You can have what looks like top-level moral imperatives (i.e., the examples you named) but then you start running into problems with more nuanced issues, at which point "common sense" varies to the wisdom applied by the participants involved, and that wisdom will be based on their limited knowledge (or lack thereof).
For instance, you can argue that murder, thievery, and fraud are bad, but then you have things like monopolies, murder in self-defence, or people who steal to survive. Those are also all bad, but the punishments per each one will vary per person's definition of "common sense".
Same thing with the degrees of incest. Sure, between immediate family members it's bad, but then it was not uncommon that throughout recent human history marrying cousins of degrees was not considered as bad. So how far out do you go?
We can also see that promiscuity is bad, but then even here in this sub people will argue about the consequences of promiscuity or safeguards resulting from it, such as abortion. Some believe that it's good because it has helped keep the black population in check in first-world nations, while others argue that it is inherently bad. But as you said, if the morals are based on "common sense" and not something timeless or intangible, then what does "inherently bad" even mean in this context since keeping the black population low is inherently and objectively GOOD for the native population?
That's the problem every materialist and utiliarian runs into when you start picking apart the minutiae of self-imposed morals based on "common sense".
You are absolutely correct. And Christianity or any other religion hasn't changed that fact of life in the slightest.
You can have what looks like top-level moral imperatives (i.e., the examples you named) but then you start running into problems with more nuanced issues, at which point "common sense" varies to the wisdom applied by the participants involved, and that wisdom will be based on their limited knowledge (or lack thereof).
Yes and religious morality is the same. But it's not a problem as long as the people in charge aren't idiots.
For instance, you can argue that murder, thievery, and fraud are bad, but then you have things like monopolies, murder in self-defence, or people who steal to survive. Those are also all bad, but the punishments per each one will vary per person's definition of "common sense".
Killing in self defense isn't murder. Stealing for surival is a sign for greater societal issues that need to be fixed. A monopoly isn't inherently bad.
Same thing with the degrees of incest. Sure, between immediate family members it's bad, but then it was not uncommon that throughout recent human history marrying cousins of degrees was not considered as bad. So how far out do you go?
Yes and in parts of the world cousin marriage is still common. Doesn't change the fact that incest is bad. Not because of morality but because it creates fucked up offspring. So how far do I go? Don't allow it. It's simple.
We can also see that promiscuity is bad, but then even here in this sub people will argue about the consequences of promiscuity or safeguards resulting from it, such as abortion. Some believe that it's good because it has helped keep the black population in check in first-world nations, while others argue that it is inherently bad. But as you said, if the morals are based on "common sense" and not something timeless or intangible, then what does "inherently bad" even mean in this context since keeping the black population low is inherently and objectively GOOD for the native population?
Abortion isn't inherently bad just as amputation isn't inherently bad. It's something that should be avoided but sometimes it is a necessary procedure for various reasons. But using abortion as a contraceptive method is inherently bad for various reasons.
The argument you're making with the black population doesn't work. Because you're conflating two seperate issues. Ethnic diversity is bad and needs to be fixed and you're not going to fix that problem with abortions.
That's the problem every materialist and utiliarian runs into when you start picking apart the minutiae of self-imposed morals based on "common sense".
Common sense isn't a form of morality. Common sense is pattern recognition.
It's something that should be avoided but sometimes it is a necessary procedure for various reasons.
Avoided why?
The argument you're making with the black population doesn't work. Because you're conflating two seperate issues. Ethnic diversity is bad and needs to be fixed and you're not going to fix that problem with abortions.
Sure, but now you've moved into another gray area -- you say common sense is pattern recognition, and pattern recognition would dictate that ethnic diversity is bad, but how do you permanently prevent people from becoming diverse? Outlaw it like the Jim Crow era?
What about the passport bros with yellow fever? Ban them from marrying outside of their ethnic nationality?
Because it causes physical and psychological harm.
but how do you permanently prevent people from becoming diverse?
You don't have to. Modern day 'diversity' did not occur naturally. Let me remind you that desegregation happened at gunpoint. Flooding white countries with non-white immigrants and propagating race mixing is also being done deliberately by hostile actors.
Diversity is enforced by government at gunpoint. So I don't see how this is a grey area.
Because it causes physical and psychological harm.
So what makes it necessary to not outright outlaw if it generally causes physical or psychological harm?
Diversity is enforced by government at gunpoint. So I don't see how this is a grey area.
Absolutely... except that doesn't address the passport bro situation. It should be outlawed according to those standards, yes?
Also, we look at situations like China and Japan -- they're the same ethnicity but are culturally very different. Chinese have shown that they typically cannot integrate well into Japanese culture, whereas Japanese can integrate into Chinese culture, but oftentimes are despised due to historical conflicts. It's why some regions in Japan bar Chinese nationals from visiting their shops/places, etc.
This leads back to the question of laws related to segregation -- even if people are of the same ethnicity, cultural differences can lead to disruption. So do you also outlaw disruptive cultures based on pattern recognition even when dealing with the same ethnicity?
Common sense varies per culture and time frame.
You can have what looks like top-level moral imperatives (i.e., the examples you named) but then you start running into problems with more nuanced issues, at which point "common sense" varies to the wisdom applied by the participants involved, and that wisdom will be based on their limited knowledge (or lack thereof).
For instance, you can argue that murder, thievery, and fraud are bad, but then you have things like monopolies, murder in self-defence, or people who steal to survive. Those are also all bad, but the punishments per each one will vary per person's definition of "common sense".
Same thing with the degrees of incest. Sure, between immediate family members it's bad, but then it was not uncommon that throughout recent human history marrying cousins of degrees was not considered as bad. So how far out do you go?
We can also see that promiscuity is bad, but then even here in this sub people will argue about the consequences of promiscuity or safeguards resulting from it, such as abortion. Some believe that it's good because it has helped keep the black population in check in first-world nations, while others argue that it is inherently bad. But as you said, if the morals are based on "common sense" and not something timeless or intangible, then what does "inherently bad" even mean in this context since keeping the black population low is inherently and objectively GOOD for the native population?
That's the problem every materialist and utiliarian runs into when you start picking apart the minutiae of self-imposed morals based on "common sense".
You are absolutely correct. And Christianity or any other religion hasn't changed that fact of life in the slightest.
Yes and religious morality is the same. But it's not a problem as long as the people in charge aren't idiots.
Killing in self defense isn't murder. Stealing for surival is a sign for greater societal issues that need to be fixed. A monopoly isn't inherently bad.
Yes and in parts of the world cousin marriage is still common. Doesn't change the fact that incest is bad. Not because of morality but because it creates fucked up offspring. So how far do I go? Don't allow it. It's simple.
Abortion isn't inherently bad just as amputation isn't inherently bad. It's something that should be avoided but sometimes it is a necessary procedure for various reasons. But using abortion as a contraceptive method is inherently bad for various reasons.
The argument you're making with the black population doesn't work. Because you're conflating two seperate issues. Ethnic diversity is bad and needs to be fixed and you're not going to fix that problem with abortions.
Common sense isn't a form of morality. Common sense is pattern recognition.
Avoided why?
Sure, but now you've moved into another gray area -- you say common sense is pattern recognition, and pattern recognition would dictate that ethnic diversity is bad, but how do you permanently prevent people from becoming diverse? Outlaw it like the Jim Crow era?
What about the passport bros with yellow fever? Ban them from marrying outside of their ethnic nationality?
Because it causes physical and psychological harm.
You don't have to. Modern day 'diversity' did not occur naturally. Let me remind you that desegregation happened at gunpoint. Flooding white countries with non-white immigrants and propagating race mixing is also being done deliberately by hostile actors.
Diversity is enforced by government at gunpoint. So I don't see how this is a grey area.
So what makes it necessary to not outright outlaw if it generally causes physical or psychological harm?
Absolutely... except that doesn't address the passport bro situation. It should be outlawed according to those standards, yes?
Also, we look at situations like China and Japan -- they're the same ethnicity but are culturally very different. Chinese have shown that they typically cannot integrate well into Japanese culture, whereas Japanese can integrate into Chinese culture, but oftentimes are despised due to historical conflicts. It's why some regions in Japan bar Chinese nationals from visiting their shops/places, etc.
This leads back to the question of laws related to segregation -- even if people are of the same ethnicity, cultural differences can lead to disruption. So do you also outlaw disruptive cultures based on pattern recognition even when dealing with the same ethnicity?