Blurred Lines of Morality

I was reviewing my notes on a book a read 2 years, Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil by Paul Bloom and I came across the section about Blurred Morality. This definitely challenged by initial biases towards morality and I'm curious to how the Temple sees these moral/immortal situations. For me, although something may be morally permissive does not mean that the action was perform with the right intention. I think intention is crucial in the understating of action.

Note: I only want to start a discussion. I was on the fence about posting it because of the vulnerability of the various situations but I'll do it with the disclaimer that everyone will play nice and engage in discussion, not personal attacks.

1.) Beastiality without pain to the animal
2.) Breaking a promise to a dead friend
3.) Defacing the national flag
4.) Sexual Contact with a sleeping child who is unharmed and has no recollection of the event.
5.) Adult sibling consensual sex
6.) Consensual Cannibalism

Any thoughts?

Yikes!! :lol:

1.) Beastiality without pain to the animal
No consent given = no IMO. Most of the time the animal is unable to give consent, and since humans will sometimes tell themselves anything to justify their actions, its a slippery slope - but of course if the animal initiates it then I guess that is a form of consent :whistle: :pinch:

2.) Breaking a promise to a dead friend
Depends, if it had anything to do with them then I'd think it a no, but if it was about me and myself then it would be ok because the only person who suffers is myself.

3.) Defacing the national flag
Don't mind it so much. It's just a piece of material and is going to accomplish nothing of any real value.

4.) Sexual Contact with a sleeping child who is unharmed and has no recollection of the event.
There is no way to confirm during or even after that they have no recollection, or even unharmed for that matter in some respects, so its no IMO.

5.) Adult sibling consensual sex
Hehe, I have no problem with it I guess but it might make family reunions interesting....

6.) Consensual Cannibalism
Not sure how that works, but I don't think I'd have an issue with it, but I've never done it (nor any of these actually!!) so who can say if my gut would agree.

1.) Beastiality without pain to the animal
If they don't resist, have reached sexual maturity and are the appropriate size to accommodate or be accommodated, I don't see a problem.

2.) Breaking a promise to a dead friend
Breaking a promise is very open ended. Things change and it might not be realistic or possible to keep the promise anymore. It would just end up being a judgment call.

3.) Defacing the national flag
I don't think it matters. The flag is just an object and doesn't mean anything it's self.

4.) Sexual Contact with a sleeping child who is unharmed and has no recollection of the event.
I've been sexually assaulted twice, the first person did it when I was like 3, the assaulter didn't think it would matter because I wasn't harmed and believed I wouldn't remember. I still do remember it and psychologically it did damage me. Violating a child is never ok, just because they don't say anything, doesn't mean they aren't effected by it.

5.) Adult sibling consensual sex
The sex it's self is fine. But I don't think reproducing is acceptable due to the effects it is likely to have on the children.

6.) Consensual Cannibalism
Some societies do it as a funeral practice. But I think it ultimately depends on the person's known wishes, and the wishes of their family.

thomaswfaulkner wrote: I was reviewing my notes on a book a read 2 years, Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil by Paul Bloom and I came across the section about Blurred Morality. This definitely challenged by initial biases towards morality and I'm curious to how the Temple sees these moral/immortal situations. For me, although something may be morally permissive does not mean that the action was perform with the right intention. I think intention is crucial in the understating of action.

Note: I only want to start a discussion. I was on the fence about posting it because of the vulnerability of the various situations but I'll do it with the disclaimer that everyone will play nice and engage in discussion, not personal attacks.

Note that I am a moral nihilist, so my responses will come from that point of view.

1.) Beastiality without pain to the animal

It's not about causing pain to the animal. It's disgusting. Period. If you're going to do it in the privacy of your own home just don't tell me about it.

2.) Breaking a promise to a dead friend

On the one hand, they won't know about it anyway. On the other, you gave them your word and you should stick to it.

Personally, I've learned (from years of heartache and bitter experience) not to make promises. ESPECIALLY long-standing or never-ending ones.

3.) Defacing the national flag

It's only a symbol. Burn it all you want. Just don't then go around killing people just because they're from/live in that nation.

4.) Sexual Contact with a sleeping child who is unharmed and has no recollection of the event.

Again, simply disgusting and definitely illegal.

5.) Adult sibling consensual sex

Well...as long as they're into it and it makes them happy it's not my place to judge. And as long as they're using protection for goodness sake.

6.) Consensual Cannibalism

Any thoughts?

Umm, again, disgusting. Also, you can get brain diseases that way.

Also, why the hell are you participating in it? Is there a food shortage? Is it a bizarre fetish? Just...why?

1. If consent or implied consent can be ensured, as well as harm other than mere immediate superficial pain excluded, not really seeing any problems here.
2. A promise is a word of honor. To me it is not a question about whether it is or ought be "permissible" to break a promise to a dead friend, rather it is a matter of personal integrity. Am I still myself after I break my honor on no better excuse than the person expecting me most to keep it is gone?
3. No feelings about that whatsoever. Don't burn it in a field of straw and don't dissolve it in acid that would just as happily dissolve a person. Be proud in your achievements. Being born in some land rather than another isn't one of them.
4. Similar to 2. The premise is that no harm is done, so aside from rule-utilitarian objections, the only ones I can muster are appeals to our emotional attachments to the own identity.
5. No feelings about that whatsoever. If you want children I'd recommend adoption over procreation with a sibling. If you want them with a sibling, do consult with a qualified physician before, during and after the pregnancy. If it is sufficiently far in the future, consider gene alteration in case of severe genetic defects. But making love between two sufficiently mature people who want to with each other is unobjectionable to me.
6. I don't know what that means. We don't call death consensual only because the victim was suicidal. Even when it was someone trapped in a cult or a religion where people murder and consume each other, we don't tend to call that consensual. If someone dies and they were healthy and their flesh preserved well, sure, if you want to, eat it. Why let perfectly good meat go to waste?

Gisteron wrote: Why let perfectly good meat go to waste?

It may not be "perfectly good" meat. Cannibalism, unless I've been misled, can cause serious diseases. *shrug* In general, however, your point is valid.

Lykeios wrote:

Gisteron wrote: Why let perfectly good meat go to waste?

It may not be "perfectly good" meat. Cannibalism, unless I've been misled, can cause serious diseases. *shrug* In general, however, your point is valid.

Yeah its pretty bad for you if you were to eat it in the same volume we consume chicken for example.

Generally I wouldn't recommend it, I've had all sorts of ailments from it :laugh:

Soy lent green! yay!!!!! yummy peoples and Charleston Heston, I saw it once at the planetarium on the big screen and they served green jello and jello shots also had finger sandwiches dies green it was a cool little date night with the ex

1.) Beastiality without pain to the animal

Considering the unknowns of how beastiality might affect the spread (and/or creation) of disease, I see no reason to justify this (but, maybe I'm biased, not being into zoophilia). The animal cannot consent, so it amounts to sexual exploitation. A more suitable alternative: paint whiskers on your hand and go at it.

2.) Breaking a promise to a dead friend

Circumstances change and some promises are not always reasonable. More important than keeping to the "letter" of the promise would be keeping to the spirit of it. (e.g. not keeping a promise to sell property to provide for the deceased's family, because market conditions have made it more profitable to rent that property to provide for the family of the deceased.)

3.) Defacing the national flag

A flag is fabric, but it is also a symbol. Deface it at home, where no one can see, sure. But if you are publicly defacing it, it's not about the flag, it's about sending a message. Be careful what message you send out. A more suitable alternative: post political memes on Facebook

4.) Sexual Contact with a sleeping child who is unharmed and has no recollection of the event.

Fuck no. Anyone who tries to argue this is justifiable should be included in the watchlist of any and all law enforcement agencies.

5.) Adult sibling consensual sex

Besides the potential for birth defects in case of pregnancy, there is a huge issue of how the dynamics of a relationship affect this decision, and the consequences itself of the decision. Family members, especially parents and siblings, develop a relationship in which they function as each other's safety network. If there is an unbalanced development in one of the members, it can become very likely to express feelings of "love" in a sexual manner. If this happens, then the other person engaging in such a sexual act is both taking advantage of an affectional disease, and enabling it ocurring even more in the future. So, a firm no. A more suitable alternative: find someone who is not related to you, but shares some physical features resembling yourself and your next of kin, like most normal people do.

6.) Consensual Cannibalism

Anyone who consents to have parts of themselves to be eaten while he/she is still alive, is not mentally sound and thus cannot consent. If we are discussing the morality of eating someone who has already passed, I would say considering issues of health and hygene, it should be avoided unless it is some sort of emergency situation ( like having your plane crash in the Andes ). A more suitable alternative: go to McDonalds.

wow, some of these responses are fascinating. I would not have expected some. In any case, heres my 2 cents.

Bestiality - Why not? consent not an issue. How many other things do we do to animals but don't get their consent. slavery and murder for their meat, semen extraction and insertion for reproduction, domestic, rescue, protection and military work uses. Did we ask the animals if they were ok with any of these things? Nope we just get them as infants and indoctrinate them into these lives.

Breaking a Promise - Your not breaking a promise to a dead friend. Shes dead, why does she care. The only thing your breaking is the promise to yourself. If you're ok with that then there is no issue.

Defacing the flag - No issues. Its an inalienable right to free speech as long as you harm no others in the action.

Sexual Contact with a child - Never because its detrimental to the not fully developed psyche of the child and thus detrimental to the species as a whole - Thus you as well. But even so that doesn't mean that certain individuals will not ignore this fact and that is why we need to maintain a constant vigil over the members of our species that cannot defend themselves. Its in our best interest as a species. This is what makes morality an ultimately subjective pursuit. The idea that there are no absolutes moral values but only subjective presuppositions that most agree about and we act upon as a species. And even the details of the execution is always evolving with time and society.

Sibling Sex - No issues with this. Let people be who they are going to be.

Consensual Cannibalism - This seems like an oxymoron. If the person is not dead I would consider them mentally unbalanced if they desired someone else to eat some part of their body. However there are those that find great sexual satisfaction in such a thing. Its similar to amputee fetishes I guess. Even if it is a mental disorder its no different than other mental disorders like body dysphoria etc. So if that's their kink well, who am I to say they cant or shouldn't do that.