I absolutely understand where you are coming from. I also do not think that we are considering different aspects. The issue is way more complex than can and should be quantified scientifically. Suffering is a part of life, from which we learn, interact, interrelate, and even improve. The problem occurs when the definition of morality comes from the determiner of the response to the suffering. It’s not worth discussing a cult of suffering, because that is an outlier. But when morality is quantified by science, based upon a quotient of suffering or lack of opportunity, who’s to say that one doesn’t simply remove the sufferer? The very situations that arose in the past were made possible by the intersection of these two subjects. People were allowed to determine what was moral, and then they were allowed to make decisions that affected others based upon their assumptions. There is not enough oversight and too much authority.
It’s funny that you said this, because when I was reading your other comments, I was thinking that I’d like an opt-out system in place!! It’s silly to make the comment that “religion” has a bad track record… everyone has a bad track record. That’s why we discuss issues like this and try to be as inclusive as possible. Science has a bad track record. So, what has happened organically, instead, is that society has become the arbiter of what is moral. It’s not perfect, but it happens in the open, changes don’t occur quickly, and everyone gets to give feedback. I hope that you can see that we share a commonality (here at peaceful science 
) in that you fear my system as much as I fear yours.
You are at least 78% hypocrite. Due to the small sample size, the error bar is pretty big. The probability is .05, though.