Being a sinner just for being born

[Ignorant]

1) Yes, that is true.

2) Are you a merciless killer?

3) It simply and obviously does not add to human fulfillment.

Are you prepared to defend merciless killing as a way to human fulfillment?

Defend the consistent application of your own framework for determining moral imperatives?  [1]  No thanks. 

1) Having agreed with this, and applying your previous framework for determining moral value, how can you avoid the conclusion that it is a good action? [2]
2) You just agreed that we were - as in one line above.  Seems like a pointless question to ask. [3]
3) Show your work.  When you've done that work, tell me how to decide between whatever that is, and the fullness of what we are - or this new proposition, human fulfillment [4] (because I'll just as easily find a situation where something nasty leads inexorably to human fulfillment [5]).  That's really all I'm wondering about.

1) Let me follow your assessment real quick, and you can correct me when I get it wrong:

Your claim (1): "Well, we-are merciless killers just as surely as we're kind hearted philanthropists." HERE
Your restatement of MY claim (2): "You just told us that things which add to the fullness of what we are..... -are- good actions." HERE (emphasis mine)
Your conclusion according to your understanding of my framework (3): "We are merciless killers (1), merciless killing adds to the fullness of what we are (imported premise - which I implicitly deny HERE), and so it must be a good action. (conclusion)"

So let me be very clear. I find (1) to be FALSE. I find (2) to be quite TRUE. I find your imported premise that "merciless killing adds to the fullness of what we are" to be FALSE (so do you). You are welcome to challenge that. Your conclusion depends on the imported premise being true, which I simply deny, and so do you.

So if some people kill mercilessly, and that action DOES NOT add to human fullness (I challenge anyone to argue the opposite), then it must mean that merciless killing is bad action.

How do we know what-we-are? Through the communal and individual experience of what fulfills and what doesn't. So let me correct your imported premise: Merciless killing does not add to the fullness of what we are. Merciless killing, therefore, is a bad action, and living a full human life cannot be concurrent with mercilessly killing. At a fundamental level, therefore, we are not merciless killers.

2) See above. I reject the premise that being fully human can be concurrent with being "a merciless killer". I reject the imported premise that "merciless killing adds to the fullness of what we are"

3) The question is actually very pertinent. If you are not a merciless killer, and yet you are still a human, then you must provide an account for your claim that "we are merciless killers just as much as we are kind hearted philanthropists". I don't think that you can, and I don't think that you even want to. So why propose the premise?

4) You might take a look at Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape. He proposes neuroscience as a possible means of evaluating these actions. I suspect those sorts of studies would come to similar conclusions we as a species had come to much on our own. Eating healthy foods and in moderation lends toward a full life, meaningful relationships and continuing the species adds to a full human life, participation in larger social projects adds to the fullness of many people's lives, etc. It's not that complicated.

5) Such as?

[EDIT]
Rhythm, is it my own misunderstanding of your tone, or have I wronged you before? I get the sense that you dislike me. If you do, fair enough, but a reason might help me in the future.