Quote:It doesn't. Empathy is, in part, one of the things that contributes to the general feeling of inherent goodness from moral actions, and inherent wrongness from immoral ones. Many morals can be figured out simply from the "conscience", though more formal arguments could be made for them. However, visceral responses are not always right, and in that case using reason could also help in developing morals.
This is proof that you have no idea how to justify objective moral claims. Why should the conscience provide evidence for objective morality? Christian ethics is not all based on the divine command theory, which is not really a bad theory considering that God made everything and gave it its nature. There are many different approaches to Christian ethics.
How does this yield objective morality? You are going back and forth from one to the other. None of this even remotely supports your claim.
You are a faith-based advocate of atheist ethics. Nothing you have saidd, from your perspective from things you can clearly see is on a higher evidential level, it is completly based on unproven assumptions. Actually, from a Christian standpoint it is on a much lower evidential level. You can enjoy the peace and freedom that comes with recognizing the origin of the golden rule and empathy in God's intentional design of people, or you can ascribe absolute meaning and authority to one tiny mechanism in the vast biochemical machine of Darwinism, which leaves no reason to prefer the biological features of empathy over, for instance, the drive to eat, as a basic unit of moral organization.
