Is there any reason, other than your subjective emotional impulses, to think that this is actually the case? You say the world would be a "much better place" if everyone acted in this manner, but in order to justify the claim of it being "much better" one would have to appeal to the truth of that system of moral judgement in the first place (i.e. it's circular).
Isn't that what you do when you say the world'd be better id everyone was Christian?
If this system you're proposing is actually completely subjective, how does it actually carry any more weight than saying "my favourite colour of blue, and the world would be a better place if everyone agreed" - other than the emotional intensity with which it is believed? Is this "moral integrity" to which you refer anything other than a fiction you create in your own head?
Well, an inanimate object's blueness has little to do with emotion, psychology, sociology, nor the cause, effects, cirumstances or implications of morality lol. Seems a very daft, uncontextual question.
Tell me this, what moral dilemma can you possibly concieve where having empathy regarding others uconsensual suffering and being willing to follow the implication of that empathy to its deductive conslusion would not motivate a person to do what you consider the normatively ''right thing''?
I mean let's look at this in hypothetical real world circumstances.I want to murder someone. I ask myself would that either cause them unconsensual suffering, go against their natural desire to survive, or be something I would not like done to me? Yes, it would, thus I shouldn't murder someone. I want to steal from someone. Would that either cause them unconsensual suffering, go against their natural desire to survive, or be something I would not like done to me? Yes, it would, thus I shouldn't steal. I want to rape someone. Would that either cause them unconsensual suffering, go against their natural desire to survive, or be something I would not like done to me? Yes, it would, thus I shouldn't rape.
Empathy is not an emotional impulse, it is a cognitive ability.
This system doesn't begin with deontology or the assumption that one is interpreting a book containing apparently objective moral teachings at face value; it begins with subjective personal desire to not suffer unconsensually applied with empathy and ends with a moral conclusion in any circumstance whose means of derivation are consistenly coherent; it has solidarity. The premise is unchanging, continous; do not cause unconsensual suffering or go against another's will to survive, nor do anything I would not like done on me.