Replacing Religious Morality

[MindForgedManacle]

Which requires the capacity of freewill, since a forced choice is no choice at all.

For such a short post, this demands so many response questions:

What do you mean by free-will? If you mean it in the libertarian sense, then there are very good philosophical and scientific reasons to think that such a view is incoherent, or if it is coherent despite all its flaws, that is not the free-will we might have. In fact, 'free-will' is a bad name for this. 'Free choice' might be a better one.

The idea that without having libertarian free-will there is no moral responsibility gained more traction in the Enlightenment. I think it's a confused view, even if it's (I admit) intuitively appealing to an extent.

---

What you have not defended is moral facts, if you are going to state that there is an objective moral standard then you have show us what are the properties of right and wrong, good or evil, you have to show us how those properties could be measured and observed and by what means they can be measured or observed.

And this is where having read my post will have come in handy. "Right" and "wrong" don't have any properties, nor are right and wrong, strictly speaking, intrinsic properties of events. They're imbued properties by minds on actions.
Does this mean that morality is therefore subjective and arbitrary? No. Truth is entirely dependent on the existence of minds as well. All theories of truth I know of necessitate a mind, thus truth is dependent on minds. Yet I doubt you would say something like "All truth is subjective.", which is self-refuting.

Now, as for my 'objective moral standard', I've already stated that since I'm a utilitarian consequentialist, my standard of determining whether or not something is moral or immoral is whether or not it is conducive to a conscious entity's well-being (both physical and mental). You can't ask "How do you know negatively impacting well-being is immoral" because I'm merely defining what I mean by 'moral' and 'immoral'. To do so would be like asking Plato "How do you know that knowledge is a justified, true belief?" "Justified true belief" is what Plato means by knowledge, so it is a fallacy to ask that.

As for how impact to well-being can be observed, it would seem rather obvious for physical well-being. Mental is a bit harder to ascertain, but is well within the realm of psychology and neuroscience.

If something has no measurable properties and you cannot observe it then its status as a fact becomes iffy to say the least.

Which is why my case is neither.