Religion is a poor source of morality

[robvalue]

Yabut... that's an integer. It's clear there is an answer. It's numbers. It's a one dimensional problem, again with no relative factors.

We know there is an answer because we understand numbers. And there would be no subjective element, a number is a number.

Can you give me an answer related to conflicting morality? An answer "in principle" to a moral question, and what the answer means? Like should I remove this guys arms or legs? I have to remove one set, or he will die, for some reason. He's unconscious so I can't ask him. Is there an answer "in principal" to which I should do? If so, what does it mean? To what end?

PS: This landscape thing! I don't like it. Unless he's talking about some weird very fuzzy metaphor, he is saying you can compare two different societies as if they are heights coming off a map. To do this, you must reduce the wellbeing of the society to a number, ultimately, for a direct comparison. Otherwise you're only comparing certain aspects and not the whole thing. You can't draw a graph with half a person in it, and some pain over here, and some trauma here, and a great experience over here... and then measure between two different collections of these objects. To have a "peak" implies that every meaningful way of measuring wellbeing has been maximised, without compromising any single other factor. That's a big assumption, that such a thing can be done. And even then... who gets to say what the "optimum age" of humans is, for example? 100? 200? 500? 10,000? So if there is any conflict at all between maximizing one factor or another, to measure the whole thing, you have to assign relative values. Lifespan is worth x points, pain is worth -y points, etc. That's where I object.

Who cares what I think? SHUT UP ROB! THIS IS BORING!