Morality versus afterlife

[orangebox21]

Orange: You're asking why I'm scared that you'd kill your son if you heard a voice in your head telling you to? I'm scared on behalf of your sons, if you have any, because I have empathy. I'm scared because all it would apparently take is a hallucination you deemed to be "God" telling you murder, and you would. I'm worried that you would totally abdicate all moral responsibility to another agent.

So yes, moral autonomy. And your entire absence of morality in this instance sets off warning lights in my sense of morality. "Moral" has clearly got nothing to do with human wellbeing anymore if anything God tells you to do is "moral". Is there anything you would refuse to do, if he ordered it?

I'm not saying you're objective immoral for holding such a position, because it's a nonsensical concept. I'm subjectively of the opinion that it an amoral way to act, at best.

The problem with morality by autonomy is that it is inconsistent.  Moral autonomy states that what I decide is moral is moral and what you decide is moral is moral.  When we agree on defining a specific act as immoral, then that morality is universal (at least between the two of us).  When we disagree on a specific act as immoral, then autonomy is the standard that judges what is moral.  The standard of autonomy is whatever the individual has determined is moral and since the determination is different in this instance, morality is not universal.  Therefore, if the moral autonomist is consistent, he/she could only say, I would never do that [specific act] because it is immoral for me, but if you have decided that it is moral to do that [specific act] then do it, and good for you to act morally.  So when you write above:  "your entire absence of morality in this instance," you are not acting consistent with moral autonomy, rather you are operating as if there is a universally applicable morality that corrects my moral autonomy.  That is not autonomy.  It is from your worldview [moral autonomy] not mine that a person can justify any of his/her actions as moral because morality is what each individual has determined it to be.

So, Orange, you're not done talking about exterminating people...you'd simply rather take it up with someone else?  This is a common "misconception" regarding moral utilitarianism.  It does not play calculus -with- human lives..it plays calculus -in service- of human lives.  That you see extermination within the definition has nothing to do with the definition, or with moral utilitarianism, and everything to do with you.  There is no amount of change we could make which would prevent you from seeing boogeymen.  

Glad that's been cleared up......are we done talking about exterminating people now...........?

Do you have a reference for an official position regarding moral utilitarianism to support the claim that there are no circumstances in which the taking of human life is justified ?  If you have one I'm happy to concede.

If utilitarianism is based upon maximizing happiness then it logically follows that there is a situation in which the taking of human life is morally justified.  There are three states of happiness; happy (a positive happiness value), unhappiness (a negative happiness value), and neutral (zero happiness value).  If a person's life is a net sum negative happiness value how does your moral system not justify the killing of that person?  A person who is dead would have a zero happiness value.  Zero is greater than a negative number.  It's simple math.  So, in my understanding, utilitarianism teaches the taking of human life is justified under the previous conditions.