(December 8, 2014 at 3:08 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Wonderful to hear.What you don't understand - or pretend not to understand - is that human well-being is not the only possible measure of morality, or the objectively correct measure of morality.
I still don't understand the problem you have with acknowledging certain choices in any moral question or situation are objectively better for those involved than other choices.
Further, you don't follow your own approach.
For sake of this particular argument, suppose we're dealing with a situation of rape, not seduction.
The father is better off with the payment than without.
The rapist is better off making a payment and possibly getting married than being killed or imprisoned.
The girl is worse off.
So, 2 out of 3 have greater well-being by application of this law.
Your morality seems to be based more on individual autonomy and the harm principle than on well-being.