I downvoted you for bullshit
Sometimes it's good to be able to rationality ground your morality instead of merely feeling it. Guess which one will hold up when actually challenged in real life.
Sometimes people try to get around this by choosing different words - for example, a popular adage is that rational morality is "do no harm, except to prevent greater harm". The only problem with it, of course, is that you then have to define "harm", and it something fundamentally just as subjective as "evil" (as evidenced by the fact that the same thing can be harmful or not depending on consent - i.e. on the subjective determination of a person).
And in my opinion your observations are shameful. I am ashamed FOR you.
>Take a homeless person and let them sleep in your kitchen in exchange for mowing your lawn -> moral hero.
This is a flawed thesis if you're still trying to argue w.r.t. lordnacho's post.
>Take a homeless person
First off, there's no reason to believe that that person was or was not homeless prior to the situation. This is called an "Argument from ignorance"[2]
>let them sleep in your kitchen in exchange for mowing your lawn
This premise is really a False analogy[3], and explicitly ignores the other warning signs in his post that would indicate that this is not what the situation truly is.
Also, in most developed countries, there are very specific labor and tenant laws. "I'm letting him sleep on my couch if he mows my lawn once a week" is not a legal agreement. It is also not equivalent to "I have a live-in maid" - which also has a buttload of legal protections.
All of your other statements are riddled with half-truth bullshit and I'm not interested in explicitly explaining the rest to you. If you are, in fact, serious about being able to "rationality ground your morality" then I suggest you take a look at some of your statements and think about how grounded in reality they truly are.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_an...
They were a series of observations designed to illustrate a particular/contrasting point. Or rather an attempt to show where the boundaries lie in the grey of such thought.
Read the reply again without assuming the parents context. Do you agree with the observations presented?
However, after reading some of the other comments in this thread, I might have to rethink that. It's interesting to see how many people seem to be unable to see through their own moral outrage.
I think we both are in agreement in sentiment, but I do not think you effectively communicated your ideas in a way that would be beneficial to a constructive discussion. It's too easy for people who disagree with you to point out flaws in your argument as opposed to understanding and discussing your true point.