Question for Atheists

[theVOID]

I'm entirely self educated on the matter, I don't see what that is other than a red hearing.

It's an explanation. You mentioned I was 200 years behind. That may be because I haven't read the works of those who built on the trail that Bentham may have explored.

Maybe you should avoid make statements like "The closest that any philosopher has come to measuring morality objectively was Jeremy Bentham"

Because in DA God is necessarily good not through choice or conscious effort (he is also the source of all value) and all acts that are consistent with the nature of this God are necessarily good. You may think of it as being "that which is consistent with God necessarily has the greatest positive value from conflicting acts".

The God in DA is less "personal" and more "mechanical" but that seems to be a bullet many theistic ethicists are willing to bite.

I ran into this argument in my video exchanges with "Theologica" when he was trying to argue the superiority of theistic ethics. Beyond the problems of the Biblical god acting in truly deplorable fashion (unless you're willing to justify rape, genocide and slavery when Yahweh orders it), it's a meaningless tautology. "We know that Yahweh is good." How? "Because Yahweh is good."

On the other hand, if you say that God is the arbiter of right and wrong, then this is not objective morality. This is subjective morality that the theist has deferred to another being.

"GodWillsIt" does nothing to advance our understanding of morality.

DA is largely (if not entirely) incompatible with Literalism, so that's a given. It's more for those theists who have the "divine sense" train of thought - Though lets face it that's just an excuse They want to follow their instincts and then pretend that they have authority for failing to rationally evaluate the situation beyond their own senses - Either than or they genuinely believe - To be honest the latter is the more frightening one

God isn't the arbiter of morality in DA, moral truths are seen as necessary truths (necessarily of a higher positive value than all logically possible competing actions or intentions) and God is all good and necessarily consistent so what god does is necessarily and not by-choice morally good. I'm in complete agreement that it's a fucking pathetic explanation and these "necessary moral truths" are just as (if not more) mysterious than God.

Then there is the problem in getting from "that which god does is necessarily morally good" to "my actions are consistent with those God would do in a situation with my logical possibilities", that's a whole other conundrum

But if someone reacted negative to being less than the center of attention then that would be just as 'foundational' as your own reaction. We might as well say "that which does not upset the balance between blue and green is good" or any other arbitrary condition.

If it is all your opinion/feelings regarding certain categories of acts that you have chosen yourself then you're just saying "I like" which makes you are a Nihilist, at least in any practical sense.

But all of my rules have to do with the way we treat others, not my own arbitrary tastes for color or whatever. Integrity, respect for the rights of others and responsibility all relate to treating others the way we would want to be treated.

They are still arbitrary tastes though, based on your own reactions. Arbitrary does not imply selfish, it simply means based on a whim/reaction and/or not based on a system that yielded that conclusion. If you have a logically consistent system for establishing value then you have solved the problem of arbitrary constraints.

Essentially, it's still how you think we should treat others, or more precisely what sort of world and ethical system you like. Your preference for equal treatment is still an "I like". Treating others how you would like to be treated is also not necessarily how other people like to be treated. It shows less consideration for the values of others and more for your own opinions of what values are good for others.

Saying that "most people" like creates an argument from popularity.

What you need is a theory of value or a methodology for establishing values, it's the only way to avoid Nihilism as far as I can tell, and it bypasses subjectivism.