Taboo and Morality Quiz

[KrazyHorse]

I'm not a moral relativist, NYE.

I also know better than to confuse morality with custom.

One is universal. The other is not.

[KrazyHorse]

I respect custom because it is immoral to needlessly offend others.

If I am ignorant of a custom and violate it, though, I have not committed an immoral act.

[notyoueither]

Some people see no moral problem with humans as chattel.

Some people see no moral problem with brother sleeping with sister under some mistaken assumption that such could happen with a possibility of no harm.

Connect the dots.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'm not a moral relativist, NYE.

I also know better than to confuse morality with custom.

One is universal. The other is not.

Is it? Universal?

Do you condemn cannibalistic tribes as being immoral?

If they aren't, what's to stop some modern society from adopting a new 'custom'?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Some people see no moral problem with humans as chattel.

Some people see no moral problem with brother sleeping with sister under some mistaken assumption that such could happen with a possibility of no harm.

Connect the dots.

Connect what dots?

Some people see no moral problem with human beings as chattel?

Too ****ing bad. They're wrong.

Some people see no moral problem with intrafamilial ****ing because they mistakenly assume that such ****ing will not have repercussions? I agree that in almost every case such activity would be wrong, abusive, exploitative, etc.

If, however, we postulate as the test did that no such harm occurs then what basis are we to condemn the act of incest on?

You're being very muddleheaded here, NYE.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Is it? Universal?

Do you condemn cannibalistic tribes as being immoral?

If they aren't, what's to stop some modern society from adopting a new 'custom'?

Cannibalism of the already dead is an amoral act, except insofar as there are health risks.

[Combat Ingrid]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Connect what dots?

Some people see no moral problem with human beings as chattel?

Too ****ing bad. They're wrong.

Some people see no moral problem with intrafamilial ****ing because they mistakenly assume that such ****ing will not have repercussions? I agree that in almost every case such activity would be wrong, abusive, exploitative, etc.

If, however, we postulate as the test did that no such harm occurs then what basis are we to condemn the act of incest on?

You're being very muddleheaded here, NYE.

I'm being muddleheaded for denying the conditions the test makers insist on as being humanly possible?

Maybe I am more accurate about their test than they are about my God-derived morality. Hmmm?

[KrazyHorse]

Sweet. You and me are the only reasonable people so far...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Cannibalism of the already dead is an amoral act, except insofar as there are health risks.

That's an interesting point of view.

I am, of course, speaking of tribes that put diner to death prior to cooking it.

What's wrong with that?

It's just another animal, right?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I'm being muddleheaded for denying the conditions the test makers insist on as being humanly possible?

You're being muddleheaded for a number of reasons.

First, yes: the testmakers postulated a situation. You are asked to bring moral judgment based on their postulates. You are not being asked to question their postulates. That is a different question.

Secondly, you're attempting to mix moral and amoral issues together to force me to moralise custom. It won't work.

[notyoueither]

Killing and eating people is moral or immoral, KH?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


That's an interesting point of view.

I am, of course, speaking of tribes that put diner to death prior to cooking it.

What's wrong with that?

It's just another animal, right?

No. Human beings are moral objects and have inherent value attached to them. Maximising the well-being of humans is the objective of my morality. Except in an extreme situation (where the death of one will save the lives of many) the slaughter of a human for food is an absolute moral wrong.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Killing and eating people is moral or immoral, KH?

Killing people is wrong. Eating them is not.

[notyoueither]

Oh. So you admit there can be a moral wrong where the society practicing such customs sees none.