Morality from the ground up

[bennyboy]

No, it's not rational, it's the runup to a nazi apologists thought droppings.  A society in which that was "moral" - by it's very nature, becomes the cause of immense suffering.  The premise necessarily contradicts the conclusion.

Why? If suffering is the most important metric for mores, and if you can kill without causing suffering, then on what basis is the killing immoral? If you say "by its very nature, it becomes the cause of immense suffering," then that is clearly not moral given the axiom that causing suffering is immoral-- so that wouldn't be allowed. If, and only if, you could kill without causing much suffering, then would it be okay, or is there another metric (we know there is-- it's abstract ideas about the value of memories and so on).