Amesh says that, "...An action is moral when it promotes one's survival. What determines whether something is moral or not is whether it, objectively, furthers one life. For example, being productive is moral because it provides one the means by which to procure the elements necessary to survive while being chronically unproductive (as a matter of choice) is immoral..." My question to this is, Was Adolph Hitler's eugenics program moral in that it was conducive to a healthy population ( he not exterminated the such like "social vermin" as Jews, Gypsies, and homos; he also terminated those that were too old, crippled, or mentally deficient) and put everyone to work?

Let's face it, whether you agree with his Final Solution to what he considered imperative for the health of the nation of Germany or not, he took an economically challenged country and created the greatest war machine of his time. In fact, if he hadn't foolishly divided his forces on two fronts, he most likely would have ruled the world. But, was it "moral?"

If I learned that I had contracted AIDS and decided to go on a serial killing spree of everyone that I thought would be in the best interests of my fellow Americans, would that be moral?

Also, there seems to be laws of nature which usually religion is based upon; and these are scientific facts. A young woman who sleeps with many different men usually developes venereal disease; homosexuals that rebel against nature have a high risk of deveoping AIDS; a cow that is fed meat developes Mad Cow's Disease; Could Nature's Light be trying to show us something that the blind refuse to perceive?