Equality is sacred to me.
=
MJA

It does not matter whether anything is sacred now. Because sacred, as an aspect of human consciousness, has taken on an aura of fantasy. It means little in an affluent society, focused on acquisition. At the risk of being post-modern: money is what it is all about, baby.

Life is sacred to me.
And the only reason animals are smoked and burnt and drowned in bbq sauce is because the bloody flesh of fellow animals are terrible things to kill and eat.
To the good life,
=
MJA

我认为哈罗德是完全正确的，普遍接受的"神圣"的终结与道德相对主义有很大关系。如果对与错是由环境或个人喜好决定的，那么就真的没有对与错了。合乎逻辑的结论是，在这样一个世界里，每个人都做对自己最有利的事情，而不管其他人或其他事情，“目的为手段正名”。换句话说，用霍布斯的话来说，一个生活肮脏，野蛮，短暂的世界。人类的天性就是为自己的每一次行为找借口，而不去期待我们给自己带来的后果。这就是为什么职业要制定道德规范——因为人们根本不相信个人能够监督自己。
As for mirugai's question, "why not sell your kids?" If right and wrong indeed come down to individual preference, then there is no good reason not to do that, or anything else for that matter. 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. Of course, at this point, without reference to something outside our mere selves, we begin to go in circles.
So here is the problem. 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? 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.'
至于禁止吃猪肉，我认为这与牺牲和自我克制没有什么关系。猪肉只是禁忌食物清单中的一种——这是今天犹太人仍然遵守的洁食规则的基础，也是穆斯林遵守的哈拉节规则的基础。两国人民仍然生产美味和多样的美食。相反，它是关于“隔离”——这些规则将犹太人与他们周围的人区分开来。其他宗教/民族有其他方式做同样的事情。一旦这些规则开始实施，违反它们确实会让人感到厌恶。

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.

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.

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.
2. Social Contract
3. Rights
一个人应该有权控制他或她的身体的处置。恋尸癖几乎总是会违背死者的意愿。Ergo, necrophilia = bad
Incest is a little different because it often violates a fiduciary relationship and is fraught with abuse and undue influence. 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?

无论你是否从宗教的角度来讨论，真正的问题是，人们在什么基础上判断事物的对错?雷莫建立的三个基本原则，例如:为什么是这些?为什么一个人应该有权决定自己的身体的处置?在人类历史的大部分时间里，大多数人(奴隶、农奴等)都没有享受过这样的权利，你很难找到认为这是一个问题的人。例如，直到不到300年前，人们才认为奴隶制在原则上是错误的。那么,为什么是现在呢?
We can of course debate the issue of right and wrong and taboos without any reference to religion...but why should we? The Golden Rule, for example, is from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:12), 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?
我认为，Negue331说，任何价值体系都需要一个“基石”，而这个“基石”并没有被讨论。否则，一个人就会陷入相对主义——一切都回到个人观点和欲望上来。接下来的问题是，这个基石应该是什么?“社会契约”只是“社会想要什么”的另一种说法，它仅仅意味着“许多像我这样的人今天似乎认为是正确的”。如果仅仅基于“社会”同意提供的东西，“权利”只是社会契约的一个子集。哪些是“权利”?多数意见是一个足够好的基础吗?

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(?) figures gathered around an icon consisting of one word: NOTHING. One said to another, "is nothing sacred?" Art. Limitation. Life?---Sure.

话不错，但在现实生活中没有多大意义。你唯一拥有的权利是由政府在适合他们的时候实施的。他们可以随时被带走。问问任何在二战期间感兴趣的日裔美国公民，或者问问关塔那摩湾的囚犯，美国给他们展示了哪些自由权利。权利只是一个让我们暂时快乐的虚构概念，就像上帝和圣诞老人一样。