As for mirugai's question, "why not sell your kids?
Josefin Öhrn + The Liberation 'Sacred Dreams' – Cargo Records UK
Right and wrong is whatever benefits me. As long as we ourselves, either as individuals or as "society," are the highest standard, it will always come to that. The problem with selling one's kids would be the same with selling anyone. It is also the same as the problem with pornography or prostitution, frankly. All of these activities treat people as mere objects.
People are not objects, they are people.
- You are here!
- The Irresistible Blueberry Bakeshop and Café: A heartwarming, romantic summer read?
- Re-visioning Gender in Philosophy of Religion: Reason, Love and Epistemic Locatedness (Intensities: Contemporary Continental Philosophy of Religion)!
- Snowman - Book Two of the Cocaine Trilogy.
- The Promise of Power: The Origins of Democracy in India and Autocracy in Pakistan!
Of course, at this point, without reference to something outside our mere selves, we begin to go in circles. So here is the problem.
Restoring the Sacred
Once we let go of the idea that there is any standard higher than ourselves, what is to prevent us from losing all the taboos, all the lanes in the road, all the rules? Is there any good reason, from a strictly human or materialistic point of view, not to sell your kids? Or eat them, as some species do?
- e-book Retirement: Sacred or Scared.
- Sacred Heart Interns Offer Health Fair At Bridgeport's Watermark.
- Abraham and Isaac (Conversations Through the Pages - Old Testament).
- REVELATION BIBLE STUDY PART 1 (BSBP SERIES Book 66)!
- Stories for 5 Year Olds (Young Storytime).
- Episode 069 - Retirement?
- Echoes of the Rising's final shots.
- How I Got Stuck in a Sex Toy Body (body swap).
Or do any other "horrible" thing we may feel like doing? I think the answer is no. If we are just another species of animal, there is no good reason not to do any of those things, other than 'it sure seems wrong. Pork was only one of a list of things not to be eaten - the foundation of today's Kosher rules that the Jews still follow, as well as the Hallal rules for Muslims. Both people still produce a delicious and varied cuisine.
Read PDF Retirement: Sacred or Scared
Rather, it was about "setting apart" - these rules set the Jews apart from the people around them. Once such rules set in, violating them will indeed feel revolting. Monday, November 21, -- PM. Every system of values needs a cornerstone, a source: one principle not to be discussed. Otherwise you are in a quagmire of total relativism, which maks itself relative too. Since the Enlightment- time this basic principle must be rational, evident, found by autonomus thinking: eg Human Rights. Tuesday, November 22, -- PM. I'll simply say this about this post and ensuing comments: way cool.
Awesome is for pop-culturists and very young people who have not yet experienced awesome. I hope the originators of this blog are pleased with the participation. Agree, disagree or remain neutral, the contributors have left us all much to contemplate. Wednesday, November 23, -- PM. I'm sorry but I think you guys and gals missed the big issue. Particularly with necrophiliac.
Apply these: 1. Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Social Contract 3. Rights A person should have the right to control the disposition of the his or her body. Necrophilia would almost always violate the deceased's wishes. So there needs to be protection for the victim. It also has a tendency to produce less fit offspring. Ergo, incest usually bad. So why do we even need to discuss the subjects in terms of religion when more traditional philosophical discourse will cover it more completely?
Tuesday, November 29, -- PM.
Whether you discuss in terms of religion or not, the real issue is on what basis does one call anything right or wrong? The three basic principles that Remo sets up, for example: why those? Why should a person have the right to determine the disposition of their own body? Through most of human history, most people slaves, serfs, etc did not enjoy any such right, and you would look long and hard to find anyone who thought that was a problem. Slavery, for example, was not held to be wrong in principle until less than three hundred years ago.
So why now? We can of course debate the issue of right and wrong and taboos without any reference to religion The Golden Rule, for example, is from the Sermon on the Mount Matthew , at least in its positive form Buddha stated it negatively, as in "do not to to anyone what you would not want them to do to you". Should we not use it because it has a "religious" origin?
Negue states, I think correctly, that any system of values needs a "cornerstone" that is not discussed. Otherwise, one drifts into relativism - it all comes back to personal opinions and desires. The question then is, what should be that cornerstone? And which things are "rights? Saturday, December 3, -- PM. Your notion is correct in one sense. I'll elaborate briefly. There was an old cartoon, oh, thirty or more years ago. Two or three human? One said to another, "is nothing sacred? Tuesday, February 21, -- PM. Nice words but urtontunafely it means little in real life application.
The only rights' you have are implemented by government as and when it suits them. They can be taken away at any time. Rights are just a made-up concept to keep us happy for the time-being, same as God and Santa Claus.
Thursday, July 3, -- PM. Spirituality comes by reading holy book books and verses. The best way is reading verses. Skip to main content. Search form Search. Is Nothing Sacred Anymore? John Perry. Today we're asking the question: Is Nothing Sacred Anymore? Mar 23, Blog Archive October The Appeal of Authoritarianism. Music as a Way of Knowing. Explanation at Its Best. What's In a Picture? Changing Minds on Climate Change. Against Introspection. A Puzzle About Sacred Values.
Related Retirement: Sacred or Scared
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved