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

I think Harold is absolutely right, the end of a commonly accepted "sacred" has a great deal to do with moral relativism. If right and wrong are subject to circumstances, or to individual preference, then there really is no such thing as right and wrong. The logical conclusion is a world in which everyone does whatever benefits them the most, regardless of anyone or anything else, and "the end justifies the means." In other words, a world in which life is nasty, brutish, and short, to paraphrase Hobbes. It is simply human nature to excuse ourselves our every action, and not look forward to what we bring upon ourselves. This is why professions come up with codes of ethics - because individuals simply cannot be trusted to police themselves.
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.'
As for the prohibition against pork, I think it had nothing really to do with sacrifice or self-denial. Pork was only one of a list of things not to be eaten - the foundation of today's Kosher rules that the Jews still follow, as well as the Hallal rules for Muslims. Both people still produce a delicious and varied cuisine. Rather, it was about "setting apart" - these rules set the Jews apart from the people around them. Other religious/ethnic groups have other ways of doing the same thing. Once such rules set in, violating them will indeed feel revolting.

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
A person should have the right to control the disposition of the his or her body. Necrophilia would almost always violate the deceased's wishes. 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?

Whether you discuss in terms of religion or not, the real issue is on what basis does one call anything right or wrong? The three basic principles that Remo sets up, for example: why those? Why should a person have the right to determine the disposition of their own body? Through most of human history, most people (slaves, serfs, etc) did not enjoy any such right, and you would look long and hard to find anyone who thought that was a problem. Slavery, for example, was not held to be wrong in principle until less than three hundred years ago. So why now?
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?
Negue331 states, I think correctly, that any system of values needs a "cornerstone" that is not discussed. Otherwise, one drifts into relativism - it all comes back to personal opinions and desires. The question then is, what should be that cornerstone? "Social contract" is just another way of saying "what society wants" which merely means "what a lot of people like me seem to think is right today." "Rights" are merely a subset of that social contract, if based only on what "society" agrees to provide. And which things are "rights?" Is majority opinion a good enough foundation?

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.

Nice words but urtontunafely it means little in real life application. The only rights' you have are implemented by government as and when it suits them. They can be taken away at any time. Ask any Japanese American citizen who was intered during WW2 what rights to liberty the good ol' USA showed them, or any inmate of Guantanamo bay. Rights are just a made-up concept to keep us happy for the time-being, same as God and Santa Claus.