in native american tradition.,the ancestors lie with-in us.,
the ancestors know the answers.,
so the answer lies with-in

OTOH, If it's a "freshy" it might not mind at all.
Definitely wear protection. Wouldn't want to take home any unexplainable necro-transmitted souvenirs.
Carry on then, nothing to see here folks ;-)

no.,rape is never justified--killing is wrong.,slavery--come on.,theres and endless list.,but the killing is my main taboo-i went to jail rather than the milatary-i will not work for people who kill for money--HOWS THAT--and im not giggling any more--the scientoligist i have met and talked to are the reason i laugh--blowhards--

Well...there are certainly some things that the overwhelming majority would put on a "wrong," list.... But each one of them brings up interesting questions and exceptions.

For example, I think most people would consider murder to be "wrong." As we've already seen here, however, there are times when people consider murder "right." For example, if a guy breaks into my house, armed with a gun, and tries to rob me...and I shoot him. A lot of people would consider that "right." It would still be killing another human, but these same people would no longer label it "murder," but now call it "self-defense." Either way, somebody is still dead. How about when an abused wife kills her husband? Is that murder? What if she premeditates it, lies in wait, and shoots him in his sleep? Is that "wrong" or "right"? Did he deserve it? What if the only abuse she suffered was verbal? Is it "right" or "wrong"? Does she have to have suffered physical abuse to make it "right"? If so, how much?

I have my own answers to all these questions...and am sure they differ greatly from others' answers.

The grey area goes on and on.

Some things that most people would consider "wrong": murder, theft, assault, robbery, extortion, slavery, fraud. But each of these will have "exceptions," just as in the examples above. Mostly these account for, legally speaking, crimes of violence and crimes of property.

Some things I'm pretty damned sure that we could not get an overwhelming majority to agree are "wrong": homosexuality, bisexuality, gay marriage, polyamory/polyfidelity, taking narcotic drugs, drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, prostitution, gambling, etc. Each of these will have so many people who find them "right" that we can't really authentically say that "society as a whole agrees" on the matter. Mostly these account for, legally speaking, crimes of vice.

I agree with Lysander Spooner (great American political theorist), who said that vices are not crimes. One man's virtue is another man's vice. To one man, marriage as a whole is "wrong." Should he be the arbiter of the whole of society? To another man, alcohol is "right" but marijuana is "wrong." Should he be the arbiter? When we impose one "moral code of conduct" regarding our vices upon the whole of society, we invariably make one incredibly large segment of society into "criminals" in the process. And these "criminals" have typically done no more than what they feel is "right" in the moment, and if they have caused harm to anyone, it is only to themselves and to those with whom they engage in their vices...usually consensually. To make a vice into a crime is to appoint one's personal moral code as the arbiter of all...and to damn some to the hell of incarceration merely for exercising their own moral code.

And that's the reason I say that only you in this moment know what is right for you in this moment. Nobody else can tell you, and no facts are relevant.

Even with murder...something to which I strongly object...I could find a reason to make that "right" in my mind...such as someone coming at me with a knife.

anne: "Then I asked her what the criteria for religion was, but she had no idea. So I appeal to this group."

Anne, I would personally define religion as any belief about the nature of reality or about the nature of our interactions with reality. I include Buddhism, Hinduism, Scientology in there, too, but I also include Capitalism, Communism, Feminism, Nihilism, Socialism, and all the other "isms".

Most folks, though, define religion as a belief in some sort of supernatural power, or at least some sort of guiding/controlling/influencing force that exists outside of humanity and the natural world as we perceive it. By this definition, many types of Buddhism (Hinayana / Theravada) do not qualify as a religion because they are really more of a sort of philosophy for living. Buddha, to them, was not a deity. He was just a really sharp wise dude. Thus, Buddhism (and Confucianism) may not be included as a religion any more than, say, vegetarianism is. Scientology, then, may or may not be a religion, since they don't believe in a "god". Instead, they seem to believe that all of their personal problems are caused by the meddling ghosts of a bunch of dead alien criminals who were dumped on Earth and executed by a nuclear weapon several billion years ago.

anne: "What qualifies as a wrong then?"

To me, a "wrong" consists of causing *unnecessary* suffering to someone. Some suffering is necessary. My parents made me eat my carrots when I was little. I dislike cooked carrots. But they were good for me, I needed to eat vegetables. My teachers made me to homework. I would have preferred more play time, but homework was important. I learned. That kind of suffering leads to growth.

Other kinds of suffering impede growth, so I would broaden my definition of "wrong" to be something like "any behavior that impedes the growth of another." Sometimes inaction can qualify as well, since I see a lot of parents who do their children a disservice by not providing any discipline whatsoever (I'm not saying they should beat their children) and by not teaching their children self-discipline.

The key difference is in the way we are defining our "rules" for society: behavior based or goal based.

Most folks want to take the easy route and makes rules that regulate behaviors. It's "easier" that way. "Do not kill." That's pretty clear, right? The problem is that we need an aqful lot of rules to regulate every single behavior. The other problem is that for every rule there are extenuating circumstances. Don't kill except in self defense, and except during times of war, and except, except, except."

I think it would be better to makes rules in terms of the desired outcome rather than specifically defining behavior. It allows flexibility. Sometimes there might be a good reason for a kid not to do his or her homework. Perhaps a relaitve is dying in the hospital and if the kid stays home to do school work he or she will miss their last chance to see that relaitve? We then have to look at what course of action is better for the kid.

But holy crap that is hard. It takes a lot of effort to weigh in our minds all the various variables and try to come up with our answer for what is best. Of course, we never have all the information we need either, so sometimes we make bad decisions. Very difficult.

Most folks aren't willing to put forth the amount of effort required to operate on that level, though, and instead stick to simple, easy to follow, rules and the kid stays home and does his homework, because that's what the rule is. It's easier that way,

"Easier" does not always = "better".