What dictates taboo and what is good?

Jester · Post by **Jester** » Tue May 19, 2009 8:05 pm

It came up another topic it might be good to discuss the reasons why we believe the ethics that we believe.
Questions:
Is there any logical grounding for ethics, that some behavior is inherently right or wrong regardless of human opinion?
What is the basic source of ethics? A deity? Evolutionary biology? Social constructs? Some combination of these? Something else?

TXatheist · Post by **TXatheist** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:06 pm

scottlittlefield17 wrote:OK, I get your point but you have to admit they leave a very sadomasochistic image. And seem to glorify it. Whether they actually do it or not doesn't matter as much as they portray it as "cool".

I do not admit that at all. They dress up in leather costumes and play rock and roll. They don't whip each other on stage (I don't recall ever seeing a whip on stage, period, and I've seen them in concert twice when they were in full costume/makeup) or do anything sexual at all. Please explain exactly what it is that they do that, to you, portrays sadomasochism as "cool."

scottlittlefield17 · Post by **scottlittlefield17** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:17 pm

I explained the comments that Simmons made. Anything that they portray is going to be thought of as cool. And yes in some concerts whips is part of there costumes. No they don't whip each other but the presence of them shows what they are trying to portray in regards to the quotes form Simmons that i gave earlier. And as to the "not all of them are like that" i say guilty by association.

TXatheist · Post by **TXatheist** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:39 pm

scottlittlefield17 wrote:I explained the comments that Simmons made. Anything that they portray is going to be thought of as cool. And yes in some concerts whips is part of there costumes. No they don't whip each other but the presence of them shows what they are trying to portray in regards to the quotes form Simmons that i gave earlier. And as to the "not all of them are like that" i say guilty by association.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. As I said, I have followed the band for 30 years now, I have been to their concerts when they were in full costume and makeup, I watch Gene Simmons' TV show, I know about Gene and Paul's first band Wicked Lester, I've read up on each of the original members' personal histories, etc etc. I practically grew up with these guys. And never has the thought of any of them being sadomasochists ever entered my mind. Maybe to an outsider who only knows general information about them, they appear to promote sadomasochism. I just don't see it.

scottlittlefield17 · Post by **scottlittlefield17** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:53 pm

OK but where I got my info was a guy who had done much much study into all the Rock bands of that time and who was a performer himself at one time.

Rock
For Those Who Listen To The Words And Don't Like What They Hear
Bob Larson
ISBN 0-8423-5686-X

TXatheist · Post by **TXatheist** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:01 pm

scottlittlefield17 wrote:OK but where I got my info was a guy who had done much much study into all the Rock bands of that time and who was a performer himself at one time.

Rock
For Those Who Listen To The Words And Don't Like What They Hear
Bob Larson
ISBN 0-8423-5686-X

That's fine if that's what that guy says. But KISS is doing a horrible job at promoting sadomasochism since they've had 30 years to push it on me and I didn't even have a clue they were trying. Maybe since Gene Simmons doesn't agree with sadomasochism it is hindering their promotion of it.

scottlittlefield17 · Post by **scottlittlefield17** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:13 pm

OK, whatever, we are not going to get anywhere on that one.

TXatheist · Post by **TXatheist** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:33 pm

scottlittlefield17 wrote:OK, whatever, we are not going to get anywhere on that one.

Agreed.

Jester · Post by **Jester** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:53 pm

In case it's not too early to jump back into this one:

McCulloch wrote:OK. Let's agree that our common humanity and our continued habitation on this planet is the foundation. I cannot think of too many who would disagree on that as a starting point. Certainly fewer people than would agree on the Holy writings of the minority of humanity as a foundation.

I personally disagree with the idea that our common humanity is a valid basis for ethical principal.
I know that you claim it only as a more popular source than the Bible (and I think it a valid response given the earlier comment). I don't claim to know which would be more popular, however, and simply wanted to offer my misgivings:
I do want to communicate respect for the position, but don't personally feel that it carries any more weight than social trends; nor do I see how, were it established, it would be a clear guideline.