re: Would you support government or Christian’s in the United States?

quote:

---

Wrong. According to my definition, consensus cultural norms would be that killing babies does NOT promote the wellbeing of the babies, therefore the action of killing babies would be immoral.

---

You're getting wrong at least two things here, one of which is more fundamental.

The fundamental problem you have is that your definition of morality as being an action that "promotes a net positive, happiness, and well-being and/or decreases unnecessary suffering" is an arbitrary and subjective standard on its face. This is merely one standard among an infinite number of subjective standards that exist in the minds of human beings throughout time. Having a cultural consensus doesn't make this standard objectively true, which is what you seem to be admitting when you say morality is not objective, yet you then provide a seemingly objective standard for determining morality (the golden rule). Why is this standard objective in your opinion? And if it isn't objective (it can't be, in your own professed worldview), then why do you assert it as if that is what morality is, rather than asserting that morality is whatever society wants it to be (whether that's the golden rule or something else)?

Secondly, not only is your overall definition of morality subjective, even the words contained within your definition are subjective and open to interpretation. Your moral paradigm is predicated on the concept of an objective view of what constitutes "positive", "happiness", "well-being", "unnecessary", and "suffering". My children going to the doctor might be interpreted as "suffering" to them and a detriment to their temporary "happiness", but may very much being good for their "well-being" and a net "positive" for them long-term. Not only are these conflicts evident in the individual, but they exist at the societal level, as well. Many evils were justified as being for the good of society. Genocide under the guise of population control to manage resources is something floated around as something for the good of humanity overall. Slavery has always been seen as a net benefit to societies in the past, where the suffering and harm of one group was outweighed by the happiness and well-being of another group. Rape for the sake of forced reproduction might be a net benefit long-term to a society where birthrates are declining. Stealing wealth from one group to give to another has been a staple of Communism and is seen as a net positive and benefit to society by many people who view it as a moral issue more than an economic one.

On top of all that, you claim "unnecessary suffering" should be minimized. Why? If suffering for one group will maximize happiness and well-being for another group (let's say 5% of the population will suffer for the sake of the 95%), why isn't that something we should move forward with as a moral action, even if the act is not absolutely necessary? Should the amount of positive compared to the amount of negative be considered? What if we as a nation decided that taking homeless people off the street and forcing them into prostitution or gladiatorial-like events for the pleasure of the rest of society was going to provide much more benefit than suffering, even though that wasn't a necessary solution to the homeless situation? Where do we draw the line?

So you see, not only is your standard for moral reasoning as a whole subjective, but even the components of that standard are open to interpretation based on the wants and needs of a particular society, so you could literally justify any behavior you want to and say it's good because it will maximize the happiness and well-being of society as a whole (even if it's 51% of society) and minimize suffering and harm for that same group. And that's assuming that the majority of society is what we actually want to maximize happiness, pleasure, and well-being for. I don't see why those with the power can't select a minority group to lift up and a majority to cast down. We're seeing that to some degree in our nation today with DEI and Critical Race Theory objectives.

The bottom line is that you don't have an objective standard for moral reasoning, and the one you claim to adhere to cannot be adhered to consistently, even though it comes from your own brain as your own subjective opinion.