This is a non-sequitur fallacy. Learn about what possible means in the context of philosophical discourse. It simply entails internal consistency. Simply because various systems are internally consistent does not mean that certain systems are not superior to other systems of thought. And that is what is argued in the literature.

Most philosophers are moral realist and adopt moral realist stances such as a few I've already mentioned - e.g. consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics. Other philosphers, including Hume, do not subscribe to the idea that metaethical statements are propositional which is to say that they cannot be evaluated to true or false (and at times are not even coherent); this is known as non-cognitivism. You might review Hume's razor for instance.

If only those without would stop pretending to be those with, and simply accept the free education lesson.

Wow... you went places with that post.

Wrong? No.

Bear protects it's cub as you protect yours. Babies release a type of pheromones, especially if they cry. Quite honestly, i never looked up the process in detail. Anyways these pheromones are what makes you think they are cute and wanting to protect them, even if they aren't yours. There is more to it, but this should be enough for you to understand. I would need to open a medicine book or ask a specialist to know in more detail. These are hormonal processes and it's not usually something that is thought in general learning. It's university level stuff.

Like... this is all lack of investigation you know... we are animals aswell. We are just smarter than the others. 

I don't understand your point. Is this maybe cause the event's are better publicised? Because you feel more for those you feel are part of your tribe as they influence you more directly? How is any of this weird? 

No... that isn't objective.  What is "most favorable" for man is an opinion.  That's why we have had, in secular or religious societies, thousands of different viewpoints on what is best for society.  Even "favorable" is a subjective matter.  Does favorable mean best for reproduction?  Happiness?  Best for only humans?  For the environment?  Animals?  Different cultures value these things in very different measures.

If you're going to claim that these stories are the best way man has to transmit values, you'll have to support that with some evidence, because it seems to be a rather shitty way.  There are, figuring very conservatively, well over a thousand different denominations of Christians who despite all using the same text as the basis of their values have reached wildly different conclusions.  To the extent where many of these groups have gone to war over which interpretation is valid.  It's hard to claim that this is a good way to transmit objective morality when the conclusions that are drawn are not at all consistent.

Considering out limited knowledge and predictive powers, I fail to see how you can have objective morality, with or without god or religion.  

the point i'm making is that empathy is not something that applies across the board

meaning that we are selective subconsciously (and consciously) about who or what we are empathetic towards... which means that its misguided to use empathy as some form of measure for morality

here's another example, lets say i'm poor and i have a sick wife i have to provide for and i stab and rob an innocent person in order to provide for her... in that situation i'm being preferential towards my kin over someone outside of my preferred social grouping

this is very easy to understand, i honestly don't see why you don't get it... the empathy argument really does not work for morality

i've not ignored the altruistic aspect... do you not understand that you can be altruistic at one level of analysis ( towards your country for example ) while being destructive at another level of analysis ( being altruistic towards your country at the expense of another country or the environment )

the problem you people that keep bringing up empathy and altruism are having is that you view these things in very very simple terms without understanding abstraction and context

for example we extract oil from the planet at great expense to the environment and to other countries to enrich our civilisation... but the oil industry is viewed as being altruistic because of the great benefits it provides 

"Also, cognitive bias, or the oxymoronic term selective empathy, isn't true empathy. It's hypocritical."

yeah... because its possible as a human being to be completely objective lol

...btw its not so you shoud probably free yourself from that delusion

"What is "most favorable" for man is an opinion. "

so hang on its not objectively better to be fit rather than overweight?

to be informed over being ignorant?

to be social rather than anitsocial? etc?

"Different cultures value these things in very different measures."

correct, but there are core values all cultures agree on

"If you're going to claim that these stories are the best way man has to transmit values, you'll have to support that with some evidence"

the evidence is history

"There are, figuring very conservatively, well over a thousand different denominations of Christians who despite all using the same text as the basis of their values have reached wildly different conclusions.  "

and that is an inherent flaw in all communication... nothing man creates is perfect, there are always flaws no matter what, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do things

"Considering out limited knowledge and predictive powers"

despite this we still utilise the scientific method... we don't allow the fact that we are flawed and limited beings stop us from investigating things and reaching conclusions

My morality is just fine. We are carnivores plain and simple. We have hunted and killed for centuries. I do believe that all animals are self-aware and have the same types of feelings that we do. I have seen videos where Lions kill the mother of a young animal then help the young animal and protect it from other predators. Being a Vegan is a choice, one that may or may not be a healthy option to meat. Morality really isn’t an issue because at the end of the day everything is living and we are killing it to eat it. Some plants even kill insects and eat them, killing is just a part of life. It is the act of killing for sport that is the issue, regardless of the species.

The only plausible "high being" is some alien kid playing Sims - The Universe Edition ... aka simulation theory. Let's just say that beyond any doubt, it's been proven that we actually live in "matrix", what would it change in your everyday life? You can't cross the realm, you can't even communicate with "the real world". We would be exactly the same as we're now. The self-aware bits of information, which are programmed to replicate and die.

So which one is the best system?

so hang on its not objectively better to be fit rather than overweight?

to be informed over being ignorant?

to be social rather than anitsocial? etc?

None of those have definitive answers.  And none of them are moral questions.  None of them would require an appeal to a supernatural being.

correct, but there are core values all cultures agree on

Agreeing on some values does not make for objective morality.

the evidence is history