God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them.

The fact that your idea has not prevailed already makes me skeptical. No. I'm asking why one fictional scenario is more likely than another fictional scenario.

Objectivity is a group endeavour. "Good" only applies in a group environment. Giving your friend a cup of coffee is neither good nor bad. By all means, let's.

How is asking someone how an action made them feel fictional?

It can be.
But it also can be good.
It also can be bad.This overly simplified statement you've provided, however, is obviously false.Everyone knows it's a good thing to give your friend a cup of coffee when they smile back at you and say something like "Oh, thanks so much!"How is that "neither good nor bad?"
It seems obviously good.If your description of reality cannot account for this very simple and obvious example that happens every day... perhaps your description of reality is incorrect and requires a re-assessment.

What's fictional is the idea that that's how morality works. In reality, morality is based on the perception of how the victim feels. Actual input from the victim is redundant.If you want to speculate that your method "would" work better, go head, but let's be clear that it is nothing but speculation.

No, it is not "a good thing" from a moral standpoint. Making you feel good does not make it "a good thing" from a moral standpoint. That's why I keep mentioning ice cream.

Our topic is degenerating into mindless chatter. I swear...you two! Lets return to the roots of this topic, shall we?G.I.A.asserts that "the judge should always be questioned."Logically we can assume that this is true given that we created beings have a brain...free will...and the ability to apply such questioning.Additionally, we have moved beyond God having miracles to us having responsibility.Is it evident that we have concluded that God, if God exists works through human free will and responsibility?That our conclusion as to the goodness or evil intent of God is subjective?A cup of coffee given to my 91 year old Mother will always gain me a heartfelt "thank you".A cup of coffee bought at a price and given to a shivering homeless person may or may not elicit a "thank you" but I feel internally that it is of greater value in the grand scheme of things---after all, Mom can have coffee whenever she wishes whereas the cold homeless person depends upon the generosity of society at some level to answer their prayer/plea/need.Ringo may rightly argue that humans are evil if they have the means to help someone and do not actualize the opportunity.Perhaps a broad question:Are humans evil if they do not feed every hungry soul they encounter?(and which they are capable at that moment of feeding)Is God evil if He does not solve every problem which He is capable of solving?Edited by Phat, : added jabberwocky

We are on topic.My contention is that morality can not be determined either by the perpetrator or the victim. It must be determined by a disinterested third party - e.g. an impartial court of law.In this case, we are the alleged victims and God is the alleged perpetrator. Both sides have vested interests, so neither side can be trusted to judge the case objectively. So, in the absence of a third party, the question of whether God is innocent or guilty becomes moot.

I can think of plenty of examples of behavior we consider immoral that does not depend on what the victim feels. For example, we consider that adults having sex with children, or giving them unhealthy food is bad for them regardless of the children's feelings.In those cases where society has elected objective standards for morality, any honest person, victim or perpetrator, can make the call on whether an act is moral at least within that society. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, this is called empathy.I think you're mixing up the difference between "morality" and "social law".One is a system of figuring out good vs. bad.
The other is a system of living with other people.You're forcing an additional attachment on "morality" to be something like "figuring out good vs. bad while also living with other people in a democratic society such as the one we have."That's not "morality" that's a larger scope and it's where your confusion is coming in. Actually, if you care about helping other people (being a good person) then actual input from the victim is imperitive.I agree with you that empathy is a big portion of morality.
But empathy is merely the sense you get of how another person is feeling.My system of checking in with how the other person is actually feeling is simply a more rigorous approach... validating that your sense of empathy is actually correct. That's not true.Whenever we actually talk about any specific scenario, it's always my system that has a concise, accurate representation and you that is left with such vague generalities that aren't useful in any practical sense.

Actually, it is.The most basic definition of "a good thing" is something that helps other people and doesn't hurt them.
Unless, of course, you can provide another that's more practical?"Making you feel good" is exactly the same thing as "helping a person."If you think you're helping a person.. but you actually made them not feel good.. perhaps you need to reflect upon what your motivation actually is.
Such unique situations are possible (as long as the person in question actually sees the good at some point in the future...) but still, on average, if you're not making people feel good... and think you're actually doing good things... then you're doing it wrong.And then take it one step further:
Who better to state whether an affected person was helped or hurt than the person who was affected?
Why do you think an external, impartial 3rd party should be able to say whether or not any particular person was actually helped or hurt? What gives them such an authority?

Wouldn't you say we call this bad because we're trying to protect the child from being hurt?
Isn't this because we've seen examples of children that have this happen to them.. and in the future they become very hurt?Aren't we, then, precisely calling this a bad thing because we are directly worried about the children's (future) feelings?If no person ever had a future issue with having sex with adults when they were children... do you think such a law would still be on the books?It always comes back to how the victim feels they are affected. Definitely.
And some systems of elected objective standards for morality work better than others.I'm just describing one that I think works best (practically as well as trying-to-be-a-good-person-y). I'm always looking for improvement, though, if you have any suggestions.

A good question.
And perhaps one that does not have a definitive answer.I suppose it would depend on the specifics of the situation that are governed by the word "capable."
-Is a man who needs to feed his own family "capable" of feeding a hungry man on-his-way-home? Again, I think it depends precisely on what we mean by "capable"?
-Is God actually all powerful?
-Is God actually fully aware of everyone's circumstances?
-Does God actually care about us?
-Is God unrestricted by time in the way we humans are used to such that he can do an infinite number of different things at once simply at will?Answering "yes" to all of those questions makes God's "capability" rather large...

So they're pretty much the same thing. "Good" and "bad" are defined in terms of living with other people. What other point is there in distinguishing between "good" and "bad"? Some abstract absolute? Empathy isn't just one individual feeling for another individual. There's a social component. Society's collective morality gives its members a sense of what they "should" feel. I've tried to get you to engage on the slavery issue but you keep skating away.The people who saw slavery up close were not the ones who abolished it. On the contrary, they fought to preserve it. It was a "community empathy" in the North that had the influence, not an individual empathy in the South.

No. Social law includes morality, morality itself is a much smaller scope.
Social law includes a whole lot more than simply identifying good vs bad. I have no argument with this statement, I completely agree and they system I'm proposing works flawlessly with this idea.
I'm just saying to go one step further... double check on what society is saying you "should" feel. How do you double check? Go to the source - the one (or group) being affected. Ha, that's funny Right, and I've agreed with you on this again and again, and now... again.This doesn't go against anything I've been saying, it completely agrees with what I'm talking about.
I've just been saying that the reason we know slavery was bad in the first place was because the slaves were unhappy.Again, here's my question to you:Why would anyone attempt to stop slavery if all the slaves were happy in their position?
Answer: They wouldn't.People saw unhappy slaves... it all started with the people affected by the action (the slaves) being unhappy.
Others than recognized this and things were set into motion as you described.But... if all the slaves were always happy.. we would still have slaves today. Why would people abolish slavery if it was appreciated?I'm saying it started with the slaves being unhappy.
You seem to say that this is irrelevant and it's only what the outsiders saw. But how do outsiders see anything that isn't there in the first place? It doesn't make sense. There has to be something for an outsider to see if an outsider is going to see something. Otherwise nothing would happen, the outsider becomes useless.