Bunny,
Oh good grief. Anybody arguing in good faith is interested in clarifying definitions and understanding the meanings of the words his conversant is using. So I attempted to clarify, since it seems like you're using some of these words differently that I am. In case you hadnt realized, the term "moral" (and subsequently the term "ought") are terms whose definitions are highly controversial in philosophy, so one needs to be *really* specific. That's why I provided a definition of morality - and further down the line I provided a definition for "ought". So far you havent even given me any inkling as to what you think morality should even be defined as. How am I supposed to give any credence to your claims that it cannot exist?
And... anyone arguing in *really* good faith, doesnt expect to put everything perfectly the first time, and even expects to modify their arguments as time goes on, in light of what their opponents say. So in retrospect, I could be a little more clear about my definitions... so lets settle on this, right now:
Moral duy: "A rational reason (ie imperitive) to act, that supercedes all other reasons to act".
Ought: "To possess a moral duty" So "ought" really expands too, "to possess a rational reason to act, that supercedes all other reasons to act".
Now I don't know about you, but I think those *definately* exist (unlike unicorns). And really, what else are we supposed to ask for from a moral theory? It doesnt matter, whether we "matter" to the cosmos - I don't know why you're so preoccupied with that red herring. Things matter to minds - and if there is *something* that matters to all minds - universally - then it matters objectively to all beings with minds. That's how morality becomes objective - that's the *only* way it can become objective.
There is simply no reason anyone ought to do anything, if on some level they don't value actually value doing that thing. There would be no reason to act, and hence, no reason they "ought" to act.
It makes no difference whether the cosmos "meant for us to be happy". It makes no difference whether a God wants us to be happy - it matters what *we value*. Values are what provide *rational reasons* to act. And rational reasons to act are the foundations of a moral system. And if we all share the same - or a similiar - core value, which is valued above all else - then we have all share the same underlying rational reasons for action, that supercede all others. We have a universal morality.
Now maybe, for some reason or another, you don't want to call that morality, but for the life of me, I can't possibly imagine what "morality" actually means to you, if not that? Maybe this time you'll finally provide a definition of it, and we can see if it makes sense?