Sensibility (opinion, based upon one’s own frame of reference) is much too broad, subjective, and capricious to be considered a practical moral standard. For anyone can change their mind, and they almost certainly will, given the ever shifting nature of personal context. For example, if I appropriate a new idea (I would argue it’s an axiom), such as “everyone is entitled to decide what a particular symbol means to them personally”, then I will be less prone–or not prone at all–to taking offense at symbols which might have previously offended me. Clearly then it is patently irrational for others to not display the symbols they hold dear because of my “offense”. And this is because my offense has been shown, by virtue of my decision to accept a new premise, to be a poor standard of the morality of other people’s behavior…it is obviously capricious, given to change depending upon what I accept as true. And since no one else can have any control over my sensibilities, because these sensibilities are a function of my own unique and individual perspective, when I declare them the moral standard I hold everyone else hostage to my personal whim. This is not only irrational, it is unreasonable. And more than that. It is evil. Ideas, opinions, beliefs, superstitions…sure, these things are fine in the pursuit of one’s goals and in the living out of one’s life, but because of their vacillating nature, and because they are a direct function of the singular perspective of each individual, they do not make a good moral standard. In short, ideas and thoughts are fundamentally abstract, and abstractions, being intangible, cannot be references themselves, because they don’t have existence. They must be referenced to something which does exist; which has tangible, empirical essence; which is objective; which does not change; which is not a matter of opinion; which is not dependent upon any one person’s perspective; which cannot be said to somehow “exist” beyond the perception of the senses…the senses being the means by which we manifest ourselves upon our environment; which makes them the means by which we organize–to efficacious, rational, and thus moral purposes–our lives. On the other hand, the individual human body is an extremely practical standard. It is not a matter of opinion or preference. For anyone can change their minds, but in equal absolute measure no one can change their bodies. We can all observe each others body, but in equal absolute measure none of us can observe each others sensibilities. We can have a rational context for each others bodies; we cannot have a rational context for each others sensibilities, or opinions, or ideas, or perspectives, because those are a function of absolute individual existence. We can sympathize, we can empathize, we can commiserate, we can agree, we can love, but we cannot BE another person. And so we can never have access to what they really think, nor ever absolutely or fully understand just why they think it. Do not violate another person’s body, but never enslave your own mind or body or actions to the subjective sensibilities of other people. The former is the philosophy of lovers of life and peace; the latter the philosophy of tyrants, despots, murderers, deceivers, sociopaths, narcissists, Marxists, Fascists, demons, and the walking dead.