Interesting statistics about academic philosophy

[Pyrrho]

No one cares about my hypothetical baby!

Bah.

I'm not gonna give him the treatment. I will subjectively decide 10 happy years are better than 20 miserable ones.

Can anyone objectively object?

You are getting far away from the topic in the opening post, which may explain why people have not commented on it.

I would say that 10 good years are better than 20 bad ones.  I would even go so far as to say that it follows from the meanings of the terms involved.  But notice, this is already containing the judgements of the two states of affairs rather than merely the states of affairs.

I do, however, agree with the judgment and would not select the hypothetical procedure.  I certainly would not select that for myself, if I were presently faced with a condition such that if I do nothing, I have 10 good years and then drop dead, but I could have a procedure done in which I would be in constant pain for life, but live 20 years and drop dead.  I will choose the shorter better life to the longer worse life.  In fact, I would go much further than that; I would choose one good day over 100 years of pain.

Going back to your original statement of the hypothetical situation:

Hmm. Actually, finding out which actions cause the most pleasure and pain is just physics isn't it?

No.  When you have a pain, do you go to a physicist to get it diagnosed?  Or would you be more likely to go to a physician?

It may all depend on physics, but that is not the level on which one would approach such a problem.

If you scan the brain and find a way to empirically test for pleasure and pain, bob's your uncle.

Okay.

Two big reasons I find objective morality nonsensical are how exactly wellbeing is measured "objectively" and how intent is disregarded.

What do you mean?  (That question applies to both "big reasons.")  And with your magical brain scan mentioned earlier, you may well be able determine intent.

Someone telling me such and such is more important to my wellbeing than some other factor is pretty pointless if I don't agree.

People do not agree on the shape of the earth.  (Just do a search online for the "flat earth society.")  People do not agree on the age of the earth (ever hear of creationism?).  Does the lack of agreement mean that there is no objective shape of the earth or objective age of the earth?  Disagreement proves nothing about objectivity.

Here's a silly example to make the point:

My child is born, and it's found he has a rare condition. I have two options.

(1) I do nothing. He will live as normal, but will die at the age of 10.
(2) I let the doctor give him treatment. It's a one off, and must be administered before he reaches the age of 1. He will live another 10 years, but he'll be in a certain amount of pain constantly.

Which is objectively the more moral choice?

The answer to that would depend on the true nature of morality.  That is the subject for another thread, though the ones here typically go nowhere.

I'd say there isn't one.

One can say anything, but that is not evidence one way or the other.

There is no objective way to compare lifespan and pain, as far as I'm concerned.

This is again just the claim that you think you are right, and does nothing to further the argument.

Everyone is going to come to their own conclusions and no one can declare they are right.

People disagreeing does not mean that there is no objective truth to the matter.  Consider again the shape of the earth and the earth's age.  People disagree on those.  Are you saying that there is no objective shape of the earth and no objective age of the earth?  If not, then you should understand why your reasoning on this is completely unsatisfactory for proving that something is not objective.

This is just one way in which I don't consider wellbeing objectively measurable. We could come up with a formula which gives a rough estimate, sure. But it will only ever be that.

And we see with the last bit, you do not add any further reason to accept your claim that morality is not objective.  

You have done nothing whatsoever to show that morality is not objective in your post.

Again, all of this is going off topic for this thread.