Is Hell or Prison the best cure for immorality?

[Esquilax]

Why does consciousness negate objectification? Is it because of human morality? Have you ever killed an ant or a bug? Do ants really pose such a threat that you must kill them without hesitation?

At the point of self awareness the entity also becomes self determining and most likely willing to preserve its own life. We're no longer discussing the mere destruction of a physical form here, but also the suffering and erasure of a thinking being with great potential for quality of life; it's not merely the destruction of life in question, but the complexity of that life. Have I ever killed a bug? Yes. But the bug is far less mentally acute than a person, just a series of impulses strung together in a shell.

That said, I also don't go out of my way to kill bugs either; I might kill a wasp in my house, but I don't go crushing anthills for fun because that level of meaningless destruction has no purpose, it's simply cruel.

Consciousness negates immoral conduct which is true but you claim that it does this on an objective level as if it is a universal law.

Not at all; I'm well aware that this preference for conscious things if contextual. I wouldn't be averse to a justified killing in self defense, for example; there's a complicated situational metric that must be applied, as there should be with all things.

Why do you think that human constructed morals made to benefit humans are equally binding to God?

Because we live and exist in human terms, and those are the only ones that matter. What I mean by that is that an omnipotent god wants for nothing, because by definition anything he desires he could create; the only entity for whom morality even matters- in that it's a series of checks and balances designed to maximally enhance the well being of all- is something limited, like humans.

If you say that god doesn't need to be limited by human standards I'm fine with that, but you can't escape from the corollary, that this god also doesn't need to do anything that negatively impacts humans at all. Any breach of those human moral rules, any harm that he causes us, is completely unnecessary to him. That god, should you choose to frame him in those terms, is nothing but an indiscriminate killer and thug.

Or, to borrow something you said earlier, he is crushing ants for no reason at all.

Do you see us inflicting our morals onto animals? Do you really tell a lion to stop eating baby elephants?

However, those deaths serve a purpose in extending the predator's lives. Suffering with a purpose is different from, as with your question, the needless destruction of a sentient machine, for example. One is justified- though still not ideal, since I don't think any one of us wouldn't alter things so that suffering could be avoided had we the ability to.