[Dilettante_]

People absolutely "torture" babies for their own enjoyment. It's just "in good fun", so you don't think about it as "torture", you think of it as "teasing". Cognitive blind spot. People do tons of things that are displeasant or emotionally painful to their children to see the child's funny or interesting reaction. It serves an evolutionary purpose even, challenging the child. "Mothers stroke and fathers poke" and all that.

[skissane]

I don't think you are using "torture" in the same sense as I am.

When I say "torture", I mean acts which cause substantial physical pain or injury.

[Dilettante_]

People smother their infants to stop them from crying in order to have some quiet. Causing physical harm for their own satisfaction. I mean shit, if we're going there, people sexually abuse their children for their own gratification.

[croon]

While I don't subscribe to universal "moral absolutes" either, I think this doesn't counter the argument. I don't think even the people you describe would claim their own acts as moral.

[JoblessWonder]

But if only one person feels that way, wouldn't it no longer be universal? I genuinely believe there has to be one person out there who would think it is moral.

(I'm just BSing on the internet... I took a few philosophy classes so if I'm off base or you don't want to engage in a pointless philosophical debate on HN I apologize in advance.)

[croon]

There will always be individual differences, whether they be obstinate or altered brain chemistry, so I'd probably argue that as long as it's universal across cultures, any individual within one culture believing/claiming to believe different wouldn't change that. (But I'm just a hobby philosopher as well)

[MassiveQuasar]

You just moved the goalpost.

[jasonlotito]

> I think there are effectively universal moral standards, which essentially nobody disagrees with.

...

> I don't think you are using "torture" in the same sense as I am.

Just throwing this out here, you haven't even established "Universal Moral Standards", not to mention needing it to do that across all of human history. And we haven't even addressed the "nobody disagrees with" issue you haven't even addressed.

I for one can easily look back on the past 100 years and see why "universal moral standards, which essentially nobody disagrees with" is a bad argument to make.