Moral standards

[GodsRevolt]

Just think of all the scumbag Christian television personalities who have used money needed by old people barely getting by to buy gold plated bathroom fixtures. Or the ones who keep getting caught abusing drugs or having affairs with people in their own 'flock' or paying for a homosexual prostitute. God's commandments don't seem so very hard to disregard even for those who profess to embrace them as true believers. I wouldn't lose any sleep worrying about what atheists may do without this ineffectual device of yours.

You name acts done by Christians and seem to be labeling them as wrong, would it be different if an atheist was doing these things?

Or is the problem that Christians say things are wrong and then do them?

---

Maximum benefit?

Morality is based on the largest amount of gain? Such as killing one man to save a thousand?

What about killing one baby to save two elderly yet healthy people?

I think I am a bit leery of the the idea of "benefit" in morality.

The largest amount of gain, within a set of general parameters. Life being preferable to death being the first among these, and please don't insult both our intelligence by asking me why life would be preferable to death in a system that values conscious entities.

The question isn't why life is preferable to death, but why the value on conscious entities, as you put it. Where does that value come from, because you seem to throw it in without much basis.

Is this the standard you present? To begin by maintaining life and then go from there down a hierarchy of values?

---

@GodsRevolt
-Person A wants to kill the human baby for food. Person B wants to wait.
What is the standard here?
You are bringing up these tough moral decision scenarios and think that you are making a point. If you think that your moral standard can handle them easily, then please explain what your moral standard is and what you would do if you were in charge of bringing a decision in these scenarios you keep mentioning.

You wait.