Name a single universally prohibited act

[Orleander]

I'll knock off a few standard ones: murder, cannibalism and incest all have cultures which allow them.

not intercourse with infants. What cultures allow bestiality?

 

[Carcano]

Murder is a universally prohibited act, where "murder" is defined to be the unlawful killing of a human being.

Murder is universally prohibited...where its prohibited???

 

[Carcano]

not intercourse with infants. What cultures allow bestiality?

They used to have donkey shows in Cuba before the Castro revolution.

 

[Orleander]

They used to have donkey shows in Cuba before the Castro revolution.

gvmt approved?
And is this question about all time periods? Kinda like, incest among Egyptian pharaohs was ok, so it doesn't qualify. Or are talking about what is approved now.?

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

But both could be accepted ritual in some places. Such as my apartment, for example.

Er...I mean...uh...

Shhhhh, Remember? I was there? Sheesh, next you'll be telling about how MacGyver and Skaught held her down... Whups!

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

not intercourse with infants. What cultures allow bestiality?

Our original culture (western white people- polytheist barbarians/pagans etc), were big on fucking horses in special ceremonies.

 

[James R]

You still can't tell me something that everyone agrees upon as being immoral. In order for morals to be objective, you'd have to be able to provide an example.

No, that's a false dichotomy.

Lots of things are objectively true, even though 100% of people don't agree about them.

For example, if 99.999% of people believe that the Earth is not expanding, and 0.001% of people believe that it is, then would you say that it is objectively true that the Earth is not expanding?

I know I'd be fairly confident.

 

[swarm]

It's not that simple. Whether something is moral or not depends on the consequences.

In some schools, but not many.

I don't consider an action immoral just because it's seen as immoral. Either it's moral or immoral.

Or its not.

Morality is objective not subjective.

Rocks are objective and we have very little disagreement about them. Morality is not objective enough that any people have ever managed to agree on it even close to the way they agree about rocks.

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 has nothing to do with what you think. Bottom line, we keep assassins to murder political enemies.

If we let terrorists get WMDs they'll kill all of us.

It funny how people obsess about things which seem scary, but are actually of no real consequences while the allow things which are actually dangerous, but dull or inconvenient to proceed unchecked. If you take all the terrorists attacks, and fyi most of them are by domestic terrorists, and lump them together they have killed less Americans than we lose each year to trivial things we could easily change. If you are sweating "terrorists" getting WMDs just think about the millions of tons of nuclear waste we generate and then "hide" each year to keep our useless nuclear program going. Now consider which is more likely to get you.

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.

I'm not any religious and I find your reasoning suspect.

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.

No it isn't. you are presuming you know the future. You don't. Your plan is to basically kill any one you find scary.

 

[swarm]

Actually natural law is very knowable.

Physical laws can be described with far accuracy, but "natural laws" in the way you seem to be using them aren't any more accessible than the "law" of Dog.

consequentialism. The consequences are objective, you can measure the consequences of an action.

If you are saying the only consequences should be those which actually result from the action, you may have some difficulty with those who feel some actions should be punished.

 

[Baron Max]

Lots of things are objectively true, even though 100% of people don't agree about them.

Well, then, ...what percentage must agree for something to be objectively true?

If, for example, all caucasians agree that all black people are stupid and ugly, does that make it objectively true? Or the reverse, if all black people think caucasians are stupid and ugly, does that make it true?

For example, if 99.999% of people believe that the Earth is not expanding, and 0.001% of people believe that it is, then would you say that it is objectively true that the Earth is not expanding?

I know I'd be fairly confident.

What an interesting example!! James, are you really confident?

Tell me, James, why is it that on archealogical "digs", the scientists "dig" down into the Earth, dozens of feet or more, to uncover ancient sites of early man? Why do scientist core "down" into the ice at the poles in order to check the ice layers for what happened thousands, even millions, of year ago?

No, James, not only are you wrong, but by your example, 99.99% of the people are wrong! The Earth is, in fact, growing in size every day.

Baron Max

 

[TimeTraveler]

It has nothing to do with what you think. Bottom line, we keep assassins to murder political enemies.

How do you define a political enemy? People who don't think like us?

Rocks are objective and we have very little disagreement about them. Morality is not objective enough that any people have ever managed to agree on it even close to the way they agree about rocks.

Thats because a majority of the world confuses morality with theology. I see morality as a science of correct decision making, an evidence based system of right and wrong. Religion is very important and it has it's place, but lets not confuse religiousity with morality. While I'm not an atheist like Bill Maher, the atheists at least got this one right.

It funny how people obsess about things which seem scary, but are actually of no real consequences while the allow things which are actually dangerous, but dull or inconvenient to proceed unchecked. If you take all the terrorists attacks, and fyi most of them are by domestic terrorists, and lump them together they have killed less Americans than we lose each year to trivial things we could easily change.

There is actually no way to know how many deaths are caused by terrorism.
The people deliberately spreading HIV could be terrorists. The people who put poison in the baby formula could be terrorists. The really smart terrorists look just like business men and blend in. We are losing the war on terrorism but we do a good job fighting islamic extremists. Like you said, we know how to kill political enemies but we don't kill terrorists in general, at least not yet.

If you are sweating "terrorists" getting WMDs just think about the millions of tons of nuclear waste we generate and then "hide" each year to keep our useless nuclear program going. Now consider which is more likely to get you.

It's better if we control the nukes than some nameless faceless unknown people. Thats just logical.

No it isn't. you are presuming you know the future. You don't. Your plan is to basically kill any one you find scary.

Wrong, my plan is to use behavior profiling and a formula behind that to measure the threat level of every human on earth and kill the human with the highest threat levels. You have to measure what that human is capable of, what their motivations are, what they are likely to do, I'd say 99% of the population just wants to live and make money. Then you have the 1% of the population who wants to commit genocide, or wipe out the human species, and who have the weapons and capability to do it, those are the terrorists.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Physical laws can be described with far accuracy, but "natural laws" in the way you seem to be using them aren't any more accessible than the "law" of Dog.

The law of cause and effect is the basis of natural law, and it's also the basis of physical law. The same way you describe physical laws is how you can describe natural laws.

If you do X, the consequence will be Y.
If you don't do Y the consequence will be X.

You weigh the consequences and your accuracy of that decides how logical your decision is. It's do for self, do whats in your best interest, it's natural law because all lifeforms which don't preserve their own existence wont exist for very long. The rock which just sits there probably wont be a rock for long once the environment is finished dissolving it. Natural law is as real as the laws of physics, it's the basis for our theory of evolution, it's the basis for the commandments of the bible, it doesn't matter if you are a Christian or an atheist, you have to recognize that there are laws of nature.

If you are saying the only consequences should be those which actually result from the action, you may have some difficulty with those who feel some actions should be punished.

I don't think murder is always wrong. I don't think stealing is always wrong. I don't think lying is always wrong. I don't think any action is always wrong. I think right and wrong depend on the context and the situation in which the individual is facing. If your life is at stake, what is right is whatever saves your life. Thats reason, thats logic, thats self preservation, thats natural law.

Either you have the mind capable of grasping that or you dont.

 

[Baron Max]

I don't think any action is always wrong. I think right and wrong depend on the context and the situation in which the individual is facing.

Interesting. But read that again, slowly, and ask yourself just who is to make that decision of right or wrong?

Then, think about it again, and ask yourself, after the action is taken, does anyone then judge the person according to their own ideas of what should have been done, and whether the action taken was really right or wrong? ...with the judge(s) not having the same ideals of right n' wrong as the doer?

In your statement above, you're giving the doer all of the authority to make moral decisions in his own best interest. Yet, what you've convienently left out is that, after the fact, others will then sit in judgement of that doer.

Baron Max

 

[Nasor]

Universally accepted as "bad"? Perhaps being lied to ...being intentionally deceived by another person. I don't know of any culture that makes being lied to as a "good thing". Do you?

Now remember, that's not just plain ol' lying ....but being lied TO, as in personally.

Baron Max

Good try, but there are at least a few cultures that don't consider lying to be a "bad" thing. In particular, the Sawi tribe from the Amazon rain forest that doesn't see anything wrong with it; a successful liar is considered clever, and the person who is fooled is assumed to have justly "had it coming to him" simply by virtue of the fact that the liar was able to fool him. As I recall when the first christian missionaries reached them and tried to teach them about christianity, at first the natives completely misunderstood the point of the story where Judas betrays Jesus - they thought that Judas was the hero because he was able to successfully trick god himself. But on the other hand, the same tribe considered things like stealing or killing to be wrong, so it's not like they were amoral.

 

[Baron Max]

Good try, but there are at least a few cultures that don't consider lying to be a "bad" thing. In particular, the Sawi tribe from the Amazon rain forest that doesn't see anything wrong with it;...

Sure, as a fun little game around the campfire at night. The Native Americans also had such interesting, fun little games.

But ask them how they'd like it if someone lied to them about where the good hunting was, and the person sent them off to a swamp with no game at all.

Nope, first you haven't given me any solid evidence of what you're trying to convey, and second, I still don't know any society or culture where being decieved is considered a good thing.

Baron Max

 

[TimeTraveler]

Interesting. But read that again, slowly, and ask yourself just who is to make that decision of right or wrong?

Then, think about it again, and ask yourself, after the action is taken, does anyone then judge the person according to their own ideas of what should have been done, and whether the action taken was really right or wrong? ...with the judge(s) not having the same ideals of right n' wrong as the doer?

In your statement above, you're giving the doer all of the authority to make moral decisions in his own best interest. Yet, what you've convienently left out is that, after the fact, others will then sit in judgement of that doer.

Baron Max

They judged Jesus Christ, they killed him because the Romans saw him as a terrorist, as an enemy of the state. So yes an individual who is reasonable must consider the response of others when considering the consequences of an act in the same way that you have to consider the temperature and the weather when you travel.

Yes you have to be a doer, a reasonable doer who considers the consequences and the risks which come from the judgements of other less enlightened individuals.

 

[Baron Max]

So yes an individual who is reasonable must consider the response of others when considering the consequences of an act in the same way that you have to consider the temperature and the weather when you travel.

So by the time a person does all that, he doesn't have time to take any action on anything. How can anyone possibly know, or even guess, how others are going to judge him for his actions?

And worse, he'll be judged on his actions far into the future, by historians, if no one else. So see, a man of action is just plain fucked ...big time!

I'm sorry, TT, but you seem to have completely lost it on this issue.

Baron Max

 

[James R]

Baron Max:

Well, then, ...what percentage must agree for something to be objectively true?

You missed the point. It doesn't work like that.

All I have said is that total 100% consensus is not required for something to be objectively true. Objective truth is not decided by a totality of votes, or even by majority vote.

What an interesting example!! James, are you really confident?

...

No, James, not only are you wrong, but by your example, 99.99% of the people are wrong! The Earth is, in fact, growing in size every day.

Please read this:

[thread=86898]Formal debate: that the Earth is expanding[/thread]

Then get back to me.

 

[Bells]

Theft.

 

[swarm]

How do you define a political enemy? People who don't think like us?

What does that have to do with anything? The fact is we keep assassins to murder them. The definitions change with the passions of the day.

I see morality as a science of correct decision making, an evidence based system of right and wrong.

That's nice. Its too bad things don't actually work that way.

We are losing the war on terrorism but we do a good job fighting islamic extremists. Like you said, we know how to kill political enemies but we don't kill terrorists in general, at least not yet.

You can't fight a war against a tactic. Terrorism is just a tactic. We use it and call it "shock and awe" and kill hundreds of thousands of people. They use it and we call it terrorism.

Wrong, my plan is to use behavior profiling and a formula behind that to measure the threat level of every human on earth and kill the human with the highest threat levels.

That worked so well for Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

You have to measure what that human is capable of, what their motivations are, what they are likely to do

No one has that information and there is no way to get it, let alone get it reliably.

You do realize your plan qualifies you as a sociopath? Just saying.