Thanks, John, for recommending my paper. It was a surprise to me and I am glad you found it rewarding.

Regarding your first and second points, I think it is important to realize that Raz does not actually endorse the view that the mark of having morality is believing that each person is valuable in themselves. It is just convenient for proceeding with his discussion to adopt a provisional criterion.

If I remember correctly, there are two views on the mark of morality which Raz eventually suggests/implies: (i) the mark of having morality is believing that each person potentially has qualities which endow them with value in themselves; (ii) the distinction between moral and non-moral values is an arbitrary distinction - it does not cut the domain of values at the joints - meaning that there is little philosophical point trying to define the domain of morality. There is an inference in the second view which is open to question and the two views are compatible.

I think you are ultimately interested in evaluating whether this famous statement from Dostoevsky is true: if God does not exist, everything is permitted. You can skip past a lot of definitional work for addressing this question.

I do not think I will be participating in this discussion, as I am on holiday at the moment. I hope this does not sound rude. Hi to Derek, as well.