I concur that morality is innately subjective. That said, I would challenge your presumption that this renders the consideration of morality "silly". Morality is a personal and social instrument, and the moral sense is itself a (by)product of human evolution. This imbues it with some legitimacy in comporting and assessing human thought and action.

I meant the quest for an objective morality is silly. I do not think morality in general is silly. In fact, you can see the I have arbitrarily chosen a system of morality for myself. I do not think it is silly to have a system of morality. I think it is silly to compare systems of morality because any comparison will use a metric that is entirely arbitrary.

Further, a metric may be selected for which is optimally objective; the moral judgement attached to that metric is a mechanism for securing compliance to the objective metric (i.e. that which is objectively optimal for individual and/or collective perpetuity becomes subjectively optimal as well).

I don't know what you mean by "optimally objective". It sound like you think there is some objective means for evaluating systems of morality, which is obviously false.

All of that being said, I would further dispute your assessment that everyone will choose a system of morality based upon a hedonistic impulse. For instance, I myself do not personally ascribe to any system of morality.

The only think I pretend to know is that people always maximize their own utility. "Hedonistic impulse" is a poor way to define utility. The feeling one gets when sending money to the poor and sick in a far away country is not usually defined as a hedonistic impulse, but it is utility. When I say people will choose whatever system of morality that makes them feel good, I truly mean they will pick the one that maximizes their own utility, wether it is an altruistic or self-interested utility. You choose to have no system of morality because it satisfies you more than any choice. Others choose to believe in Islam, Kantianism, Christianity, etc not because they "know"(from your nihilist profile image I imagine you doubt the existence of true knowledge as much as I) them to be true but because they feel that belief makes them better off than any other belief. That is why faith is so popular. I'd continue my argument but I fear it would only lead to the questioning of the existence of true knowledge and the nature of what we really use in the absence of true knowledge to make inferences.

I'm just gonna hafta call bullshit there

If I defined good as the actions taken and bad as the actions no taken then there would be no way to improve the amount of good in the world. Therefore, that would instantly maximize the good in the world.

No it wouldn't. Didn't you just see me compare those other two statements presented as moral first principles? :)

Why is practicality something to be valued in a moral first principle?

Despite the mighty effort spent staring at Hume's Abyss, I don't think it's all that hard, to get to an ought from an is. The great philosopher missed what should be obvious to everyone, for what it IS that we value spells out what ought to be done. :) (you inspired cheesy poetry today)

You seem to misunderstand. The question is what ought to be, not what we ought to do to accomplish some goal. There is no way to come to the conclusion "we ought to value the well being of conscious creatures" from what is.

I think that concern for well being is a better grounding for morality than concern for pleasure for it's own sake. Maybe I only think that because it feels good to. I expressed this before ala

"either you are motivated by love, or you are a slave to pleasure and pain"

I am from a fairly conservative upbringing so I am prone to oversimplify my arguments. I should have said "they will choose the system of morality that maximizes their utility. I also have come to the realization that many people define utility as self-interested pleasure, which is not the utility I refer to. Utility is more general. It encompasses all the altruistic and self-interested pleasures, all the pleasures derived from the senses as well as the pleasure from our thoughts and emotions. The good feeling one gets from helping others is utility. The feeling of accomplishment from beating a game is utility. The feeling from posting a selfie is utility. Love is utility. All these result in some chemical reactions in your brain that your consciousness enjoys and want to maximize. Therefore, people will choose the system of morality that maximizes their own individual utility function.

The economist in me says "the law of diminishing marginal utility states that each additional dollar of goods I purchase will bring less utility than the last". I must then conclude that it is in my own interest to derive as much utility from other's pleasure as I do from my own, because I would be able to purchase more utility per dollar by giving to the worst off people in the world. Of course, I have not been able to do that yet and I live a life much more physically comfortable than the worst off people. But I aspire to be less "selfish" for "selfish" (utility maximizing) reasons.