Morality versus afterlife

[orangebox21]

As I've said more than once, nothing about the definition of moral utilitarianism, or anything I've said....has anything to do with your ability to see boogeymen.  Either you can come down from that frenzy and have a discussion or you can't.  Another poster has already given you the means to purge your irrational fears.  You merely need to ask the targets of the genocide how well they feel their interests are being pursued.

We can have a discussion as soon as you provide references that support your definition of moral utilitarianism as excluding the taking of human life even if doing so will maximize wellbeing.

Orange: Thanks for your reply. I don't see any point in continuing. Clearly, to you, what God says is "morality". (Or more accurately, what a specific group of people say he says.) That has nothing in common with what I call morality, so we're just not talking about the same thing.

Where in my definition of 'objective morality' did I say that what God says is morality?  Do a search on 'objective vs. subjective morality' within another section of this forum.  You'll find that there are non-theists who argue for an objective morality.

I'll say this though, that's the first time anyone has event attempted to give an example of "objective morality" in action. So credit for that.

Thank you.

However, what we have here, from our point of view, is an arbitrary list of things to do and not to do, decided by a book.

I hear this a lot.  What do you mean by arbitrary?  Are you claiming that when God gave His commandments He did so on a whim and without reason?  Are you claiming that He didn't have a reason for telling a person to not murder another person, and that there is not any beneficial effect to obeying a command like that?

That's just one possible method of morality out of an infinite amount.

A statement that is equally critical of your moral framework.

And it's been subjectively chosen by those who follow it.

Also, and you admit, equally critical of your moral framework.

What I consider important for morality is entirely different.

Yet, falls within your own criticism.

So as morality is not a well defined term, there can't be just one "objective morality" without defining morality to simply be that thing,

A little more explanation would be helpful here for me to understand your position.

unless you can somehow demonstrate one system to be "better" than another.

What do you mean by better?  Are you speaking of utility?

Before you can even begin to attempt something like that, you'd need to agree what the goals of morality are. And already, we disagree.

Why are the goals of morality the justifier of the validity [truth value claims] of morality?

And I'd say any arbitrary system like the above is entirely useless in practice, except for the purpose of trying to please the character in the book.

You can address this given my comment from above, namely the implication that following the command to not murder is somehow useless in practice except for the purpose of trying to please God.

If morality, as in Orange's case, only serves to make a character in a book happy,

This is an unsubstantiated assertion that only you have made.  Would the world be better if there was no murder?  Yes.  Would the world be better if people were content with what they had and didn't covet?  Yes.  Would the world be better if no one was a false witness?  Yes.

There is just one use of an arbitrary list of do's and don'ts to be used as morality, and that would be for someone who has literally no idea what to do. Maybe a psycopath who has no empathy, or someone who has never interacted with other humans before. An alien, even. Someone who wants to fit into our society, but to who killing someone seems as arbitrary an action as helping someone. For a person in this position, a well designed list could at least be a starting point. But no lists can ever be a fully comprehensive "objective morality", unless they are so simple as to be very limited in scope.

You've redefined "objective morality" as a list of arbitrary do's and don'ts that would only be useful for a psychopath or someone who has never interacted with other humans before.  How long does that scarecrow take to burn?  Objective morality is a morality that is universally applicable and not subject to a person's feelings or opinions.  

I didn't say that you needed to agree that his standard is good for you but rather his standard is good for him.  To remain consistent the moral autonomist cannot judge another man's morality as universally wrong, only wrong for himself but right for the other.  This is how moral autonomy functions.  When faced with the question:  "Is Christianity moral?" the moral autonomist must answer:  "yes and no."  It depends solely upon who you ask.  The answer is yes for those who decide yes, and no for those who decide no.

And? This is practically a problem how? I am still justified in saying that I disagree.

That is true within the context.  The problem arises when a 'moral argument' is made against God.  A moral autonomist can never be justified in saying that God did something wrong, he/she can only say, "I disagree."

"Morality is doing right no matter what you are told.  Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right."

How is what's right determined?

Why does everything have to be God or accountability when it comes to espousing morals?

Because morals are not solely about cooperation and harmony with others.  The lawbreaker is accountable to the lawgiver.