Theistic morality

[The Omnissiunt One]

How, then, do you judge an action that fulfills the interests of some but hinders the interests of some? Is it by mere numbers in each group, i.e., the group being fulfilled vs. the group being hindered? Is it a composite of the numbers in each group, the level of fulfillment, and the level of hindering? If a composite, how would one go about determining it?

It would depend on the significance of the interests involved to each person. A hundred people receiving a pin prick wouldn't outweigh one being burnt alive, as pain cannot be taken into account cumulatively, as it is confined within each individual's consciousness. Strength of interest being equal, though, it would depend on the numbers in each group, yes. Of course, it isn't an exact science, but it can be approximated, and rough moral decisions can be made.

The side who has office. For example, take the healthcare bill that passed. It only passed because the majority of Congress is Democrat. If the majority of Congress was Republican, it wouldn't have passed.

That doesn't mean the side that has office is morally right. Hitler had office, but that doesn't mean the Nazis and their supporters were right. Unless you think it did...

And if they didn't look at religious texts, where would they look for ground-work? They would go off their own beliefs of right and wrong. Which goes back to what society does or does not approve of...

But once we have some basic moral principle, like 'pain is bad', we can use reason and evidence, rather than just people's beliefs and prejudices, to decide.