Fact: its possible for one's own goals to include improving other people's quality of life.
Living your best life, and achieving your own goals, doesn't mean ignoring everyone else in the world's well-being (for most values of "your own goals" and "your best life").
Remember, the purpose of morality to guide you so that you can enjoy a good life. A morality (that's good for life) should not tell you to suffer, give up what you care about and die.
This statement itself is a controversial moral position, rather than a universally-accepted statement of the purpose of morality.
But so what? There is no universally-accepted statement of anything, anywhere. The choice each of us has when reading anything is: "well, what do I think about this?" And for that, the number of people that agree or disagree is irrelevant.
No, claims about the "purpose of morality" are non-factual statements of personal preference in any context. It doesn't depend.
> In America, most people agree with my statement.
Aside from the fact that this is irrelevant, I see no evidence that this is true.
> But so what? There is no universally-accepted statement of anything, anywhere.
There's a categorical difference between logical claims (which are abstract and which are true or false independent of factual context), fact claims (which are, in principal at least, subject to objective validation as true or false), and value (including moral) claims (which are statements of personal preference).
The problem with your claim about the purpose of morality is that it presented a value claim as if it were a true statement of fact.
Well, you lost me there. When I choose not to lie to my family and friends, or when I deal with others justly, I am behaving that way (i.e., morally) because I want a good, long, happy life. It is not a matter of "personal preference." (It is absurd to say, "It is merely my personal preference to live well by honest means. Others may choose differently, and live well by dishonest means.") If I lied to my wife, or cheated a customer out of money, I would suffer, and that's an inescapable fact. (If you don't understand this point, just ask and I'll explain why.)
Show me someone, out here in reality that lives a good, long and happy life by lying to his spouse, cheating his customers, and stealing to top it off at night. Or even someone that just does one of the three, occasionally.
There's a categorical difference between logical claims (which are abstract and which are true or false independent of factual context), fact claims (which are, in principal at least, subject to objective validation as true or false), and value (including moral) claims (which are statements of personal preference).
Sigh. In relation to an individual person's life, for every is, this is an ought. For example, suppose that I am driving my car down the highway. There is a giant boulder in the middle of the road ahead. If I want to live, I ought to slow down and turn to avoid it. So much for Hume!
Yet almost every moral code condemns murder. What does that have to do with ensuring that I personally live a good life?
Even a psychopath will worry about the evidence they've invariably left behind, which leads to getting caught. A life of constant, nagging doubt is not a good life. Can you imagine trying to plan for the long-term under those (self-created) circumstances? "Well, maybe I'll major in Geology. ...that is, if they don't catch me first," or "maybe I'll buy this house. It has a 30-year mortgage, so when I pay it off, I'll be able to travel to New Zealand, just like I've always wanted. ...that is, if they don't catch me first," and "I wonder if that new forensic technique will implicate me. I sure hope not!"
A criminal will grow uncomfortable every time something reminds him of his crimes, because, short of coming clean and turning himself in, the only way to escape the above mental processes is to evade it altogether, and that means shutting out anything that might remind him of his crime. This includes an ever-increasing array of things, many of which would only be tangentially associated with the original act. Escaping knowledge of reality becomes a deeply ingrained mental habit. Lies to other people are inevitably required in this pursuit.
Most people are not psychopaths, so there is an additional and deeply emotional dimension to the above for them. They will feel terrible, and deeply guilty for the rest of their lives. Actual happiness is an impossibility in that state...
Isn't all of this obvious?
There are those who require 100% of their money to simply achieve their personal consumption goals but -whether financially or emotionally- they're very poor.
Well, this guy would disagree:
Fact: to achieve your own goals, you need 100% of your time, money and effort.