The moral philosophy related to sacrifice is warped by the assumption in Christianity that sacrifice was related to Christ's crucifixion and therefore a virtue. In the simplest terms, there was no element of sacrifice in Christ's crucifixion; and sacrificing is never a virtue. But convincing and explaining is made impossible by Paul's fraudulent theology on the subject.

Without Paul's theology, a minor point which can easily be explained and set aside is that anything a person does can be called self-sacrifice, which is usually not immoral. But any sacrifice of others besides self is always immoral.

Another minor point to dispense with is the parallel with exploitation. If nature must be exploited, is it not sacrificed, and is it not virtue? Exploitation is a lesser sin which might reduce a greater sin (destroying nature to prevent starvation). It does nothing to add an element of morality to sacrifice, which means exploitation must be removed from the moral philosophy of sacrifice.

A major example is slavery. Power mongers often consider slavery to be a necessity, at least under some circumstances, and therefore an example of moral sacrifice. That assumption only shows how power corrupts, not how sacrifice can be virtue.

Why not pay the slaves to work for a wage instead of enslave them? Usually, the cost would be less. Sometimes slaves are paid a wage, but there are hidden forces of coercion which remove their freedom of choice.

Giving workers some choice reduces the immorality of control (slavery) by allowing an analysis of cost versus price. The victims may not have to destroy themselves when allowed some freedom of choice.

And this result is exactly why slavery is used instead of employment. The enslavers want more than just work out of slaves. They want human degradation. The motive is domination. Corrupters are obsessed with domination and control, and only through human degradation can they achieve the result which they crave.

The corrupt standards must be compared to the constructive standards to clarify morality. People can get a lot more done in a lot more efficient manner when dealt with justifiably than when sinned at. Can anyone really believe that the American slaves would have picked more cotton if not sinned at? Absolutely. Some slave owners were more considerate and had somewhat constructive working conditions. They couldn't just switch to a pay scale and abandon slavery, because the broader social conditions were not set up for that result. But nowdays, the "slaves" from Mexico are paid a minimum wage, which gives them some freedom to make choices, and they get a lot of work done in a highly efficient manner.

The point is that morality is more pragmatic than immorality. Corrupters never accept this fact. They rationalize their corruption on a basis of pragmatism, which means necessity. Corruption is never pragmatic or necessary.

To corrupters, the moral argument is circular logic, because pragmatism supposedly justifies corruption, and then it's not corruption. Wrong. Pragmatism does not define morality or justify immorality, even though morality is more pragmatic than immorality.

Therefore, defining morality is critical to getting at the truth of slavery or sacrifice. For practical purposes, the simplest definition of morality is, that which sustains life. To a naysayer, such a definition says nothing. A much more detailed and technical definition is needed to resolve arguments.

The technical definition of morality is based on the concept of justice. Morality and justice are synonyms. This large subject is summarized on the web page titled "Summary of Morality".

Here we must focus on the critical elements of the definition of morality which prove that slavery or sacrifice is not virtue. Perhaps the most important point in relation to counter-philosophy is that morality defines. If sin is right one place, it is right everyplace. Therefore, it is never right.

Closely related to this point is that there is no line which limits immorality to its supposed virtues. Rationalizers pick conditions which supposedly justify sin. But the conditions are as fluid as water. No corrupter has ever bound himself by such limits. The force which drives sin does not turn off where the rationalizers draw their lines.

There is never such a thing as a little bit of sin. Not the least reason is because all elements of sin are interdependent; and therefore, even a little bit of sin requires extended sin to promote, justify and conceal it.

But what about the circular logic that sin is not sin when justified and necessary? The circular logic can be ended with this important property of morality: It is never justified or moral to impose something onto another person. If the person cannot be convinced to accept the result willingly, imposing it onto him is sin or immorality. Always. No exceptions. God cannot change this rule. If he cannot convince the victim, he has no justification in imposing something onto him. All moral persons know this rule. Corrupters try to defy it.

This rule would seem too arbitrary to corrupters who have never known any other standard than imposing themselves onto others. This overwhelming imposition everywhere in the world is a major reason why the rule exists. To defy it results in a bottomless pit which leads to hell. There is no defying it just a little bit.

But regardless of the obvious outcome, the rule is absolute at its starting point. To impose something onto another person is to replace his mind with the imposer's mind. It can never be done. Knowledge is not enough. The feedback mechanism required for information flow is broken. Measurement of cause and effect relationships breaks down. It's like the leper who looses sense of touch and keeps damaging his fingers.

Corrupters would theorize that gods don't have that problem—they get all of the same information as the victim which they control. There are two major errors in that assumption. The first error is that their external perception is not the same as the victim's experience. Corrupters acquire pervasive perception in higher spiritual states, which gives them ability to perceive infinitely over wide expanses of time; and yet they cannot chew bubble gum and walk at the same time, because perception is next to worthless in abstract analysis. It does nothing to improve their moral character, while it gives them a lot more ability to sin.

The second reason why the supposed knowledge of the dominator is not adequate is because even if the knowledge were complete, it would require perfect discipline to create a path of constructivity while controlling the victim. No one can get close enough to the infallible perfection required to turn domination into virtue, and they wouldn't be trying to, if they were not corrupt. Moral persons do not make such an attempt, because it puts all developed knowledge, experience and reactions in conflict with the supposed perfection, and the resulting reactions would be nonconstructive, even if the hypothetical perfection could be achieved.

Here's an analogy: Say Superman showed up, and he tried to convince someone to jump off a building, and he would catch them. Why take such a large risk for so little reason? Why not just take the elevator down? How reliable could the supposed Superman be in demanding such risky behavior?

Morality is derived from and aligned upon objective reality which creates and sustains life. This means avoiding the absurdities instead of exploiting them. The absurdities need to be avoided, not just because of the probabilities of success, but because of the need to allow people to align their minds and lives upon objective reality in an ordered manner. Absurdities disconnect the mind form the rationality needed to sustain life. Messing up peoples' minds is not how life is sustained. Even if it worked in one instance, what would it do for the rest of life? It would mess up peoples' minds making them less functional everywhere.

Paul's theology of sacrifice is a fraud in contradicting these principles of morality.