Why does science always upstage God?

[pocaracas]

Yay!! You finally got the quotes right!!

And that is why they commit suicide.
Like TGN said, killing does involve increasing the amount of suffering and I don't think anyone can have the authority to ascertain if the suffering due to abuse is greater than the suffering due to being killed. That should be left to the criteria of the person in the particular situation.
And, since you like the parallel, it's like abortion. Leave it to the person who is in the particular situation (and I mean the potential mother).

So  an we all see how your morality is completely subjective. There’s so many unknowns and variables and there’s no way to know what provides the most suffering or the least suffering. You’re literally just making it up as you go. This is the opposite of an objective morality. It’s a mish mash of whatever feels right at the time. Which is fine, I just need you to be consistent and commit all the way. In a world where morality is subjective you have no right to complain about anything that anybody does in your worldview. You will complain and you do know right from wrong, but again, I maintain that’s because God has created you in his image and written His law on your heart.

If you want to win the argument just say yes, killing foster kids reduces suffering. At least then you’d be consistent with your own worldview and there’s nothing I could say to it.

Clearly, morality is subjective to the society.
What religious people seem to always forget is that humanity is a social species. It's like you guys can only think in terms of either the individual or the whole of mankind. No middle ground.
What is moral for a particular society can very well not be moral for another society. And that is fine.
This has the curious side effect that, from the point of view of an individual within any society, the societal morality has the appearance of being objective.

The morality you claim to be from god, is nothing more than a series of rules that arose from a particular society.

Abortion should be immoral in a society that values child labor, while it can be moral in a society that understands that overpopulation is close.
Being homosexual can be immoral in a society that needs to grow the work force, while it can be completely moral in a society that can afford to have 5 or 10% of the population go childless. Homosexuality, however, is related to how the brain is wired and cannot be changed, so I think (in my society) forcing a homosexual individual to behave as heterosexual to be an increase of suffering.

---

And that is why they commit suicide.
Like TGN said, killing does involve increasing the amount of suffering and I don't think anyone can have the authority to ascertain if the suffering due to abuse is greater than the suffering due to being killed. That should be left to the criteria of the person in the particular situation.
And, since you like the parallel, it's like abortion. Leave it to the person who is in the particular situation (and I mean the potential mother).

I just made a compelling argument, using your worldview, that killing foster kids reduces suffering. All you did is arbitrarily assume that suffering increases to a point my example fails without actually addressing the foundation of the argument, which is that moral system is bankrupt and it doesn’t work. Its arbitrary and inconsistent and it only works when people do what you already agree with.

"very" compelling...  
Maybe I was too simplistic when I presented it. I tend to do that as I assume people to be charitable. You seem not to be, so I've given it a slight update above. Feel free to force me to update it further. In the end, it will still revolve around minimizing suffering, just as I said at the start.
It's not a bankrupt system. It's one that works very well. It's the same one that you apply, even though your version should only apply to a different society. Luckily, the society your morality applies to is not too different from our current western society, so it is still possible to cling to it.

And in your last sentence here, you nearly got it... nearly!
"It only works when people do what you already agree with" - That's pretty much the definition of society.
Of course, in any society, there will be outliers and renegades that need to be put in line with the remainder of society or suffer the consequences.

It’s actually an argument that abortion advocates use to defend abortion. As a side note, she’s not a potential mother, she’s a mother and if she gets and abortion she’s just the mother of a dead baby.

Typically, the names of humanity's development go like so:
- Prior to conception: egg and sperm
- Just after conception: zygote
- During the trip to the uterus: blastocyst
- After implantation in the uterus: still blastocyst for a few days, then embryo
- 8 weeks after fertilization: fetus
- After birth: baby
- After 1 or 2 years old: child
- After 10 years old: teenager
- After 18 or 21 years old: adult
- After 60 or 65: senior citizen
- After death: corpse


If you were to ask me for my very subjective opinion, I'd say that aborting an embryo or anything prior to that is so far removed from killing a baby that I'm fine with. At the fetal stage, things become more iffy and more on a case by case basis that gets more stringent as the pregnancy progresses, with fetal viability becoming the cutoff point where only medical reasons can intervene.

In my opinion, a more compelling argument than the “arbitrary levels of unmeasurable suffering” is the idea that an immoral action is any action that, should everyone do that action all of the time, would bring an end to humanity.

Of course, the person who says that has to admit homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion are immoral. Obviously, since no one is a neutral truth seeker, their political views will override their need for consistency and they will violate their own moral system and say those things aren’t immoral.

But, should that person be consistent, I would be compelled by that argument.

I'd say that your "more compelling argument" is utter nonsense mostly because it goes against human nature.
It's an unrealistic standpoint that ignores the societal bit... but it's not unexpected from someone such as yourself.