What do female readers think of Hilgya Firehelm?

[Dr.Zero]

So, "do not do to other what you do not want to be done to you" is fine with you, why? Where did this belief come from? Reason, emotion, what ? Also ifit is universal, it, a priori, comes from the same place everything universal come from. Where does gravity come from again?

Ah! It isn't fine!
A masochist under that rule would be in his rights whipping you.
Fully respecting the "do not do to other what you do not want to be done to you".

Jokes aside, who cares from where my morality comes from, actually?
I might care, but I don't.
Others shouldn't care, really, as I don't care about theirs.
It's quarks bumping against each other?
Genetic?
Education?
Fox News?
Meh, it's still all the effect of quarks bumping against each other, after all.

What is the whole discussion's point?
Nothing definitive, nothing that can be measured or tested.
More or less like utilitarianism.
Rivers of words and eventually: "Meh, everyone remains of their own opinion, but maybe the dude in charge thought it was good to abuse his power. So the forced bride was wrong to rebel."

No, wait, this outcome is measurable. And for me is bad.

Emhasis mine. If it is self-evident, it is not up for debate. That is what the word means, "it stands on its own" no explaination needed. They are not saying we agreed on that but we believe thatis simply not negotiable.

They agreed those truths are self evident.
Else they wouldn't even even to state or write it down.
Even more because those points were not so "self-evident" previously.

deciding that morality comes from an agreement between parties is just adding a layer between "is this right?" and "what is right?" because how did the parties decided in their own inner self what was their morality?

It removes completely the layers.
It's: "Rights and wrongs? I don't even care what they are. We define those by ourselves, if we can agree with them. Without needing to think they come from somewhere else."

Exactly, mentally ill people need treatment and care not judgment or punishment.

Treatment and care, I can agree.
But to give treatment and care, you clearly agree they have done wrongs. Even if in good faith, in their nut minds.

Here are a few things that, empirically, make people around you happy : be thoughtful, help those in need, love, be polite, don't harm or kill, save people.

I insist: asking them is the easier way to know, without the need to be empiric.
And it is certainly the only way to be sure.

And I fail to see why that would be particular to utilitarianism. Anyone in power has to justify their actions anyway or the other if they had to invoke morality, and they veryyyyyyy rarely do, I can't see why your system would be anymore foolproof than anyother to abuse, just replace "magic function in my mind" with "rigged vote", et voilà !

Well, rigging the vote of the ones you wish to abuse, might be a bit more complicated.

Cool how does it work? Maybe you wanna try to understand how your own mind decides that and see if you happen to be following a particular system? Or, you know some people are not sure of themselves and would like to find something that appeal to them to help them make a choice.

It might even be interesting, but since utilitarianism is "maximize utility" and "utility" cannot be measured or computed, but it's based on what the same person thinks it is right, it seems to sum up to: "it's moral what you think it is."

Not only I don't see it working as a system to talk about the morality (or how you prefer to call it) of societies, but it appears to go under heavy circular logic even you try to use it for introspection.

(And even if it was of any use for introspection, cool, money spared away from psychologists, but introspection is a thing a debate on "X is justified to do Y?" is another)