Without God there can be no absolute morals.

Ok I am going to go down the flow and respond. Numbering will be based on the paragraphs 4. Utilitarianism that also helps you could just be considered egoism. The moment that you make a sacrifice for another person or a group is when you become altruistic or utilitarian. All else is just a form of social egoism. Egoism is in effect what I am arguing for, so if an action helps you and happens to help someone else. Then that is fine. 4. Utilitarianism could be absolutely right if an omnipotent god deemed it absolutely right. But under any other circumstance it isn't. 5. This presumes that I think all people are from some third view equally valuable. I do not. My main argument is that you are the only thing/person that you can really know even exists. You experience only your own happiness. And without any kind of afterlife there is no reason to help others, because it won't make your experience any better. Keep in mind that happy feeling you get from helping is considered helping yourself. 6. Your mind is its own universe. In this universe you are not the most superior person. You are the only person, unless of course there is a God/afterlife. This is why you are superior to other people, because there are no other people in the universe where you live. Their perspectives may and most likely do exist, but not to your mind. To the earth/cosmos nothing exists. So unless there is some perspective that links us we are forever separate in our own little worlds. 6. If you chose to hope that other perspectives are real then try to help them, and assume that it worked, then I can't prove you're doing something wrong. All I can say is that if you are hurting yourself, and wasting your very short life. It is in effect like helping an AI that says thank you and smiles. 7. If there were no humans what color would the world be? None. When you die what happens to the world? It ends. 7. I believe in the outside universe. And my best theory for other people is that they have perspectives just like I do. Though this is not true in the case of certain mental disorders like schizophrenia. But I all of these things are only shadows of what is really there. If something is really there. Therefore any law that I receive from the shadows is still a law of shadows, and it is not binding on me, and there is or absolute truth to it. 8. For A C is just as unreal/not experienced as B. A God by definition is omnipotent, so his laws could be as real as the color blue on my computer screen. This is an argument often made by believers against moral nihilism, and the reason why I included God in the resolution. 9. The whole point is that the chinese boy who dies because you didn't buy fair trade coffee is far removed from your mind, and therefore doesn't matter. If people had to know who they were killing then they would have experienced him more, and would probably assign some empathy to him. Also my argument is not that people do kill people through markets or other removed situations,(even though they do unknowingly) but rather that they might as well. 10. I am setting up an argument to act immorally sometimes. If you should act immorally then morality is not only not absolute but wrong. 11. If an action is done in self interest then you are not obeying an absolute moral, but a relative situation. Kant says this when he claims that an action that you enjoy cannot be good. 12. This is my argument precisely. The epicurean response to a child molester is to say bummer that what you want is so hard to get and will likely to cause you suffering. But if you could get away with it and feel fine afterwards then go for it. This is a great example of how morality cannot be absolute. To the pedophile pedophilia is good. And he doesn't have to care about what society thinks about it. But society can think it pedophilia is bad. And they don't have to care about what the pedophile thinks. Who is right, well it depends who you ask. So ultimately no one is right. 13. A group of people could never hold this view because the group itself lacks a perspective, but all of the individuals could hold this. (This would probably be a bad thing, but I don't know maybe forced preferences aren't neccissary.) Sacrifice for your ultimate good is not a moral act. I would suggest that you kill this murderer, but to say what he is doing is wrong is meaningless. It could after all be right for him. Society can say murder is immoral, but without the divine all they are really saying is" boo murder. We don't like that" 14 Extend my second argument on seven. 15. If there were an objective standpoint then you wouldn't be more valuable. But your perspective is the only one there is. From your perspective you are inherently more valuable than all others, due to how real you are. I do not reject that the outside world exists, just that it is irrelevant outside of what we can perceive. The water you don't believe in becomes relevant only once it forces itself into your perspective via sense data. 16. If you absolutely force it everywhere then yes. I mean like morality is forced upon you like breathing or seeing is forced on you. The fact that you can be immoral I think proves this is not the case. I agree that neither of these moral systems are morally superior, only because of my meta disbelief in morals. I would like to point out that I do not reject the possibility of a lack of absolute morality with a God, only I thought that it may be possible. I being an atheist didn't want to debate over morality in a world with God. So I simply added without God. Sorry for the confusion the resolution does almost imply that there is absolute morality in a world with God. BTW I am not an objectivist. I much prefer Nietzsche or Epicurus. But Ayn Rand's vocabulary is useful for this debate topic. 17 An appeal to the consequences of my argument is not an appeal to morality. You are saying that in the long run I will not enjoy my action. I certainly concede that Aristotelian style ethics are fine, but they are circumstantial and all hinge on whether a "bad" action will cause you happiness in the long run. This is prudence not morality. In your scenario you are valuing your present self, which you can do if you don't care about your future self. If you do want to be happy in the future though it would be unwise to be so rude to your neighbors. A moral scenario must not be based on the consequences for you, but for others. If it only made everyone else suffer in the long run, then you should do it. And that would be a prudent selfish and according to some an immoral act. God is not central to the resolution I wanted to debate within an atheistic framework. Otherwise if I would end up in an is there a God debate. Sorry I don't use a lot of sources. A lot of the stuff I know about Kant and Descartes are from lectures that I listened to months ago, so if you find that I misrepresent them then please say so. Thank you for the so far very stimulating debate. You sir kept me up until 3 a.m. because I was so Interested.