Morality belongs to Science and Reason, not Religion or Individual Opinion

[The Stranger]

if there were no humans there would be no one to say that it is wrong. if suddenly humans appear and hear of it and say it is wrong, it is wrong because there are humans to say it is. this proves no point, because it is a human saying so. i would only be convinced if a martian pink hippo would tell it to me.

it indeed does not prove it does not exist. but it also no real argument for it. moral objectivity can exist, it might not exist. untill we find out when we look at the world all we see is moral diversity guided by a few apparantly universal apriori structures.

[Askthepizzaguy]

A baboon may not understand the consequences of his actions. While the actions might be defined in moral terms, the baboon isn't competent enough to understand right and wrong. At least, that is the defense that we might come up with.

I do not expect a plant to understand morality, nor a fish, nor a duck. I don't expect a baboon to understand consequences and morality. People are advanced enough to begin to comprehend it.

Perhaps we are the first advanced life on this planet capable of even having this discussion. Does that mean that we shouldn't have it? Does that mean that other species, sufficiently advanced, couldn't do so?

What of children? At what point do they become understanding and sentient enough to understand morality?

Further, without such a science of morality, how can we even say that we understand morality? Perhaps it is too large a concept for even us to grasp, like a baboon trying to design a gasoline engine. But I feel it is worth a try.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The microscope studies the universe as much as a telescope does.

When I say Universe I do not necessarily mean "up". I mean existence itself, from the small to the large.

Then let us create an object: A robot. It exists independent of us, and is not human. Can morality apply to the robot? Suppose the robot builds a weapon and wipes out all species on some alien planet. Does morality enter into it? I contend that it does.

But you are now postulating two other kinds of life forms. If they have morality it comes from them, and is particular to them--they might even have no use for it. So it seems to me like your are really arguing that morality is inherent to humanity, which is what I'm saying...

the most basic (often referred to as objective, because they are found in almost if not every culture) moral claims are to be traced back to these instincts. they are not outside us, but they are inherently in us. if morality was something objective, outside us, within the universe (or why not also outside the universe, surely then things would still be moral if the universe would cease to exist) than it would also have to be shared atleast in some respect by other intelligent alien lifeform. not only that, but also to the gods.

and im very much doubting that.

I don't see why you go from "inherently in us" to "therefore: subjective". We can observe our inherent internal phenomena can't we?

[Askthepizzaguy]

superstitious? me? now im offended!

i just dont understand why people who charge at religion and morality and such to the very foundations that support it, but refuse to look if their own building is properly supported, if at all

Actually that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

I'm saying that in the field of scientific morality, there is no building whatsoever. No supports.

What I propose is a construction project. Religion already has cathedrals. Why can science not at least attempt to explain morality?

I am not satisfied with "I believe it." I want to understand why. Other than turning to a deity or a guru who I also have to accept at face value without understanding the why, and getting nothing except "because I said so".

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying "Science knows morality better than religion". I am saying Science hasn't even attempted to understand morality. I believe a building, with proper supports, is in order.

if you accept christianity to be true than it works.

I'd disagree, but that's theology and not the topic.

if you accept the mathematic system to be true than 1 + 1 = 2. but actually its complete bs.

That's your opinion, now prove it.

Why can't A not be NotA at the same time.

Now you're asking questions, which is a start.

in reality manythings are and are not at the same time. yet we accept the rule of A cant be Not A at the same time as an objective truth.

It is difficult to respond to this, it is quite vague and I don't agree with it.

if there were no humans there would be no one to say that it is wrong. if suddenly humans appear and hear of it and say it is wrong, it is wrong because there are humans to say it is. this proves no point, because it is a human saying so. i would only be convinced if a martian pink hippo would tell it to me.

If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound, The Stranger.

Just because we aren't around, that does not mean the universe ceases to function with the same rules.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound, The Stranger.

Just because we aren't around, that does not mean the universe ceases to function with the same rules.

I must disagree pizza, if a tree falls in the forest it creates air waves, and if those waves hit our eardrum we hear a sound. That's a simple description of what happens. There is no guarantee that any alien lifeform has a sense of hearing, or that it is at all comparable to our own. So sound, which you must remember is an english, human word--is specific to us, not the universe. Air waves from moving objects are not.

[Askthepizzaguy]

But you are now postulating two other kinds of life forms. If they have morality it comes from them, and is particular to them--they might even have no use for it. So it seems to me like your are really arguing that morality is inherent to humanity, which is what I'm saying...

I challenge you on that. Other beings, sufficiently advanced, could understand chemistry and mathematics. Those are objective things. If there is an objective definition for morality, a scientific one, then that definition can apply to all intelligent sentient life. I agree with you on a thousand points, but I challenge you that morality is purely a human construct, because you are basing that on observation alone. If there are underlying universal principles, they would apply to everyone and everything that it applies to, human or not. I don't have any proof of that, but we are talking theory. If you want a scientific morality, based in reason, then you're talking about one based on things which are not merely human opinions, but functions of our existence. If there is ever to be any morality based on something besides anger or joy or belief, which does not equal morality, then it has to be based on objective things.

Objective things exist outside of humanity and would apply to all sentient life.

If we one day met an intelligent, alien species, but they enslaved other intelligent beings against their will, we might have a universal basis for showing them why it is immoral, based on universal, actual principles.

I wouldn't agree with any form of moral theory was broken simply because now we aren't talking about humans anymore. Then it simply becomes our opinions again. I don't think that science should be based on solely that.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I must disagree pizza, if a tree falls in the forest it creates air waves, and if those waves hit our eardrum we hear a sound. That's a simple description of what happens. There is no guarantee that any alien lifeform has a sense of hearing, or that it is at all comparable to our own. So sound, which you must remember is an english, human word--is specific to us, not the universe. Air waves from moving objects are not.

Critters in the forest can hear the tree fall, and we can observe that using scientific instruments.

Sound is a very real physical phenomenon which I could prove to any alien species, just as I can prove it to you.

Maybe you would call it "air waves hitting an eardrum" but I can prove both the air waves, the ear drum, and the electrical activity in the brain, and prove that there is an intelligent comprehension of that data.

You've given a bad example.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I challenge you on that. Other beings, sufficiently advanced, could understand chemistry and mathematics. Those are objective things. If there is an objective definition for morality, a scientific one, then that definition can apply to all intelligent sentient life.

But could these being understand neuroscience? You are assuming that a moral system is necessary for these beings. If there is no life, there is no morality. Chemistry would not be a valid discipline if nothing that it related to existed. You may as well argue that "buy low, sell high" is an inherent law of the universe.

If we one day met an intelligent, alien species, but they enslaved other intelligent beings against their will, we might have a universal basis for showing them why it is immoral, based on universal, actual principles.

If they don't have the moral feelings we do, they will not be convinced.

Critters in the forest can hear the tree fall, and we can observe that using scientific instruments.

They don't hear it fall if there is "no one to hear it fall" as the saying usually goes.

Sound is a very real physical phenomenon which I could prove to any alien species, just as I can prove it to you.

I'm afraid not. Look out your window, and then describe what you see to a blind man. Describe "blue" to him. Sound is not an inherent phenomena, only the bouncing of air molecules is.

[The Stranger]

A baboon may not understand the consequences of his actions. While the actions might be defined in moral terms, the baboon isn't competent enough to understand right and wrong. At least, that is the defense that we might come up with.

I do not expect a plant to understand morality, nor a fish, nor a duck. I don't expect a baboon to understand consequences and morality. People are advanced enough to begin to comprehend it.

Perhaps we are the first advanced life on this planet capable of even having this discussion. Does that mean that we shouldn't have it? Does that mean that other species, sufficiently advanced, couldn't do so?

What of children? At what point do they become understanding and sentient enough to understand morality?

Further, without such a science of morality, how can we even say that we understand morality? Perhaps it is too large a concept for even us to grasp, like a baboon trying to design a gasoline engine. But I feel it is worth a try.

so becuase he doesnt understand right and wrong in the way humans (or intelligent rational creatures) would right and wrong do not apply to it. you can say what u want but that is the same as for the baboon it does not exist. so morality is inherent to intelligent and rationility which corresponds to our type. because sure dolphins are intelligent, probably also rational (if i understand the definition right) but no one is applying moral rules to them.

i dont say we shouldnt have the discussion. dont confuse there is no objective right and wrong with there is no reason to talk. or even because i claim it it doesnt mean that i am not open to arguments that will convince me otherwise. just because im a moral subjectivest doesnt make me a global subjectivist. and even if i was a global subjectivist i would still discuss it because i want my truth to be the universal truth.

the question of the children is not one for me to answer. i dont care when they become sentient enough. i think its a more urgent question for objectivism.

there is also a difference between a science of morality, one which objectively talks about morality and documents all the moral codes and such and an ethical scientificbased theory. such as that of dawkins.

[The Stranger]

I don't see why you go from "inherently in us" to "therefore: subjective". We can observe our inherent internal phenomena can't we?

i didnt mention subjective at all. im just saying i doubt it is objective. the point about it being inherently in us is only to prove wrong the idea that morality is outside us. it could be objectively in us, though even that i doubt.

[The Stranger]

Actually that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

I'm saying that in the field of scientific morality, there is no building whatsoever. No supports.

What I propose is a construction project. Religion already has cathedrals. Why can science not at least attempt to explain morality?

I am not satisfied with "I believe it." I want to understand why. Other than turning to a deity or a guru who I also have to accept at face value without understanding the why, and getting nothing except "because I said so".

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying "Science knows morality better than religion". I am saying Science hasn't even attempted to understand morality. I believe a building, with proper supports, is in order.



I'd disagree, but that's theology and not the topic.



That's your opinion, now prove it.



Now you're asking questions, which is a start.



It is difficult to respond to this, it is quite vague and I don't agree with it.



If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound, The Stranger.

Just because we aren't around, that does not mean the universe ceases to function with the same rules.

science can attempt all it want and i will be the last person to stop it. why do keep connecting subjectivism to conservatism.

you prove to me that 1 + 1 = 2 without using the mathematic system. i dont see why and apple (or wakhsdhadbhak) and apple (or wakhsdhadbhak) = 2 apples ( (or 2 wakhsdhadbhaks).

there are days when you feel happy and unhappy at the same time for an example. yet that is supposedly to be mathematically impossible. humans are full of contradictions.

oke. but to what level of intelligence will morality start to apply? is a baboon evil for killing an infant. answer that question according to those objective universal rules. surely if it is objective and universal it applies the same to humans as to all other animals whether they grasp the concept or not. whether they understand the consequences or not.

[The Stranger]

I must disagree pizza, if a tree falls in the forest it creates air waves, and if those waves hit our eardrum we hear a sound. That's a simple description of what happens. There is no guarantee that any alien lifeform has a sense of hearing, or that it is at all comparable to our own. So sound, which you must remember is an english, human word--is specific to us, not the universe. Air waves from moving objects are not.

which only changes the question to

if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around does it still create airwaves. this is an objection against idealism and in which ever way formulated it is a diffecult subjectmatter. i will return to it later on.

[The Stranger]

I challenge you on that. Other beings, sufficiently advanced, could understand chemistry and mathematics. Those are objective things. If there is an objective definition for morality, a scientific one, then that definition can apply to all intelligent sentient life. I agree with you on a thousand points, but I challenge you that morality is purely a human construct, because you are basing that on observation alone. If there are underlying universal principles, they would apply to everyone and everything that it applies to, human or not. I don't have any proof of that, but we are talking theory. If you want a scientific morality, based in reason, then you're talking about one based on things which are not merely human opinions, but functions of our existence. If there is ever to be any morality based on something besides anger or joy or belief, which does not equal morality, then it has to be based on objective things.

Objective things exist outside of humanity and would apply to all sentient life.

If we one day met an intelligent, alien species, but they enslaved other intelligent beings against their will, we might have a universal basis for showing them why it is immoral, based on universal, actual principles.

I wouldn't agree with any form of moral theory was broken simply because now we aren't talking about humans anymore. Then it simply becomes our opinions again. I don't think that science should be based on solely that.

no. just because one can understand it doesnt make it true. everyone can understand christianity surely. but that does not make it true. everyone can understand the idea of the earth being flat but that does not make it true. I'm sure there are more people having a hard time understanding maths than christianity, does this make christianity more truthful than maths? mathematics is comprehensible yes, it is a very neat system, but it is only true when you accept the system, it is only true within the system. in the same way that god is true when you accept the religion.

and why is science so neccesarily objective when it is still being performed by humans. nothing humans produce can ever be 100% objective.

bah scientists and priests... both metaphysici.

how can you explain the change from sentient to intelligent. surely if morality is objective it is as wrong to kill a human infant as it is to kill a infant cow (calf). or does the moral objective rule only apply to killing within ones species. against which i again take the baboon infant killer example. and if the baboon is not intelligent enough is it accounted for a species or individual. if accounted for as a species, than would the case arive that an superintteligent baboon would do all kinds of stuff morally wrong for humans it is not wrong for him because his species as a whole are deemed outside morality. if accounted for indivually, than also the stupid humans would fall outside morality.

[Cronos Impera]

Morality belongs to the blood and not to anything else.
What serves the purpose of furthering the blood line (straight sex and a normal family are moral while celibacy, homosexuality and self sacrifice are immoral and should be treated as such)
The individual or the group don't matter, only that glorious piece of DNA that is the link with Creation itself.Anything must be judged through the prism of this truth.

The I century AD was about Divine rights, the XIX century was about group rights, the XX was about human rights. Now this century must belong to blood rights.

Accepting Science means rejecting Humanism since after all Kukri's children might evolve into Mermaids while mine might evolve into Protoss and become distinct species with distinct needs.

Psychology today is just a secular means of inducing that manipulation that blocks your development and reduces you to a sterile drone and makes you proud of that. It also diminueshes your sex appeal amd makes you put on a few ponuds so you might just change gender cause you will be totally unatractive to the opposite sex after a psychology class.

[Myrddraal]

Then why do we not attempt to define these axioms?

That's what we've been doing all thread. You are claiming that you have some way to decide which moral axioms are right, but this is subjective by definition. It is not a case of missing terminology or lack of equipment. You cannot objectively differentiate between entirely subjective concepts such as 'right' and 'wrong'.

[Megas Methuselah]

A baboon may not understand the consequences of his actions. While the actions might be defined in moral terms, the baboon isn't competent enough to understand right and wrong.

I'm not sure about this in a very amusing sort of way. You see, my dog knows what is right and what is wrong, because I drilled it into his little brain. He knows that taking a piss inside the house is bad; he doesn't do it because he knows I'll punish him for it. Likewise, he knows that doing whatever I tell him to do (sit, lay down, etc.) is the right thing to do.

You know what? He lives a pretty sad life. His sense of morality: right = obeying me. wrong = disobeying me.

Just felt like adding this in when ATPG underestimated inferior beings a bit too much. Go on with your serious discussion, bro's.

[The Stranger]

I'm not sure about this in a very amusing sort of way. You see, my dog knows what is right and what is wrong, because I drilled it into his little brain. He knows that taking a piss inside the house is bad; he doesn't do it because he knows I'll punish him for it. Likewise, he knows that doing whatever I tell him to do (sit, lay down, etc.) is the right thing to do.

You know what? He lives a pretty sad life. His sense of morality: right = obeying me. wrong = disobeying me.

Just felt like adding this in when ATPG underestimated inferior beings a bit too much. Go on with your serious discussion, bro's.

ur life aint better. good = obeying morality and bad = disobeying morality. the sadder part is morality doesnt even live. it doesnt really exist.

[The Stranger]

srry doublepost.

[Megas Methuselah]

Wait, wait, wait... I has morality?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Morality belongs to the blood and not to anything else.
What serves the purpose of furthering the blood line (straight sex and a normal family are moral while celibacy, homosexuality and self sacrifice are immoral and should be treated as such)
The individual or the group don't matter, only that glorious piece of DNA that is the link with Creation itself.Anything must be judged through the prism of this truth.

The I century AD was about Divine rights, the XIX century was about group rights, the XX was about human rights. Now this century must belong to blood rights.

Accepting Science means rejecting Humanism since after all Kukri's children might evolve into Mermaids while mine might evolve into Protoss and become distinct species with distinct needs.

Psychology today is just a secular means of inducing that manipulation that blocks your development and reduces you to a sterile drone and makes you proud of that. It also diminueshes your sex appeal amd makes you put on a few ponuds so you might just change gender cause you will be totally unatractive to the opposite sex after a psychology class.

Using your genetic survival baseline, self-sacrifice is not immoral if said sacrifice is made in order preserve your own or your collective's genetic future.

In addition, as failure to develop colonies on other, younger planets produces a long-term extinction problem, failure to develop space travel etc. would be immoral using your rubric. Correct?

[Megas Methuselah]

In addition, as failure to develop colonies on other, younger planets produces a long-term extinction problem, failure to develop space travel etc. would be immoral using your rubric. Correct?

Funnily enough, I can actually picture a futurastic (and science fiction) world of humans living by this weird morality with a sort of manifest destiny idea to spread their blood across the stars.

[Viking]

ur life aint better. good = obeying morality and bad = disobeying morality. the sadder part is morality doesnt even live. it doesnt really exist.

We can define it to exist, and so we have it. It's just like math. Differentiating the cosine function has an inherent meaning to me - differentiation does exist.

I assume that you meant "objective morality" though, which I agree that do not exist. There is nothing about morals that can be defended, because there is no objective starting point. Bringing science and "reason" into this is absurd.

--
I want to state something:

"It is immoral to pluck flowers."

If morals belong to reason and science; then either I can prove this to be correct, or anyone else can prove it to be wrong; hypothetically.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I have found the answer to all the great questions in this thread on epistemological issues, and chartered the evolution of human understanding...

[Megas Methuselah]

I have found the answer to all the great questions in this thread on epistemological issues, and chartered the evolution of human understanding...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This was posted some months ago on these very same forums, you obselete Scot.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We can define it to exist, and so we have it. It's just like math. Differentiating the cosine function has an inherent meaning to me - differentiation does exist.

I assume that you meant "objective morality" though, which I agree that do not exist. There is nothing about morals that can be defended, because there is no objective starting point. Bringing science and "reason" into this is absurd.

--
I want to state something:

"It is immoral to pluck flowers."

If morals belong to reason and science; then either I can prove this to be correct, or anyone else can prove it to be wrong; hypothetically.

But that isn't really a problem isn't it? I actually like your example a lot. Do you consider yourself able to come to a reasonable conclusion about whether it is inherently immoral to pluck flowers? If not, why?

Let me put it to you this way. You are very ill, and need treatment. I say to you, "there is no objective way to prove that this medicine really works--it could all be an illusion by a mystical creature. In fact, it can't even be proven that you are sick". How do you make the decision on whether to take the medicine?

I have found the answer to all the great questions in this thread on epistemological issues, and chartered the evolution of human understanding...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Seamus Fermanagh]

..., you obselete Scot.

Isn't that redundant?

[Reenk Roink]

But, I think although you can't argue in proof of the principles, you can argue for the principles. You can argue for our number system being in base 10 by saying that for ordinary purposes there is no reason to change it, since change would be difficult and pointless, and so on. But we needn't accept that base 10 is the one true way--when binary and hexadecimal are found to be useful, we use them instead. In other words, there are reasons why we choose to accept a given axiom. I may not be able to logically disprove your axiom, but if I can show that the reasons you used when you chose to accept it apply better to a different axiom, isn't that significant?

Yes I agree, there are usually "reasons" (in the broad sense) of why we believe the axioms we do. Our upbringing, both with our family and greater society, and so on with other crap.

If you could show the last part it would be interesting... I'm not betting on an successful attempt but still interesting...

I should say that morality doesn't necessarily belong to science and reason over religion and individual opinion. But that if it does belong to religion, it needs to be shown to do so by reason and/or science.

Why? For that matter, I will say that if morality does belong to science and/or reason, it needs to be shown to do so by religion.

If morality is not subjective, but rather something objective, then it is a natural phenomenon inherent to the universe

How does it follow that an objective morality is a "natural phenomenon"? What the hell does that even mean? Even if morality was objective, it seems much more likely that it is a non natural phenomenon.

But consider also that mankind did not invent mathematics. Mathematics is a natural extension of the laws of the universe.

The argument that mathematics is invented rather than merely discovered is much better. Show me an actual infinite in the universe (in fact one could strongly argue that an actual infinite is physically unrealizable).

Nuancing this, I would say pure mathematics is invented, and then the application of these mathematics are either discovered (usually after looking).

Man did not invent logic

Then why is there classical logic and the opposing paraconsistent logic?

We also do not understand logic itself enough to be infallible when discussing truths.

What does this mean? Most systems of logic are very complete. Classical logic for examples guarantees the truth of the conclusion given the truth of the premises.

I believe there is room for theory and advancement in the field of moral and ethical study.

Ethics (theory of morality) is probably the MOST studied field in philosophy. There's tons written on it.

I challenge you on that. Other beings, sufficiently advanced, could understand chemistry and mathematics. Those are objective things.

Absolutely not. I've pointed out in this very thread as much examples of such.

Chemistry: The theoretical framework of phlogistic chemistry has a jar of something. The theoretical framework of modern chemistry has a jar of the same thing. Under the paradigm of pholgistic chemistry it is dephlogisiticated air, under the paradigm of modern chemistry it is oxygen. Completely incommensurable theoretical frameworks lead to a completely different understanding of what is going on.

Mathematics: The axioms of Euclidian, spherical, and hyperbolic geometry are in conflict.

Science ain't "objective". There are many different ways of understanding "the facts" - see interpretations of QM. Math is obviously not objective.

Do you believe in a Geocentric solar system or a Heliocentric solar system? A Geocentric solar system is still defendable with a complicated set of math to model it, but the Heliocentric solar system got popular because of a change in the religious views of the medieval European elite (it was definitely religion and God that drove Copernicus and crew to postulate a new system, that had a more simplistic and what they would call "elegant" coordinate system).

Of course nowadays with GR, all that centrism crap is meaningless.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes I agree, there are usually "reasons" (in the broad sense) of why we believe the axioms we do. Our upbringing, both with our family and greater society, and so on with other crap.

If you could show the last part it would be interesting... I'm not betting on an successful attempt but still interesting...

Moral rule: it is wrong to pull the plug on someone in a [certain type of] coma

The reasoning for the rule assumes that the person is still alive in some way, still "there". That's what motivates the rule. If it is shown that the person is brain dead, then does the rule still apply? You see what I'm getting at? That isn't a basic moral rule though. Not feeling up to arguing against a more basic axiom at the moment, but it's the same principle

Most of the axioms we do follow have some reasoning behind them though, yes?

Why? For that matter, I will say that if morality does belong to science and/or reason, it needs to be shown to do so by religion.
...
Ethics (theory of morality) is probably the MOST studied field in philosophy. There's tons written on it.

Well, do you think ethics has accomplished anything? Does god have reasons for the 10 commandments or are they arbitrary?

[Reenk Roink]

Moral rule: it is wrong to pull the plug on someone in a [certain type of] coma

The reasoning for the rule assumes that the person is still alive in some way, still "there". That's what motivates the rule. If it is shown that the person is brain dead, then does the rule still apply? You see what I'm getting at? That isn't a basic moral rule though. Not feeling up to arguing against a more basic axiom at the moment, but it's the same principle

Most of the axioms we do follow have some reasoning behind them though, yes?

But that is really what I would call something much more targeted than an axiom. An axiom might be something like "right to life" or something (that might still be too narrow).

These aren't the basic principles I (or likely Aquinas) had in mind.

Well, do you think ethics has accomplished anything? Does god have reasons for the 10 commandments or are they arbitrary?

I don't think most philosophy has accomplished anything. But the goals orientated morality you were proclaiming earlier (maybe still are) has already been discussed in great detail (utilitarianism).

As for the God having reasons, my personal view is that morality is solely decided by the fiat of God (by the way this morality isn't "objective" at least not in the sense the moral realists would like - where they would see a morality independent of God who is the agent of that morality - that doesn't fly with me).

So in my moral theory when God commanded the Israelites to go and raze the cities, kill the men, enslave (or also kill - not sure) the women and children, it was morally obligatory.

Of course the objection is going to be it's "arbitrary" but I would reply it has to be (no moral considerations can inform the will of God cause they don't exist without him willing them into existence). For that matter, an (god independent) 'objective' morality has to be arbitrary itself.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But that is really what I would call something much more targeted than an axiom. An axiom might be something like "right to life" or something (that might still be too narrow).

These aren't the basic principles I (or likely Aquinas) had in mind.

Yes I agree. Although I think it does demonstrate the use of reason on many moral arguments.

I think the basic problem with my argument is that I am basing the moral axioms on human nature--but it is human nature to be very flexible and to be greatly effected by culture and environment. So it's all well and good to suggest happiness and wellbeing as the goals, but people raised in a different system may not be happy in that system

I don't think most philosophy has accomplished anything. But the goals orientated morality you were proclaiming earlier (maybe still are) has already been discussed in great detail (utilitarianism).

Mmm, don't you think philosophy was a contributing factor in the spread of civil rights?

As for the God having reasons, my personal view is that morality is solely decided by the fiat of God (by the way this morality isn't "objective" at least not in the sense the moral realists would like - where they would see a morality independent of God who is the agent of that morality - that doesn't fly with me).

So in my moral theory when God commanded the Israelites to go and raze the cities, kill the men, enslave (or also kill - not sure) the women and children, it was morally obligatory.

Of course the objection is going to be it's "arbitrary" but I would reply it has to be (no moral considerations can inform the will of God cause they don't exist without him willing them into existence). For that matter, an (god independent) 'objective' morality has to be arbitrary itself.

How do you know what God's fiat is? I'd object if I disagreed with what it was...that's the problem with arbitrary to me. It does have to be arbitrary if it's as you describe though.