Also, think about this. Who is really the more rational actor? The person who only acts "morally" because he/she personally feels that he/she should, or the person who only acts "morally" because someone's given him/her a good reason to? I'll go with the latter.
I'll go with the former. If somebody gives me a good reason to do something contrary to my initial ethical calculus, then I comply only if convinced, meaning that I am still acting because I think an idea is morally sound, not because of a command.
'do unto others as you would like them to do unto you' thing isn't empathy; that's just the golden rule and is more of a matter of self-interest than anything else. It's a questionable moral standard at best.
It's the only moral standard, overriding all other contenders including (especially) DCT, but it needs to be stated properly. Treat others as they wish to be treated unless you find that request morally reprehensible.
Also, there are plenty of situations which call for one to set aside their empathy in favour of the greater good.
Working for the greater good is empathetic.
you assert without justification. I'm not willing to just assume your conclusion. Make an actual argument.
That request has been ignored repeatedly. No argument has ever been presented for why, as is claimed, accepting DCT is either logical or a good idea. The claim has never been supported by argument here, making it an opinion that can be ignored without refutation. That settles the matter.
Note that I have never claimed that DCT offers a "more moral" standard, just that it provides a more rational one.
I prefer both - more moral and rational. There is nothing moral or rational about obeying a set of commands given by human beings claiming that a god told them to tell the rest of us how to behave, often in conflict with conscience.
That's a formula for disaster. Ask the Branch Davidians, who were convinced through divine command through Koresh that they and their children were to remain in harms way notwithstanding alarms that must have been going off in their heads.
Tell me what is either moral or rational about submitting to that method of making decisions?
Just as God would determine the laws of gravity, which are so by his command, so has he determined moral facts.
My conscience is the only source for moral truth for me. It has to be, unless I am willing to accede to the commands of others telling them to tell me what to do, and frankly, even if I went that route, it would be my subjective choice anyway to submit to such a list of alleged moral imperatives, a choice I might rescind in the future if somebody with another moral code comes along and I decide that that is what divinity actually commands.
we are obliged to obey his command, if only for our own sake.
Being such lowly beings, our definition of good and bad is skewed.
They are moral/immoral because he has decreed so.
Not to me. All I have are the claims of pretenders claiming to speak for a god. No god has decreed anything to me, unless you mean through my conscience, which is what I am heeding anyway, whether those impulses are endogenously generated or received instructions.
How are you going to judge them by any external, fallible standard?
I don't use an external standard. I judge all moral claims against my own sense of right and wrong. I am compelled to do so. So are you.
My point was that humans are in no position to criticise the divine command from an ethical standpoint
Disagree. I find the god of the Christian Bible to be immoral. The Garden story depicts that god immorally, as does the flood story. Creating a torture pit, staffing it with demons and devils for the purpose of eternally torturing souls forced to remain conscious just to inflict gratuitous suffering of no benefit to anybody but sadists has got to be about the most immoral act imaginable, but perfectly just and acceptable to the individual who has abdicated his natural moral ability and allowed somebody to substitute their preferences for your own.
I suppose if you're fine with going to hell, you could say that, but by definition there is no higher moral duty than to obey the divine command, whether you agree with it or not.
Your definition, not mine. I have a moral duty to make those judgments.
Perhaps this is why so many Christians are bigoted against atheists and homosexuals. They have been convinced that their god considers such people fit to be burned forever in a lake a fire because that god feels that way for no good reason, but because they believe the source is divine, the accept that position uncritically and against what their consciences should be telling them.
Why is societal wellbeing a moral good?
This is one result of accepting DCT. It leaves one morally untethered regarding what really matters - life and love, not obedience to any of the alleged gods of the present generation of believers.
I would have a problem with people murdering others--I'm human after all--but it would make no sense to say murder is immoral. That statement is nonsense if you don't presume objective morality
No.
This is one of the things I object to about faith-based thought. You seem morally lost. I don't consider morality objective, and it makes no sense to me not to say that murder is immoral
yes, if God told me to kill someone, I would do it.
You mean that if somebody told you that a god told him to tell you to go kill somebody. If they exist, gods are inaudible and otherwise undiscernable.
Yes, DCT calls for one to abandon their own sensibilities when the divine command is contrary to them.
A dangerous choice.