What is GOOD?

[Whateverist]

Nor would I want it to. Isn't it enough to spell out what the agreed upon consequences are for transgressions of the group agreements. Why would we want to have our actions prescribed by some moral code?

How else would you determine what actions you should take?

That isn't a reasonable response to my question. Don't you suppose there are other motivations in life besides concern for morality? It is hard to think you seriously want morality to prescribe your actions anymore than I do given what you say below.

This position is the result of presupposition - in this case, that of empathy. You start by assuming that empathy is the basis for morality,

Obviously. What other basis could there be? If our human nature was more like that of a cat, morality would make no sense at all. It is only because of empathy that morality is something we talk about apart from law and decorum.

..pretty much the same way theists start by assuming that what god wants is the basis for morality.

Seriously? The existence of empathy in human beings is as spurious a notion as the existence of a divine rule maker? If you truly think that we agree on too little to have a meaningful discussion.

Conscious application of empathy would require you to ask yourself why you should be empathetic even if it is not in your interest and the only way one would be consistently and consciously empathetic is if they receive some form of emotional gratification from doing the right thing.

That is a whole lot of assuming. I don't agree and you offer no justification for your conclusions.

If that form of self-interest is present in the motivation, that dilutes the requirement for empathy as a moral basis and you are aware of that. Which is why, the highest form of "goodness" with respect to your empathy-based moral code, would be achieved by someone who has internalized that trait - someone who does good not because he has consciously thought it through and concluded that it is the right thing to do, but he does it because that has become a part of his nature.

I wonder what you mean exactly by a "moral basis"? Apart from empathy I can't see what else there would be. I don't think there is anything I can say to someone who is indifferent to the well being of others. That is why we have laws. There certainly isn't any rational basis for 'morality'. What outcome is better only enters into it once you've agreed you care to some degree about the well being of others.

As you may suspect, I reject this notion by rejecting empathy as the basis of morality.

Well then, what basis do you find for morality?

I cannot live my life always considering the wants and needs of others and if I start going so unconsciously, I would simply become the ultimate doormat whose every action is automatically determined by what others would want from him. I recognize that empathy is a character trait within me, but what role it plays in my moral decisions and how much is up to me.

You say you recognize empathy in yourself and yet somehow you've managed to go through life without constantly considering the wants and needs of others. Guess what? Me too.

In another recent thread someone asked what was the basis for your morality. I responded there: need, empathy and convenience. I do not look for a unified moral theory which will always dictate my action anymore than apparently you do. I placed need ahead of empathy on purpose and convenience last but in truth there are plenty of times when convenience will outweigh considerations for others. There are also times when empathy will out weight personal need, at least if war stories are to believed. (Thankfully I've never been put in such a position.)