Incest, homosexuality

[theVOID]

Your language was confused, Individuals find something morally repulsive the same way a detective finds someone guilty, it's based on an evaluation of some moral standard, so it makes no sense to say "I find this morally repulsive" or "I think this is morally wrong" or anything to that effect. We can remove "morally" from any one of these sentences and get the same exact meaning, demonstrating that the use of the word was meaningless within that sentence.

I'm not going to even argue with you here. Another great example. I'll put it this way just for you; If I find something repulsive, I think that it is wrong in relation to my own moral standards.

I would argue that "my morality" and "your morality" don't exist, or rather it makes no sense to use the word morality with subjective value statements because morality is concerned with "us" value, and not an individuals opinion on what actions are morally good or bad.

what is the difference between your moral standards and your other standards? In other words, how do you decide which standards are moral standards and which aren't?

Again this makes me want to point out that using "morally" just adds meaningless baggage to your claim as morally wrong is wrong and should be prevented, to say something is morally wrong and to not want to stop it makes no sense.

*cough* Whys that. I just don't do it myself. Because I dislike something, dosen't mean I must change it, or I have the right to change it. Once again you are making assumptions based on your own understanding, who made you the arbiter of all knowledge.

You have the right to condemn people who do the things you find repulsive, but if it's simply "I find x repulsive" then you have no obligation to condemn or prevent it, but if something is morally bad, then it is something we have reason to prevent or condemn. So, like I said, saying something is morally wrong but we shouldn't do anything about it makes no sense.

And i'm not being the arbiter of anything, i'm giving reasons for my conclusions that are up for criticism, that's totally different from dictating terminology.

The only real definition of morality is "a standard by which we judge action", how we determine what the standard is is where the moral theories like subjectivism come in, though I'm fairly confident that subjectivism is false, because it neglects to take into account relational values which do exist and are not subjective.

We each determine what that moral standard is for the individual. Once again, there is no universal moral code, and the more you try and apply it to converstations the more futile it will become. This has been discussed many times in other posts.

No, we only determine our values, whether or not our values are morally good or bad is something else. Opinion and morality aren't interchangeable. There aren't just two options, "universal code" and "i like", we also have relationships to consider, how my actions and intentions affect other people, that is the "us" part of morality and talking about values in terms of "us" what morality is about.

Individual subjectivism (I like) is what you seem to be using......

Well, yes, in regards to morals, can their be any other method.

Yes, there are relational values, how my actions affect your ability to fulfill your desires and vice verse. This is the only real net negative or positive that can exist in terms of the population, so it's the only way to talk about values and "us" and thus is the only way it makes sense to talk about morality.

"Moral for me" and "Moral for you" make about as much sense as "my logic" and "your logic"

Something being taboo does not make it morally wrong, all it means is that the society in question does not like it. Sex before marriage was (and in some places still is) taboo, but I suspect neither of us would conclude that it's morally wrong because of the opinion of a particular society.

proscribed by society as improper or unacceptable: taboo words.

As defined.

Please note that wrong is a synonym of unacceptable.

not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.

Wrong as pertaining to morals.

Do you not see where you went wrong there? You've taken the definition for "morally wrong", equated it with "wrong" (in the common sense), and then used that to say unacceptable == morally wrong.

Something that is unacceptable is not necessarily immoral, I might do an unacceptable job of doing the dishes, for example, and piss off my flat mates. Was doing a bad job of the dishes "morally wrong"?

All morally wrong things are necessarily unacceptable, but all unacceptable things are not necessarily morally wrong.

Therefore, you can state that a taboo is an act considered morally wrong by society, by definition.

Only with your false equivocation.

If something is taboo it only means that a particular society deems it to be unacceptable to them. Again, premarital sex is taboo in some cultures, does that make it morally wrong?

Aww, your playing victim because I pointed out a confusion in the way you're using terms? Come on, that's over the top

Here's a hypothetical: Incest is legal, you alone have the ability to criminalise it, would you do it and why?

I will get back to you on this one considering it is a though experiment, I will have a think about it.

I look forward to your response.