An Argument for Objective morality withoout God

[FinalEnigma]

In another thread, a member provided an enumerated argument for objective morality that does not rely on the existence of God. I wanted to give the argument it's own thread so that it can be discussed on it's own, without all the distractions of the rest of the thread.

So here is the argument in it's entirely, courtesy of Jgh7:

Argument of Objective morality without God existing: What it is in this case, and why it exists

1) Happiness can be the only thing that matters for you, a human. Anything else that matters to you is so because it relates in a way to your attempt at maintaining or increasing your happiness. Other's happiness mattering to you is just another way of saying that your own happiness matters to you, and it brings you happiness to care about other's happiness. Happiness is the all-inclusive word I use for positive emotions.

***
If you can propose how anything besides happiness can matter to you, then my entire argument is invalid from this point on. Please let me know if you can.
***

2) Objective morality has been previously defined as a system of guidelines by which thinking entities should interact with one another, which is true regardless of the opinions of any subject.
3) The word “should� in the prior statement means that there is a logical reason for thinking entities to interact with others in a certain way.
4) I state now that the only logical reason for a thinking entity to interact in a certain way with others is to achieve what matters to them. Since the only thing that can matter to each individual is their happiness, achieving happiness is the only logical reason for how each individual should act towards others.

***
If you can propose a reason for a thinking entity to interact with others that is in no way related to achieving what matters to that thinking entity, then I will no longer hold (4) to be a fact. Please let me know if you can.
***

5) It is commonly known that happiness has different degrees. Examine your own happiness to prove this. Was there a time when you were happier compared to another time?
6) Since each individual’s happiness has different degrees, there must exist some way of living that will bring their happiness to the highest degree for the most amount of time.
7) Since there exists for each individual a way of living that maximizes their happiness, and as long as there is a definite reason for that happiness increase, objective morality exists. Whether the guidelines for objective morality are known by that individual is irrelevant. The way of living exists, and the guidelines (reasons) for that way of living exist.

* One way that objective morality does not exist is if there are zero reasons for any and all happiness increases and thus zero possible guidelines that could be followed. All happiness increase is therefore completely random and with no cause in this case. I feel no need to argue the impossibility of this. It should be apparent.

I like this argument. it's well presented and well thought out. So what do you think? is this argument valid? is it sound?

If you believe this argument is invalid or unsound, Please address the specific numbered points with which you disagree and explain why(I will post my assessment later today)

For reference, this was the currently being used definition of objective in the thread at the time:

Objective: Something which has the state or quality of being true regardless of a subject's feelings.

[Artie]

[Replying to post 29 by Artie]

Except when someone wants to end their life and doesn't move out of the way of the car. Are they morally wrong for going against their instincts of survival?

Over 90% of people who commit suicide have a diagnosable mental disorder. It's not a question of being immoral but of being ill.

[wannabe]

[Replying to post 1 by FinalEnigma]

In trying to address the question " is this argument invalid or unsound ", I find I can only present my findings as a debate argument for the defending team. ( sorry about specific numbered points).

1* How does one define happiness.?
It should be as far reaching as the ends of forever, for it to have true character (being the only thing that matters to you.)
And to substantiate it's total endorsement an entity should be surrounded by extreme moral structure at least for the sake of free movement among entities. ( so as not to encounter unhappiness ).
So morals should, or to be more objective, could come from good places. ( the could in the previous sentence is giving rise to an objective reviewing of old morals as a test against time.)
This should bring one to the point that as entities, we may well continue on forever. ( even so with different understandings of our form.)

One should not consider the Avenue of happiness until first establishes their own destination. And if the short term ends at death then happiness becomes sad.
And as entities we should consider this. Be true and reach deep for the happiness you seek. Love the world you desire.
For if it comes from a good places it will expand many avenues of happiness.

So now as my define of happiness is established.
I think what matters is that my obedience to god is simply to understand and act accordingly. Which I can not objectively object to.
So I offer that not every entity puts the pursuit of happiness before their God.
But not without the understanding of the power and glory and the permanence of their God.

So you must agree that not all entities bear the same search for happiness, for some seek it through the process of the ones they believe in.

However it was not my purpose to invalidate your argument but to simply imply my opinionated and objective point of view.
Conclusively the rest of the quote is for those that think differently.

Point 7 - as the above, the way of living exists. And the reason.

However if this is conflicting an issue, then clearly one of the parties should find a resolve.
Considering all are seeking to fulfill total happiness.one view would seem to sit below total environmental concern - all being inclusive (the environmental concern meaning absolutely stress free as the pursuit of happiness would have it.)
For trust goes a long way in committing to objective morals for them to remain under a name of such classification.
So in conclusion I argue that objective morality with out god existing is solely dependent on a unanimous vote ( which won't happen) . So to which, conflict would bring down the utopic desire and possibly incite suspicious thoughts tending towards an entities validity of their true concerns.
( or moral concepts). Thus tending towards unhappiness.

However in making happiness your second goal, you give your stresses up for, faith in one control moral checker that gives to all, and objective morality with God ( as opposed ) provides more happiness. For we all have to find our own understandings of truth.