Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Little Henry]

No matter what the OP thinks, I derive my morality subjectively and make no claims otherwise.

If this is the case, then moral acts are neither right or wrong. They are just preferences and desires, not right or wrong.

---

Animals act on instinct for its own survival or altruistic, not right/wrong.

Harsh words coming from an animal.  Don't you act according to what is right or wrong?  Also, ofc, your own survival and your own instincts and whatever you take to be altruism?

Under atheism, there is no right or wrong morally.

I do things for survival, but that doesnt make it right or wrong. If North Korea detonated a nuclear bomb that maximised sufferring and  killed of the human species, have they done something wrong? In the absence of OM, then no. They may have done something undesirable, but not wrong.

We see in the wild where a group of ducks pack rape a female duck. Are they doing anything wrong? No they are not. if they are not doing anything wrong, then why is it wrong if me and my friends pack rape a girl?

If you have to ask, you're probably no more a moral agent than the duck.  

Ok, so if me and my friends raped a young girl, with all of us trying to get her pregnant so we can pass our genes, we havent done anything wrong, just like the ducks according to you, is this correct?

Under naturalism/atheism, humans are just animals, animals with more complex nervous systems, but still just animals.

That's true "under" whatever you believe as well.  

Not under Christianity.

Why is it not wrong for ducks to pack rape, but wrong for humans to pack rape? where does this obligation come from that doesnt exist for any other animal, but it does for humans?

We call it moral agency, moral competency.  It's not actually unique to us, but we definitely have an ovedeveloped sense of it compared to all the other animals.

If OM doesnt exist, then it is neither right or wrong. Just an adaptation like hands and feet that makes it beneficial for survival, but not right or wrong.

We also see apes kill each other for land. Is it wrong for apes to kill each other in the wild? No. 

Humans also kill each other for land, so why is it wrong for humans and not for other animals including apes?

These sentences were redundant, humans are apes and we do kill each other for land and we -don't- always consider it wrong.  

So if i came to your house and killed you to claim your house, have i done anything wrong? If yes, why is it wrong for me but not for apes in the wild when they kill each other? 
Why the difference in answer IF we are also just apes?

You can say humans can reason, but that just presupposes moral facts do indeed exist, ie objective morality.

The ability to reason doesn't presuppose moral facts or an objective morality.  It just gives us a better tool than thee other apes for investigating whatever moral facts of the matter there may be, if there are any.  

Of course it does. When you say reason, it means you are coming to a truth, otherwise how can you call it reason?

Empathy? Empathy does not make something right or wrong.

No one said it did, but without empathy you will find it very difficult to underatand -why- we think some thing x is wrong.  You will find yourself asking questons like..

"Why is it wrong for me and my buddies to rape some girl?  Ducks do it!"
"Why is it wrong for me to kill somebody and take their apartment? Other apes do it!"

Right/wrong ONLY exist in relation to facts. They dont exist in relation to non facts.
It is a fact that the earth rotates around the sun. If i said the sun rotates around the earth, then i am wrong. I am only wrong because the statement was in relation to a fact.

If i said chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake, i am neither right or wrong because it is not a fact that chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake.

---

Correct, but nothing about the subject ITSELF we are talking about.

The subject of some comment regarding our tastes...is our tastes...so?

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the subject itself. 

Here is another example. Little Henry thinks the sun rotates around the earth. It is a fact that Little Henry thinks the sun rotates around the earth.

Is it a fact itself that the sun rotates around the earth?

Ok, lets keep it simple...lets assume it is a piece of fruit.

Was it responsibly grown?  How is the labor compensated?  Does it come from a region currently in some civil war and do the proceeds of the proverbial banana fund the republic?  Fun fact, a significant amount of the food that americans eat, particularly in the winter, is grown on land owned by or business interests aligned with, mexican cartels.  Chocolate comes almost exclusively from the most war torn shitholes on earth.  The producers actually have to sift live ammo out of the beans for safety.  At a basic level, are you just a gluttonous chump who's on his forth heaping helping of fruit while a hungry and homeless person watches you through the cafe window like daylight porn?

Are you saying that if it doesnt meet that criteria then it is wrong to do it that way?

Nothing about food or morality, is simple..lol  

lol

So if i told you i have been raping a young girl, will you tell me that for a fact i am doing something wrong?

Sure would.

Ok, according to what?