Genocide, or if want to be specific, killing off the entire human species.
Name a single universally prohibited act
- Thread starter swarm
- Start date
Genocide, or if want to be specific, killing off the entire human species.
It's moral or immoral based on the consequences of the kill. If it prevents world war 3, it's moral to kill anyone. If someone is about to push the button to release biological weapons onto the world and someone kills them, thats morally right.
But we are talking about things that everyone wouldn't do, not just one or two idiots trying to show off how stupid they are.
Two Girls and a Cup?
Rape? Child abuse?
You seem to not have much exposure outside your own culture then.
A number of societies have practiced rape, particularly as a prize during raids and wars.
Child abuse is hard to define, but "spare the rod" is certainly seems like abuse. Certainly there are cultures where the farther can injure or kill the child without reproach.
One more time:
Countries where bestiality is legal: Belgium, Cambodia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoosexuality_and_the_law
None of those are even generally prohibited. Just because something is stupid to do, that doesn't mean it is prohibited.
A number of cultures have and still do practice genocide.
I don't know of anything which addresses the species as a whole.
Actually the question here is not whether it is moral or not. Most if not all cultures pemit actions seen as immoral but "necessary" like us keeping assasins for murdering foreign political enemies.
I think swarm is actually right.
There is no particular single act I can think of that is universally prohibited, where by "universal" we presumably mean in all circumstances, at all times, by all people.
Suppose we take this as given, then. What conclusion are we to draw from this, swarm?
There is no particular single act I can think of that is universally prohibited, where by "universal" we presumably mean in all circumstances, at all times, by all people.
Suppose we take this as given, then. What conclusion are we to draw from this, swarm?
It's not that simple. Whether something is moral or not depends on the consequences. I don't consider an action immoral just because it's seen as immoral. Either it's moral or immoral. Morality is objective not subjective. And I don't think assassins should be used to kill "political" enemies because politics are vague. But I do think assassins should be used to prevent nuclear and biological weapons from getting into the wrong hands. It's got nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the consequences.
If we let terrorists get WMDs they'll kill all of us. It's better to kill a few terrorists than to let biological weapons kill millions, I don't see how political ideology or religion has anything to do with utilitarian morality. If you are overly religious then you might not have any concept of utilitarianism or realism, but sometimes violence is necessary, and sometimes it's morally right to kill someone. You have to look at the consequences and if the consequences of not killing them outweighs the consequences of killing them, then it's always morally right to kill them.
And I'm not talking about political consequences. I'm talking about, if you don't kill one guy, then that one guy will kill x1000 innocent people. If you don't kill the terrorist, then the terrorist will kill and kill and kill some more. If you don't kill the terrorist, then the terrorist will commit genocide. Killing is morally right when it saves innocent lives.
Actually natural law is very knowable. And it's objective, it's just the majority of people lack the reasoning capability to figure it out. It's just like the majority don't know how to do calculus. It's a simple formula which tells us the objective right and wrong based on the amount of damage an action causes. It's consequentialism. The consequences are objective, you can measure the consequences of an action.
If your actions lead to consequences which objectively harm others who have not harmed you and who don't plan to harm you, then your action is objectively wrong. It's objectively wrong to harm innocent people who are not threatening you.(genocide is objectively wrong) It's not subjective because it's wrong to set a forest on fire for the fun of watching it burn, not because I say it's wrong, but because the consequences of the act will prove it's wrong.
I don't have to tell you it's wrong to do certain things. Do them and when you see the consequences then you'll see that it was objectively wrong. Some of us have the reasoning capaibility to look ahead and see where our actions lead and this is how we judge right from wrong. Others don't use reasoning, they just do whatever feels right and so they have no capability of judging right and wrong on the advanced utilitarian levels. The most advanced system of morality is utilitarianism/consequentialism. It's based entirely on reason.
If you understand the laws of nature, to preserve yourself, and to seek peace are the two main laws of nature. Protect yourself at all times. And if anyone is a threat to peace then protect yourself from them.
I think we need to teach kids reasoning skills. The reason so many adults have no concept of right and wrong is because most adults are just following the ten commandments. The majority of humans don't have the reasoning capability to follow utilitarian morality because utilitarian morality doesn't operate on the level of feelings, it operates on the level of reasoning.
For example, it feels good to follow your gut, it feels good to follow your heart, greed is good, hate feels good, if it feels good do it. Thats the average American adults thinking, it's actually child like and unless an adult is taught reasoning, critical thinking and logic, they'll never develop to the next level of reasoning which is abstract reasoning. The abstract reasoning is what allows for morality based on concepts, ideas such as human rights and natural law come from abstract reasoning. The constitution was generated by abstract reasoning. The Bible was written through a process of abstract reasoning. The ten commandments were an example of abstract reasoning.
The problem is, the ten commandments are thousands of years old. The Bible is thousands of years old. The constitution is hundreds of years old. Utilitarianism is hundreds of years old. However we somehow just stopped our teaching of abstract reasoning, or perhaps it was never a common ability at all and it's just a talent. The truth is, when you make a decision you have to weigh the consequences of the decision. It's just like chess, when you make a move you have to weigh the consequences of each move you make and this involves looking ahead in time and seeing the cause and effect domino reaction, and this forward thinking is not something everyone is capable of doing.
A lot of people operate just in the now. They don't make actions while thinking about the impact it will have 5, 10, 20 or 100 years into the future. The result of these people making these short term emotional decisions is the current economic crisis. We let the weakest most vulnerable greed heads control all the money, this is like letting the crackheads control the supply of crack, or letting the fattest people control all the food in the cafeteria, and then acting surprised when somehow all the food is gone. We KNEW these people weren't reasonable, we knew they were addicted to money. We knew they'd be compromised.
I think the reason why this country keeps repeating history is because we keep putting the most emotional people in control of positions in which emotions are a burden. Our laws are decided entirely on emotions, thats why our laws are so simplistic and senseless. It doesn't matter if you are red or blue, neither party is making laws based on what benefits you, they want to control, and both parties are making laws to make the elite population feel better.
The most logical political ideology is libertarianism. Most people aren't libertarian. The reason I say libertarianism is the most logical of the ideologies is because it's the only ideology that is about self empowerment.
The Democrats want you to give all your power to the big daddy government so the government can rape you. The Republicans want you to give all your power to the big corporate aristocacy so they can rape your wallet. Neither are offering any of us a damn thing. We aren't going to receive any new rights, we aren't going to receive any new freedoms, they are going to restrict our freedoms further and further until we are "consumer" zombies, or "citizens" who function like worker drones or slaves. The government will basically reach a point where it's 1984 or brave new world, where it tells us exactly what we can and can't do from the time we wake up in the morning until the time we go to sleep. Even our most private thoughts will be governed by other people who will outlaw hateful thoughts, or outlaw thoughts they simply view as disgusting or "wrong", or just thoughts that make them feel bad.
I don't know about you, but I don't like being treated as a consumer, or a zombie, or a slave. I'm not saying everyone deserves to be free, but if I'm not hurting anyone why should the government still be invading my life?
Last edited:
So, any decisions on sex with children under 5?
Well, I suppose people who do it think it's probably okay. ...else why would they do it?
I still think that being lied to, being intentionally deceived, is more universally prohibited than almost any other single issue. No one, it seems, likes being deceived or lied to. Do you? Do you know anyone, any culture, any society, who would like that?
Baron Max
I don't think the people who commit crimes like that are capable of reasoning, they let their instincts and urges tell them what is okay instead of their reasoning.
Do you have any evidence for that statement? Or is it just your opinion stated as if there was some evidence?
Baron Max
