The underpinnings of the moral imperative, be it emotional reactions based on inherent disgust or post-hoc moral justification, do not always work in synergy. They are at cross-purposes in certain situations-that murder is widely viewed as inherently reprehensible or disgusting could be relatively outweighed by the rationalization of a greater threat to the community or personal interests if the intended victim is not killed. The role of the “moral majority” in the institionalization or legalization of a moral view point adds further complexity to an often pliable moral environment. In France and Switzerland, women who wear Islamic face veils in public have recently been perceived to be far more of a threat than non-normative sexual behaviour. This situation is reversed in the Islamic world, where being gay is immoral whilst the face veil is considered a virtue. Such diametrically opposed attitudes reflect a moral flexibility based on society’s tolerance of difference, the degree of deviation or conformity with what is practiced by the majority and the (in) visibility of non-normative behaviour. The only non-contentious moral imperative could be that a behavior should not be found morally objectionable if it hurts no one, including oneself, in any material way.

geez….the stupid burns….where do these morons get this stuff?

FIRE MAKE TRIBE STRONG!