As I said, "by any normal standard", this alters things. I would have used the term "sane" rather than "normal", save that there are some areas where that term (or its cognate, "delusional") are being hotly debated at present. The problem is that, no matter how many people believe a thing (or believe in a thing), means absolutely nothing as concerns its truth value. (I use the word "truth" here in the sense of "based in reality", "factual", etc., rather than its much more slippery metaphysical sense, something which is used a great deal by apologists and unscrupulous debaters to attempt to cloud the issue.)
In other words, the majority of the time, the accepted norm is that killing is not something to be undertaken lightly; torture is something only to be undertaken when the need for information is great; rape is something which should be prevented or punished, etc. This is the general consensus of opinion, whether or not backed by a particular religious text (and this latter is not always the case, as such texts provide a surprisingly large number of contexts in which such actions are not only allowed or condoned, but actually praiseworthy). I would argue (as others have done) that we, as well as most other species, have reached such a consensus by process of evolutionary elimination: These opinions help promote social stability, compassion, empathy, etc.; all of which in turn helps promote the future of the species. Those things which promote the converse tend, on the other hand, toward social destabilization, strife, unrest, cruelty, oppression, and a detrimental state of affairs resulting in an unstable populace, generally with a much-reduced lifespan, and a higher mortality rate... hence a gradual tendency toward reduction of the species' viability.
Thus, within the context of the generally accepted norm, these things are bad, because they are bad for us as a whole.
Which leads to that huge can of worms involving war, executions, violent revolution, bigotry, etc. While we continue to have all these things with us, they are growing increasingly non-viable unless (as with war) we deliberately restrict ourselves to the use of lesser technologies than those at our disposal. With war, for instance, we use (generally speaking) "conventional" weaponry with a more-or-less limited capability for destroying life; whereas we possess weapons which could, without exaggeration, make this planet uninhabitable for nearly any form of life. For all our inherited aggressive tendencies, we also recognize that to use such weapons would be foolhardy in the extreme, so we restrict our use of them to very rare circumstances (aside from testing, which also has its deleterious effects, albeit these are so slow and gradual overall that it is taking us a longer time to get it through our often thick heads that this, too, has got to eventually go).
Executions are, unlike the view throughout the bulk of history, falling more and more out of favor, as people find this "solution" to problems not only repugnant but actually ineffective save in the very limited sense of making it impossible for a particular individual to continue their depredations. As a deterrent, it has never, historically, worked worth a damn; nor is there any reason to believe it ever will. It is also being increasingly seen as "legalized murder", no better ethically than the very crimes for which it is invoked, and saying something not particularly enviable about the society which continues to utilize it. And, as noted in the other thread, more and more we are realizing that the reasons for criminal behaviors quite often have to do with a malfunction in the mental and emotional makeup of the individual, and to execute them for something which is (speaking of the underlying cause rather than the action) often beyond their control, is itself as unjust as shooting a leper because of his disease. As we learn more about this aspect of things, treatment is (albeit incredibly slowly) becoming more a viable option than execution (and perhaps, eventually, even imprisonment); and this also eliminates the very grave risk of killing individuals who, though found guilty in a court of law, may in fact have been innocent of the crime (a not uncommon state of affairs, as we are increasingly learning). It is also a waste of human potential... a fact (to tie this in with sff) which has been argued by various writers over the past century or more, from Bertrand Russell to HPL ("The Shadow Out of Time") to Lester Dent (the Doc Savage stories) to Alfred Bester (The Demolished Man; The Stars My Destination), etc., etc., etc.
Bigotry is a much more difficult one to overcome entirely, as it is based in a very deeply-embedded instinct of wariness for that which is different... which itself is tied to the early survival of any species. We have the advantage, however, of having evolved to where this instinct is, at least in its primitive form of fear, hatred, etc., no longer necessary for our survival, whilst its sublimated form (caution) can take its place and function much more fruitfully by allowing us to investigate whether or not something (or someone) forms a threat and, if such proves not to be the case, adopting them instead into our arsenal of resources useful for our survival.
Each of these things has served a beneficial purpose for societies (and therefore humanity as a general thing) in the past, but they are becoming increasingly less satisfactory responses to circumstances, and more creative, humane, and ethical solutions are likely to be required as we go along.
