Without envolving sexual acts what is the worst possible thing a human could ever do?

Answer 1

Answer this question

Answer 2

To mentally or physically abuse a child because that lasts a lifetime in the childs life. Other than that it has to be murder, that is the ultimate crime, only a sicko who needs help cud do that and defo needs to b punished. The world is full of evil people. Do unto others as you would do to yourself, love thy neighbours. Make the world a better place.

Answer 3

I think the thing you stated as the worst is actually the best thing a human can do. Get a life.

Answer 4

Vote for a leader based on his ability to carry out executions.

Answer 5

Take a life

Answer 6

Committ murder, torturing the victim first, or just torturing someone. I think that would be the worst.

--That Cheeky Lad

Answer 7

Drink another mans pint when he goes to the toilet.Sacrilege that.

Answer 8

Hate another human being for no good reason.

Answer 9

of course. a guy or woman can act fullyyt selfless each 2nd of their lives, without hidden reasons, in simple terms an rather deep taking good care of others (no longer asserting this is in all probability). I doubt it is genuine that a guy or woman's altruism would desire to consistently inevitably cut back to the will for exhilaration. that's unquestionably achieveable to go with for yet somebody else's nicely being in simple terms, the reason in simple terms being innate empathy and taking good care of others. i think of the content fabric of guy or woman's objective device determines whether or no longer a guy or woman they're thoroughly altruistic, and in certainty that's set up that way. If internally they're fullyyt selfless, in terms of putting no (or equivalent) weight on their nicely being and massive weight with anyone else's (etc), on no account deviating from organic altruism internally (as above) or externally, i do no longer see strategies to work out that as egocentric. psychological hedonism (as you of course help) would desire to be genuine, yet this no longer say lots relating to the "genuine" ethical character of human beings in my opinion. that's annoying to be certain whether or no longer any act is "thoroughly selfless" on your experience, yet suffice to declare in basic terms worrying approximately somebody may be the only huge wakeful motivation for performing selfless. If somebody is intrinsically encouraged to help somebody via fact they actually care approximately them, that's certainly selfless in any useful experience. Are you no longer "somewhat" hungry, thirsty, and so on. via fact supposedly all you certainly need is the exhilaration? Altruism is the comparable, an intuition in itself. exhilaration would desire to be the motive force of all desires, i do no longer think of this says lots approximately distinctive characteristic in itself. At any fee, i think of you made a mistake your reasoning. i think of you took a commonsensical concept (and partly in simple terms the notice itself), examined it, philosophically defined it in that way (without attempting to earnings that definition to work out whether that's clever), and then created a clever seeming linguistically based argument that it would not exist. i do no longer think of you're appropriate in any useful experience. whether or no person is "somewhat" selfless, they might consistently act that way, without deviations from it in act, concept, or emotions.

Answer 10

Sell out.

Answer 11

Eat a puppy.