Read it all... I just found it (to be irrelevant to proving/unable to prove) your point. I see little reason to reproduce non-vital parts of a discussion in my replies when Free Republic makes it easy to trace back to the post being replied to, not to mention it makes it a less convoluted read for everyone involved.
You're trying to derive value from fact in a purely deductive system.
In the line of argument I've been using, perhaps I have. But that is not to say that induction cannot be used to prove my argument - only that I have not yet used it. I try to stear clear of using inductive anecdotes because I'm convinced they're largely useless, or far less effective (and could end up diverting attention from the real points), when discussing theism as the only justification for objective morality. My reason for arguing this case is not necessarilly to prove theism true, or objective morality true, only to show the dependency of the latter on the former.
If all society wanted to commit suicide, then the world would become a dangerous place indeed. But societies don't decide to destroy themselves, do they? People (except for the truly suicidal or deranged) want to live - it's the basic condition of any species; otherwise all would have gone extinct long ago. The worst that whole societies can do is pursue tragically foolish philosophies or moralities in pursuit of what are almost always quite reasonable basic goals.
Here you again invoke ideas - "danger," "destroy," deranged," "worst," "tragic," etc. - that require universal value to be placed on humanity, or at least some aspects of it, in order to even be understood in your own argument. "Deranged," for instance, by its nature as a description insists that principles of human behavior are recognized in order that we also recognize aberrations from them - but those principles of behavior alone don't explain why it is bad to act deranged, only that it is relatively different to act deranged. In fact, "deranged" ends up losing its negative connotation and its reason for existing altogether as an idea seperate from "different."
Your entire line of thought seems to be:
1.) By and large (people/living things/whatever) don't seek the destruction of their own lives,
2.) Therefore, the (continuation/improvement) of (life/existence/whatever) is objectively good.
In other words, 'it is the regular occurence, thus we can infer that it is the good.' Is that really what you're saying?
Your entire line of thought seems to be:
1.) By and large (people/living things/whatever) don't seek the destruction of their own lives,
2.) Therefore, the (continuation/improvement) of (life/existence/whatever) is objectively good.
In other words, 'it is the regular occurence, thus we can infer that it is the good.' Is that really what you're saying?
Yes, except it goes deeper than that. The continuation & improvement of our lives is the very reason we worry about the best way to live in the first place. It's axiomatic. (If you think it's not, then tell me how you'd go about convincing yourself to follow a moral code that you know will kill, impoverish, and/or generally destroy the lives of yourself and those you love. I don't think you can do it. What's more, I doubt you'd even want to try.)
Thus, the sustaining & enhancement of one's life and of those whom they value is as much an objective good as you could ever hope to find, IMO.