5 Moral Boundaries You Do Not Want To Cross

5 Moral Boundaries You Do Not Want To Cross
by John Hawkins

The truth is much more terrifying: human beings as evil and ruthless as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are so common that we pass them on the street daily, see them on TV, and may even have the misfortune of knowing them personally. The real difference between these notorious butchers and the guy in a federal prison is not so much the degree of depravity, but the unchecked power needed to make his darkest desires reality.

… sometimes the shift from human to fiend can have murky beginnings. Some people step over a line and come back. Others follow that tragic path described by C.S. Lewis,

[quote]The safest road to Hell is the gradual one — the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.

Here, at least, are a few signposts that will alert you to stop, pause, and take stock to make sure you’re not on that gentle slope.

1) I/You vs. I/It.

Oftentimes, the “morally challenged” among us tend to see themselves as real people, but they look at most others as “things” to be manipulated in any way that benefits them. … Ultimately, the perpetrator looks at himself as an “I” and his victim as an “it,” like a coffee maker. Few people have moral qualms about what they do to a coffee maker.

2) An Ends -Justifies-the-Means Mentality.

Utopianism and a willingness to use any means to achieve a predetermined “good” end can devastate the lives of other human beings — and even that assumes the “good” outcome is really good. Jim Jones, Pol Pot, and the KKK all probably believed what they were doing was right and good. Yet in the end they turned out to be doing evil in pursuit of an evil end. This is the norm of human history since the beginning of time.[/quote]
Avoiding wrong paths is easier than making a U-turn and walking back a wrong path you’ve walked for some time.


  1. Liberals kill millions of babies by telling themselves that babies are “it’s” instead of people.

  2. Liberals justify their Racist actions like Affirmative Action by saying some other people long ago did stuff that makes this end of attacking innocent people today based on their skin color worth it.

  3. Liberals are chronic victimizers. All of the evil attacks they wage are in defense of “victims”, usually ones that cannot speak like animals and the earth but also the “poor” and “minorities”(as long as they are not Conservative) and “women” (as long as they are not Conservative)

  4. Liberals cross all lines gradually while claiming that there is no such thing as a “slippery slope” regardless of how many examples you show them of the things that they said would NEVER occur from past debates that they won and then bore the exact fruit that Conservatives warned about. They just keep moving that line more and more every year.

  5. And of course the rejection of any “Absolutes” is a long time staple of the Liberals mindset, and a required perspective for most college classes.

Of course, when I equate these widespread, horrific, evil actions and others to Hitler type attitudes and actions I usually earn the ire of a Moderator…Pete…And yet you posted this quite sentient article?

Liberals are just another version of Hitler without as much power…Yet.


Correct Ret, and this all stems from their belief in moral relativism. The belief that morals are arbitrary and therefore there is no wrong or right. This frees the liberal from thinking of that baby as a life, which makes it much easier to muder that baby.
I noticed that the people who are in favor of abortion weren’t aborted themselves .


This is evident in the way that they debate which can be seen on this site on a daily basis. Since there are no absolutes, they think that they can change and shift facts in the middle of a debate. To them it is perfectly acceptable to do so, unless you are a Conservative.

#1 on RETs’ list is why I do not care about their rights in any way. It has nothing to do with them being homo or atheist or anything else for that matter. They are perfectly fine with mangling the bodies of unborn HUMAN babies and then have the unmitigated gall to whine about their own rights, such as wanting same sex marriage. They deny the most innocent HUMAN life on the planet the right to live and as a result of that, in my opinion, they should have no rights at all.


Exactly Conservative. I’m not sure if they are blind to the fact that they are murdering these babies or simply can’t face the truth. They scream for animal rights but then say it’s ok to murder babies. This is the epitome of irrational hypocrisy. It makes my head spin .

Then they claim we are infringing on women’s rights as far as what they do with their bodies.
I could care less about what they do with their bodies but I do care about what they do with the life that is in their body. The innocent blameless life that deserves the right to live .

1 Like

People seem to for some reason have a sense of physical distance making a difference when applying their morals. For example, few would ever say that if a person is dying in front of you, and you can prevent it, that you would not be morally obligated to help them. It is taken for granted that if someone is dying, and you can prevent it as no or minimal threat to you, it is morally wrong for you to not do so. Yet in places such as Africa, we know people are dying all the time, and it is preventable through donations to organizations such as the Red Cross or UNICEF.

But charity is overwhelmingly seen as a voluntary. It’s good if you do, but it’s not morally wrong if you don’t. So why is that the case, but it is morally wrong if you don’t save someone we can see and who is close to us? Both are equally real, and it seems the only difference is their physical distance to you, and the impact it has on you, personally, the latter being much more personal to us.

So it would seem that we collectively view morality as in some way being dependent on the experiences of the moral actor. If the actor knows suffering is happening, but he can’t see it or feel personally about it, it is not morally obligatory to help.

Just some thoughts, what are your thoughts on moral obligation and charity and “distant suffering”?

Morals… Fascinating. We get to see if there’s any sociopaths amongst us

There’s no such thing as moral obligation. Morals are relative.

Even if morals are relative, you can see your own actions as being obligatory. If I saw someone dying and I could save them, it would be my obligation to save them, even if only to myself.

Well, that’s fine. I thought you meant obligatory according to others. So what you’re really saying is that you’d rescue that person as to not cause yourself psychological grief. Because that’s what moral obligation sounds like to me

It seems to me that most people who object to what is perceived as “moral” standards do so only when those “morals” are based in some kind of religion. What few people understand is that morality or the adoption of moral tenets is part and parcel of almost all secular laws–and not just in the U.S. There is not a single law on the books which is not based on a moral precept. There are moral absolutes. To say that morals are relative is to fall into the serious error of relativism and nihilism. In other words, the idea that in certain circumstances, murder, lying, stealing, and other evils are permissible is nothing more than giving a pass on any kind of exploitation. And why not? If morals are relative, then morals are bound by my own definition of what constitutes morality. What’s to say that my next-door neighbor’s definition of morals are wrong when he decides to steal my car or break into my home and steal what he likes? To say that there are no moral absolutes or that morals are relative is to give license to anyone to do anything he/she wants to regardless if those actions infringe upon my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Moral relativism=anarchy=chaos=mob rule. We can see moral relativism in action today in all sorts of ways: corporate greed, ruthlessly violent gangs in our major cities (and elsewhere for that matter), abortion, refusal to accept personal responsibility, political greed & power, and the list goes on. It is interesting that we demand our rights but at the same time, we proclaim morality as archaic and anathema to our more “enlightened” concepts of modern society. We can’t have it both ways.


I view morals as relative but my own morals are absolute. I am a walking contradiction when ti comes to morals.

Best post I’ve seen from you so far CT

1 Like

I got a brain fart on this post hehe

Bulls, is go one further. This is one of the best posts I have see period.
The thing is for atheists to admit that there are objective moral standards that are applicable everywhere would lead them to admit to a transcendent moral law giver, which they absolutely won’t admit to. How could they hold onto their hate for God.


One thing to contemplate is whether morals exist in any meaningful sense in a vacuum, i.e. if you’re the only person on the planet, are you still expected to live to a moral code, or do morals only have meaning or come about through interactions between people.

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:16, topic:38424”]
One thing to contemplate is whether morals exist in any meaningful sense in a vacuum, i.e. if you’re the only person on the planet, are you still expected to live to a moral code, or do morals only have meaning or come about through interactions between people.
[/quote] That is a very good question.

You propose a situation that is impossible. In an impossible situation, one could only hypothesize on a situation that could never exist. Perhaps someone with more philosophical training could answer that better than I.

1 Like

Easy experiment. Ask a low functioning sociopath.

To believe in objective morals doesn’t imply a belief in god. It is possible for an atheist to believe in objective morals.