Fiel Wrote:Human sacrifices to gods? Okay! It's part of their culture that isn't intended for us. We have no right to state whether human sacrifices to gods are wrong.Human sacrifice implies some degree of unwillingness in most cases, but as for honor killings, the person would rather die than spend the rest of their lives in shame. I would say if honor killing is what the person wants, it would be cruel to not give it to them. Sacrificing may be purely based on superstition, but again, if the person is willing, we have no right to deny them that opportunity, either. Life is about living in a way that is beneficial to society, or to break it down even further, living in a way that people will remember your legacy. There is no super importance that should be placed on life itself, its about the end result; a person that willingly gives themselves as a sacrifice is seen as a hero to the people inside the focus group. We are simply piles of synapses and biochemical reactions, the same as any other living organism; the difference is, we can coherently choose to lose our lives for a cause knowing full well the consequences...if I person has made a commitment to that extent, then the opinion of any other person on the planet has no bearing. As for FORCED sacrifice, that is affecting someone negatively within the focus group (the person being sacrificed, and their families), but it still is not our place to intervene unless they request outside help, as it is still not affecting our group until that point.
Honor killing? Okay! It's part of their culture that isn't intended for us. We have no right to state whether honor killing is wrong.
Tolerance doesn't necessarily mean acceptance. I can tolerate gay people (tolerance) even if I reject their thinking (being gay) because I am straight. I can also tolerate gay people (tolerance) and accept their thinking (being gay).
Someone can just as easily tolerate this video and reject its suitability. There's no flaw there.
A contrasting example is suicide bombers. In their case, they are affecting someone ELSE's life, so, as I said before, it has leaked over to our culture and therefore is within the realm of discussion/condemnation for us; even if they are still seen as heroes to the people that support them, it directly affects groups outside of that group.
I understand what you are trying to say, but even in examples that are wholly unethical in this society, we still have no ground to stand on when trying to argue against something that is not made for us to begin with, as long as everyone within the focus group is content with the situation and has not requested any actions from people outside of the focus group. The only singular exception that I can think of would be situations where the majority of the group is so heavily oppressed that they cannot hope to ask for help even if they sacrifice their life to try and get it. There are a few examples of that, but I doubt we need to get into that here, that would just be me going on a tangent of a tangent in a thread that has largely been a tangent to begin with, lol.