Ok how do you decide what increases net suffering and what increases net well-being.
Through knowledge / understanding of the world, which informs us or makes it possible for us, to predict the consequences of actions.
For example, if our understanding of the world says that continued growth of co2 levels in the atmosphere is causing climate changes wich will have detrimental effect on living conditions, then it is immoral not to try and limit, or even totally stop, pumping co2 in the air. Because our knowledge informs us what the consequence of that is going to be and it ain't pretty.
Sometimes, it is really difficult to accuratly discern the consequences of our actions. Other times, it is extremely obvious.
As for what constitutes well-being itself, I don't think that requires much explanation.
Frankly, if I am going to have to discuss wheter or not being healthy is preferable to being sick, or how being happy is preferable to being unhappy, feeling good being preferable to being in pain (physically or otherwise),... Then honestly I don't know what to tell you.
Not saying that is your opinion, I'm just speaking in general. I don't see what a person who needs those things to be explained, can contribute to a discussion about morality.
It seems to me that is a fairly difficult calculation and one that would differ greatly from one person to the next
Depends on the subject.
For those things that are dificult to discern, you'll more easily encounter disagreements, sure.
For other things that are rather obvious, you won't.
As an example one person or group of people might think that the extermination of anyone that disagreed with his/her/their political philosophy was a net well being increase
That person would be demonstrably wrong.
As for the idea that obedience to authority is the basis for a moral system. That would be the same idea as "might makes right"
Pretty much, yes.
That is the basis of law enforced by government , in whatever way government accrues its might
Disagree. There, it rather is "
might makes power".
I disagree that governmental laws necessarily reflects morals.
Governments don't get to dictate morality.
I think that's the entire point here... Morals are derived, reasoned, discussed. They aren't dictated by an authority. Being moral is not merely being obedient to whatever authority is being percieved. That's just being obedient.
Most people do not agree with that as a personal moral compass but they do seem to agree with it as a collective moral compass.
Not sure what you mean by that.
I would suggest that most theists do not subscribe to the "divine command theory " as you have stated it.
It's kind of hard to accept that, considering the amount of theists I run into in these discussions who claim that the bible is the very foundation of morals.
Not to go in on that point, since it is forbidden here, but it is a neat example anyway: let's look at homosexuality. Theists tend to be quick to label it as immoral.
When pressed to give their reasons for labeling it to be immoral, it always comes down to "the bible says it's wrong".
That's their reasoning. That's the actual argument as to why it is immoral: the bible says it, that settles it.
How do you call that, if not "divine command theory" or mere obedience to a perceived authority?
Rather most theists, in particular monotheists who are the majority of theists in the world today, would believe that their deity created everything there is from nothing with some purpose in mind. That being their assumption, it is perfectly logical to conclude that the creator of the thing is best equipped to decide what the thing is supposed to be. Therefore it is not strictly a desire to obey authority that drives the average theist to want to follow the commands of the one that created them with what the theist assumes is a specific purpose in mind, but a willingness to concede that there is a more qualified arbiter of what ought to be and how to live among each other than they are themselves.
The outcome is
the exact same:
"good" are those things that the authority says are good.
"bad" are those things that the authority says are bad.
This is moral bankrupcy. This is mere obedience.
This is how you justify slavery, genocide, infantacide and other such barbaric acts. "god is mysterious", "god knows", "god has a plan",... and "god is benevolent" so there, checkmate atheists!
As you note, if one does not buy into the basic assumptions of the system, and not believing in the deity to begin with is a big no buy in, one would not find the resulting arguments persuasive.
Because there's nothing there....
A more important point however, is that even if I would believe in a god, I don't see how that would change my opinion on what morality is. I'ld still understand that mere obedience to authority as a moral compass, is what psychopathy actually is....
