Being a sinner just for being born

[Ignorant]

So death and suffering - victims and communities, these are the metrics? [1] It appears that we're considering dead humans at present.....we've got more depth than that, in the killing business, I think.  Suppose the merciless slaughter of some organism x were beneficial to the community?  There's a fun example. [2] We have, perhaps, the opportunity to eradicate mosquitoes.  It would be a far less charged subject than the eradication of human beings, I think, lol.   

Should we?   Is it a moral good to eliminate them - as it adds to human fullness by the metrics of victims and communities, death and suffering? [3] 

1) In the context of evaluating the humanity, the rationality, the goodness/evil of mercilessly killing people? Yes, those are some of the principal metrics, and I imagine there are even more in the fullest picture.

I've lost the point of your objection. Are you suggesting that my framework can't accurately identify merciless killing as bad human behavior, or are you still trying to argue that my framework leads to the conclusion that merciless killing is a good human action?

2) There's a ridiculous example =). Why must the killing be merciless in order to benefit the community? You might as well suppose that the merciless slaughter of a square circle is beneficial to the community.

3) Not enough information. Does it add to human fullness in other ways? Does it limit or subtract from human fullness in other ways? What are the effects on the ecosystem and the life within it? How do those changes affect our communities? And many more questions that I don't care to investigate about an imaginary and poor particular case for a framework we don't even agree about in so far as its internal principles and the manner in which it provides for conclusions.
  

I think we're all variations on a theme, yes..lol.

Great. Do you think, insofar as I am a human like you are a human, that I am a merciless killer? If the answer is yes, then I can understand your objection. If the answer is no, then I can't understand your objection to be anything more than sophistry. Help me!

Both, ofc.  Not big on binary thinking.  Failing collossally is -also- something that we do, in addition to merciless killing, what we-are .  I'm guessing that doesn't add to our fullness either [1] ...unless maybe that failure is somehow beneficial to victims and communities?  Is it a moral good to fail if that failure yields communal gain? [2]

1) Ah yes, all of us fail at living our full humanity sometimes, that much is true. Not all of us fail as colossally as merciless killers do. Some of us fail in bigger or smaller ways. But do all of us mercilessly kill people? I don't think so. But if we can legitimately call things failures, then that must be because we fell short of some way-of-being human. If that is not the case, then there is no such thing as failure (what standard or goal or measure are we "failing" to reach or attain?). 

So no... failing colossally at adding to human fullness does not add to human fullness... are you just messing with me?

2) No.

"Ultimately, every individual MUST be the one to determine what they think will bring them fulfillment, and then determine the most fulfilling ways to seek it out. No one does that in a vacuum." - ME HERE

It can't be a "fulfilling way" to if it is a failed-way.

Let's say I fail...at being a christian. If that failure benefits those around me..if it reduces death or suffering....would that be a moral good?

No. (Assuming in this hypothetical scenario that being-a-christian adds to human fullness) Your failure, if it is a moral one, is a moral failure. Even if the community derives some benefit from your failure, it is still missing out on what your failure didn't provide: your own growth in human fullness. Your failure is still a failure.