2011-04-30, 11:47 AM
MetaSeraphim Wrote:Don't mind me, just pointing out flaws when whoever makes them. Just because the country it came from doesn't find anything wrong with it doesn't mean it is not wrong. And just to say I am not saying the video is wrong, just making a general statement.
My last question in my paragraph there was 'If it doesn't threaten the well being,happiness and safety of anyone (self included): how is right and wrong universally defined?'
In the example in your post, it can be argued that children have not developed enough mentally to KNOW or fully understand what is and is not a threat to their well-being and safety. And as a result can be logically argued that sex with minors is harmful due not only to that fact, but there's a risk that a resulting pregnancy too early on causes damage to their body via complications.
My point was that the only clear cut, universally-accepted standard of wrong is if it puts the wellbeing, health and safety of one person above those of another. Or if it threatens the safety,health and well-being of Anyone in general, self included.
Robbery = damages the well being of another by taking their property. Same with vandalism here.
Drugs = harms someone's own health. (especially the illegal ones)
Peeping Tom= Harms someone's well-being by compromising their privacy and sense of innocence.
Sacrificing = Pretty darn sure that's a huge threat to someone's safety and health.
But if you take this element away: and think only of actions that don't involve threatening, or harming anyone, what is left to define right and wrong with?
Every example here regarding the culture issue so far has had to bring up something that clearly harms the well-being of another party or themselves for a counterpoint. While these examples are good because they are in fact logically wrong: Is there a solid logical definition outside of that? This is the conundrum of this issue. As the things being argued for here just seem to lack that aspect, a fictional MS character won't be looking back and regretting shaking her butt shamelessly years down the road, everything a pervy artist can draw has no connection to a real person (and if it does, its a subcategory of the Peeping Tom example, and thus would harm someone's well-being), and as long as proper cautions are made so undesiring parties don't come across it accidentally, can't cause them discomfort.
It is on this basis that I say unless it definitely harms someone in the sense i stated above, the morality of anything has very little, if any, logical ground to stand on and past that is more opinion than anything. This includes what goes on in fictional realms such as one's imagination. To that i say, 'whatever floats your boat, I will not judge as it does not concern me,I may not approve of it, but just leave unwanting parties out of it in every sense of the matter.'