Morality versus afterlife

[RoadRunner79]

Roadrunner: If you want the term "objective morality" to mean anything, you need to define exactly what it is. And to help me understand, please give me an example of how it works in practice where there is some sort of conflict of interest between two competing outcomes. No one has been able to rise to this simple challenge yet. All I get are trivial situations, killing someone versus not killing them. There is no conflict there. A conflict is where you have to balance one outcome against another due to a choice that must be made, or a limited amount of resources.

In referring to objective here, what I mean is that morality derives it's qualities and is defined, outside of the subject.  That it is absolute, and what is true for one person, is also true for another.   This would be contrary to a relative basis, in which the attributes of morality are opinions, equally valid, even if contrary between people. This can also be further expounded into moral realism.  That something immoral really is wrong, and against ones personal preference.

I also think that you want to rephrase your above.  It looks as if you are saying that killing someone is trivial, and I don't think that is what you meant (although you may mean that if you truly are a moral relativist).  As an example, I would say that throwing babies into a wood chipper for the fun of it, is always, wrong (an absolute).  It cannot be made moral based on the subject, culture, or time.  It is wrong, regardless of the subject or circumstances.
 

I have no idea what "inane morality" is supposed to mean.

Thanks, I did mean "innate sense of morality"

Yes, most people have empathy because it's an efficient evolutionary trait in our species. So hurting others in some way feels like hurting ourselves. Morality is a judgement, things aren't just "moral" or "immoral", it requires someone to make the distinction; see above. So no, things don't become inherently moral or immoral under any circumstances, including me not having empathy, because it's a nonsensical concept.

Are you saying, that immorality is just a lack of empathy?   If so, then you are saying that it is not subjective (assuming that your definition of empathy is not subjective). Can one be moral and not have empathy for the other person?  It also seems, that one may be saddened by their actions, and still behave immorally (have empathy and behave immorally.   While there is some relation to empathy and morality and they may cross, I don't see where you are making this connection.  Please expound on this.