Fisherman - Says who? Is self preservation immoral when it involves harming other creatures?
The part you quote has to do with well-being. Are you that incapable of reasoning? If you excessively indulge yourself in pleasures that do not affect other people, then it cannot be considered immoral unless you include a third party in the equation (God.) I thought this would be uncontroversial because it is so goddamn obvious...
When it comes to self-preservation, what the hell does it have to do with the part you were quoting, which is excessive indulgence in pleasures? If you didn't mean for those two questions to be related, then don't write them in the same line. They are not related.
Fisherman - Well-being of others is governed by laws, concerns are not.
Laws don't govern well-being. Laws govern the human right to freedom and autonomy. The two sometimes coincide but not always. For example, cheating diminishes well-being, but it's not illegal.
But aside from that, what does law have to do with morality? We don't legislate based on morality. The two are separate, and right now we're talking about morality, not law, so I cannot see your point.
Fisherman - Hitler's morality was concerned for the well-being of the German people and he was doing quite well. The Europeans also were concerned about wellbeing when they took the land from the Indians. They suceeded and he US is a prosperous nation where morality means do whatever the heck you like -just don't break the law.
Yeah, and guess what. Hitler was wrong, and so were the people who oppressed the Natives. Anyone who cares only about their own well-being is wrong from the moral perspective. I suppose your whole reasoning is based on the assumption that I don't have an objective basis to say so, and that it is merely my subjective opinion. However, I do actually have an objective basis for concluding that we cannot care only about our own well-being.
If we ought to improve our well-being rather than detract from it, which I believe is the goal of morality and will continue to believe so until such time as it is reasonably demonstrated that a better foundation for morality exists, we need to figure out ways to cooperate. Cooperation is one of the things which maximizes our well-being, even the individual's. It is, therefore, paramount for all of us to recognize that our actions have consequences upon other people, and theirs have an effect on our own lives. To live cooperatively means to be able to recognize that impact and respect the space that we share with each other. In other words, my freedom to swing my arm may result in my arm ending up in somebody else's face (and vice versa), and in order to avoid that, we need to respect our shared space.
Stealing from, raping, or murdering somebody is the opposite of cooperation. The first formulation of Kant's categorical imperative states, "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." If we deemed murder not morally wrong, against our better judgement, and if subsequently everyone were free to murder another person, we would end up in a society of distrust and chaos.
We can reasonably demonstrate, through reason and rational consideration of our actions, that murder detracts from our well-being. If I murder a man named Mike—say because I envy his social status or his material possessions—this will have an effect on all the people who loved this person and will minimize their well-being. In an act of retribution, they may murder me as well, which in turn would minimize the well-being of people who love me. In a world that we live in, there are over 7 billion people, and considering the number of individuals that live in prisons for crimes such as murder, it is reasonable to suspect that many would find the option of moral murder rather appealing. Such a vicious circle results in a society of distrust and chaos. Hence, while we may not live in a perfect world, we most definitely live in a world that is better (well-being) than the one we would have if murder were considered moral.
International relations work on the same basis. You just need to look at the World Wars and analyze their consequences. How much misery, distrust, and chaos would be avoided if we could prevent Hitler from rising to power? If we could prevent the Rwandan genocide? It does not matter which country you live in because we all share space on this planet, and our actions influence each other. Your moral system need not involve other people's well-being if you live in conditions such that your actions don't influence other people.
If your next question is, "Says who?" then you may need to reread my comments.