Every second thousands of much more disgusting things happen all around the Earth. You should thus never consume any media because the truth about the billions whose basic needs aren't satisfied show through various facets of human life if you dare to look. Your indignation adds little to the discussion, discourages readers to learn more by shaming those not feeling disgust and increasing the level of emotions in the discussion. I very much believe that emotional arguments should be minimized on HN, which for many users is a source of authoritative information about the world.

There are many studies that show how emotions negatively impact decision making[1] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotions_in_decision-making

On the unrelated note, this bit was interesting: "I’d rather my children red than dead,” he told her."(Kennedy, Mimi)

Perhaps one of the reasons emotional language keeps appearing in this thread is that moral judgments can be viewed as nothing more than the expression of emotional attitudes, as opposed to propositions with any particular truth value. That kind of language may be essential to any productive conversation about ethics.

> ".. moral judgments can be viewed as nothing more than the expression of emotional attitudes.."

I sense that you hold an underlying assumption that morality cannot be attained through logic and reasoning.

Eh, I don't know but the 'open question' argument has always made sense to me: 'For any non-moral description of an action or object it seemed that competent speakers could without confusion doubt that the action or object was appropriately characterized using a moral term such as ‘good’ or ‘right’. The question of whether the action or object so described was good or right was always open, even to competent speakers.'

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/

How is it any less consensual or any more wrong than sleeping with JFK himself?

Perhaps one was more of a relationship than an instruction from an employer?