I would say that's a moral belief, in that it's a belief about what's good and what's bad. Would you agree?

I would.

Would you say that my belief that it's bad for people to suffer is arbitrarily invented and built on blind faith?

Yes, because you're using a rationalization to justify how you believe the world should be. And no rationalization for a moral is more valid than any other.

You could equally say that you think other people should work and suffer so that your life is fulfilled and happy. How do we determine whether that moral belief is more correct than the idea that you should prevent other people's sufferings? The answer is that we cannot.

Obviously, we can believe in whatever moral philosophy we like, but we must accept there is no rational basis for them, because there is no way to determine the validity of any rational explanation we make. There is no correct morality.

In my opinion, a person's particular moral beliefs usually have more to do with the beliefs of their parents and the culture they were brought up in. If they were brought up in a different culture, they'd have a different moral philosophy for which they would give similar rational justifications.

Some

I agree that religion isn't the source of morality. In my experience, atheists believe in good and evil just as much as religious people do.

required

To believe you can somehow make the world objectively better, even in a small way, you must still believe in some sort of objective good or evil. My position is the sacrilegious idea that there is no objective good or evil -- that the universe is stuff bouncing and jumping around in accordance with the laws of nature. Crazy, I know.

There is a difference between the universe itself and our interpretations of the universe. A moral is a judgement about the universe mistaken for an inherent property of the universe.

reading.

In order to establish that something is better than or superior to something else, we must have some criteria to compare them by. The problem with objective good and evil, if you believe they exist, is that there is no way to establish the correct criteria.

A lion's inclination to kill antelope isn't inherently wrong. The inclination is simply the lion's individual nature. Because you care about the antelope's suffering doesn't mean the lion should. The lion isn't wrong if it doesn't care.

We are all individuals with different wants and desires. To believe there is a one-size-fits-all moral code that all living creatures should follow is lunacy.

Direct counterargument: I would phrase my attitude to ethics as: "I have decided that I want X to happen as much as possible, and Y to happen as little as possible." I'm not "believing" anything - just stating goals. So there's no faith required.

I'd agree. By switching from morals to your individual preferences, you avoid the need to identify what is objectively good and evil.

The typical advice is "if you want to see more like this, vote up; if you want to see less like this, vote down." Users try to downvote for faulty premises or logic rather than conclusions they disagree with.

For short posts, where claims are made without much justification, there tends to be little besides a conclusion. Those comments will get voted down if they seem wrong or to not add much to the conversation. (I've had several offhand remarks, for which I had solid, non-obvious justification, voted down, but then in responses I made up the karma by explaining myself fully. I suspect that if I had explained myself fully at the start, I wouldn't have gotten downvoted.)