Being a sinner just for being born

[The Grand Nudger]

1) Which competing imperatives? Between humanity and other organisms?
2) I'd go back and read that again HERE. I objected to the idea of sin and morality being simply about rules and rule-breaking.

You may object, but your objections betray your aqcuiescence at every turn, imo.  Sure, we -could- consider competing moral imperatives between humanity and other organisms..but we don't have to.  We experience many competing moral imperatives internally.  For example...I have a moral imperative to refuse christianity, and yet there seems to be a moral imperative to be a christian.  What to do, what to do?

Sure. How would one even go about doing so with mercy? Can you show mercy to an amoeba? Can you forgive a bacterium? I wouldn't understand what that even means.

Which makes it a better example to explore this business of fullness....as it doesn't come bundled with moral prohibitions or screeds or complex rationalizations about how we determine moral good.  It would seem that the eradication of mosquitoes fits all of your metrics for a moral good.....but do you feel that it is a moral good for having done so?  

I appreciate your clarity. Allow a suggestion of my own: you might have not actually read what I've written. We learn about what-we-are through our actions, not vice versa.

Obviously not...since merciless killing is an action we frequently engage in but doesn't..in your mind, yield a portion of what we are.  Particularly if you worry that this might be the beginnings of a statement that leads to it's classification as a moral good by your very own system and really only as it relates to humans because the rest is just meh...for reasons*.

 I guess you'll just have to trust that I can read good and everything. 

You describe what we are (and reference the opinion of another poster) as "the good". It;s clear, however, that these metrics for determining moral good rely on existent statements of moral good -as- the metrics..which is -almost- surprisingly incompetent. You seem to think that there is an onus upon me to argue for the moral good of merciless killing in order to demonstrate this, but there simply isn't. You seem to think that exploring the consequences of these moral assessment scheme is straw manning you, which it isn't. It was and remains a platitude fielded to avoid discussing an objection. As a platitude it was bound to be incapable of adequetely describing morality or moral assessments if it was put to even the lightest of test..such as the merciless killing of men or mosquitoes.