I would say on the basis on helping or hurting. if someones helping and giving and benefiting others mentally, emotionally and spiritually. Creating a disorder is the opposite. Disorder to others and to their selves.

It's simply a matter of intuiting whether you're comfortable with some interpersonal behavior or other. Empathy is a big part of it, and different degrees and instantiations of empathetic tendencies lead to very different moral stances.

one word, sadist. Wich us some people's moral code and is defined as someone who obtains pleasure from inflicting pain on others. Things like that and the other exceptions keep is why I don't have the same view.

but empathy doesn't count for all the exception we make. We say lying is bad because we would not some to lie to us. As empathy would reson, yet we still do lie. My reasoning would be they repect or disrespect the person to much to A. Let them know that we violated them or B. We don't feel obligation to tell the truth. What would be your resoning?

“My father once told me that respect for truth comes close to being the basis for all morality. 'Something cannot emerge from nothing,' he said. This is profound thinking if you understand how unstable 'the truth' can be.”

― Frank Herbert, Dune

Respect isn't as good as love, ill-defined as it too is, when it comes to morality. If we love each other, harmony and peace follow automatically.

On the other hand, loving everybody may not be possible. Respect seems doable. We may not like someone for whatever reason but we can respect them nonentheless.

"different degrees and instantiations of empathetic tendencies lead to very different moral stances."

So, for example, psychopaths will have at least some very different moral stances than the norm, because empathy is instantiated very differently in psychopaths--that's one of the defining characteristics of psychopathy/sociopathy.

So the idea isn't that the fact that there's empathy leads to predictable moral stances. Empathy is realized differently in different people, in terms of degree, properties, etc.

If respect is to ground something as important as morality, it should be given a meaning undiluted by variables. Respect for this, respect for that, respect for the other, drains respect of its power. It becomes realistic to suppose morality may indeed be a matter of respect, if one respects a particular thing upon which morality may depend.

The course of human events does exhibit one condition under which respect is centralized, and that is for the law. If that is true, then, in the case of morality, the centralized respect would be for a moral law. So, with respect to the OP, yes, the moral by respect is at least reasonable.

What the moral law may be, on the other hand, is not, and cannot be, given by the agreement that morality by respect is reasonable.

firstly you are correct when you say "Respect for this, respect for that, respect for the other, drains respect of its power." I had know that. I should have made it more clear that the list is of things we could respect, and to different degrees. We tend to respect our frends more than strangers.

Secondly, no we don't all respect the law or criminals would not be a thing. The government dose want to dictate our morals but thay know there is a point where they can't cross without protests and/or a revolt. A revolt is a sign of disrespect for the government. So yes the law is one factor but not the only one.

I didn’t say, and certainly had no intention of implying, we all respect the law.

What makes you think the government dictates, or wants to dictate, the morals of its populace?

thruth us that many people what to dictate there morals as everyone morals. That way they don't have to argue with someone wether there right or wrong. Because no one wants to think they did the wrong thing or they just want everyone to agree with them. Government specificly because then they could do what is needed to do for the benefit of the state, well that is the democratic ones at least.