If the dude in example 3 knows the bum is only going to do bum things with the money, then he doesn't give the money away. Whether he "should" or not is irrelevant, because he's not going to, end of story. (Also, if it isn't yet clear, he really shouldn't.)
If you decide you want to be "self-sacrificing" that means you value the acts of "sacrifice" more than you values the things you give away. It still isn't unselfish. It's logically impossible to be unselfish: psychological egoism is true.
Because self-sacrifice is impossible, if someone convinces you to do something that feels self-sacrificing, it just means you were scammed. You didn't know the real situation. They're a parasite. Sacrifice for thee but not for me.
Check: if selflessness is the ideal, who can you give things to? An unselfish bum would refuse the money. If everyone is unselfish, all that happens is everyone starves to death. Self-sacrifice is a lie. Selflessness is a lie.
Self-sacrifice is death, pain, and failure. Its Communism. It's irresponsible. It's devil-worship. Anyone claiming you ought to be self-sacrificing is dishonourable.
With the exception of the abstract tension between long and short term, mores are necessarily local because local conditions exist. Local customs, as I hope your quale agrees, are not [morality]. Customary merely means how it's usually done. This is always for a good reason, though occasionally the good reason is, "The locals are foolish." In the long term and on average customs are wise because of natural selection. In the short term and the specific there is no such guarantee.
Christianity tried to overcome these solecisms by appealing to some universal more, but this is (as expected given the nature of the cult) ass backwards. Indeed if you look at specific examples of these solecisms, they're almost always already appealing to a more universal principle, and that's why they're not working.
Put another way, if your local mores are not prudent, then you die out. The more local and particular they are, the better they will serve you. By contrast, the more "universal" you try to make them, the worse they will perform. As such, it seems Christianity said self-sacrifice is universally moral by back-propagation: only a suicide would want to respect a universal morality, and thus the highest ideal must be self-sacrifice.
If you are correctly "moral," you die.
Is this a mistake? Some foolish oversight?
"Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for
it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the
contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him
something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his
head.”" Romans 12:17-21
In short, not only don't defend yourself, not only don't secure your shit, but actively assist those who wish to harm you.
Hey, uh, how did Jesus' story end, again? And he's supposed to be the paragon of morality?
Thus we can see it's probably not a coincidence that Christian nations are ethno-masochist.
Thus we can see it's probably not a coincidence that Unitarian Universalism is one of the most destructive sects of Christianity.
In retrospect, duh. Un-self-ishness un-selfs you. No self, no existence. Death. Annihilation. In Reality, self-sacrifice leads to the lake of fire and sulfur, which is the second death.
Morality, in the modern sense of universal morality, is a sin.
P.P.S. In the previous semi-working 1950s version, you were allowed to accept things if they were unselfishly offered to you. The idea was that nobody is competent to take care of themselves due to the whole [judge in your own case] mechanic, but others could be trusted to take care of you. In theory, this system lets everyone get their needs met, so is not, in practice, unselfish. Unfortunately, as the Boomers demonstrated, this is false. The system immediately broke down, because it doesn't work. Turns out you know your own needs and nobody else knows your needs, because subjectivity is subjective. It's fine as long as you're responsible and pay for the things you want instead of trying to get them for free from "unselfish" individuals.
I rather suspect the 1950s form of twisted nonsense is exactly what Christianity was designed to promote. It rewards narcissists who rarely even remember you have needs at all. They become bottomless pits of "altruism" and nobody is allowed to say boo or they're "selfish." Something like 97% of the time if someone calls you selfish, they're a raging narcissist, and you should run, don't walk. Another 2% of the time or more, they're psychopaths.
P.P.P.S. Yeshua wasn't the Creator, so Christianity is a form of idolatry. In Reality worshipping as symbol as a symbol per se is fine. Worshipping Sol as allegorically the Creator is fine. Worshipping Zeus as a representative of the overflowing bounty of Creation is fine. Worshipping a symbol as if it were the thing itself is idolatry. Worshipping Sol as literally the Creator is false. Worshipping Zeus as literally king is false.
Goes double in this case because Yeshua wasn't even allegorically the Creator. Yeshua was the archangel of mercy, the ruler of Chesed. Not Keter. At least, not during his mortal tenure. If Yeshua was promoted to Metatron, it was in fact usurpation, not coronation.
Bible literalism is idolatry and arises because Christianity is inherently idolatrous. When it isn't, it's compromising against its own core values.
P.P.P.P.S. Call for "unity" are universalist, thus immoral and suicidal. If you want cooperation, pay for it, you irresponsible shitbags. Obviously it's a conqueror playing "nice" and putting their intent to conquer you "tactfully." Check: Lincoln is the unifier and Americans are obsessed with the Union, but in reality it was the War of Northern Aggression, a war of conquest and subjugation. Unity => subjugation, defection, deviance, treachery. Irresponsible. Dishonourable.