Inherent Immorality

[Thoreau]

Is there anything that is inherently wrong or immoral if it doesn't affect or harm anyone else in any way?

Here are a few examples just to reiterate my question:

Suicide:
Is suicide immoral? What if the victim is suffering from a fatal illness which causes pain?

Pedophilia:
Assuming one is sexually attracted to minors, yet never acts on it - is it in inherently immoral to be attracted to minors?

Drug Use:
Assuming that one does drugs in complete privacy around no one else, is drug use immoral?


I personally don't agree with any of these, with exception to voluntary euthanasia under certain situations. But then again, I find myself wondering why. If it doesn't hurt anyone else, why would I have a stance against it? Sure, the idea of being sexually attracted to minors creeps me out and makes me gag, as does damaging one's body with drugs. They both aren't something I'd ever find myself being/doing. But that's my morality for myself. How can someone else say what is moral or immoral for another person if it doesn't affect anyone else but that one person?

I am undecided on this issue.

 

[scheherazade]

You raise an interesting question, Thoreau, and there is considerable debate of whether morality is inherent or learned, or both.

This excerpt from an interesting article:

But morality isn't a rule. It isn't a plumb line. It isn't a tool to determine who is in and who is out. It is something that is part of each person. We don't earn morality; it earns us. The more in touch with our humanity we become, the more moral we become. Morality is a gene -- not one that we can see or study, but one that evolves progressively over time. Unlike other genes, it is affected and altered by the decisions we make and don't make. It is transformed by compassion and deformed by the lack of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-elerick/are-morals-subjective-or_b_504262.html

 

[Thoreau]

You raise an interesting question, Thoreau, and there is considerable debate of whether morality is inherent or learned, or both.

This excerpt from an interesting article:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-elerick/are-morals-subjective-or_b_504262.html

That is indeed an interesting and awesome (in my opinion) article! Thanks for sharing!

 

[kx000]

Whatever doesn't offend perfection is moral. Cut out the lies, cheats, and steals. If you want to get into a bout of moral, not a single step out of line. I have a outward ankle, here I post, what's that?

What about a moral entrance forum?

 

[Thoreau]

Whatever doesn't offend perfection is moral. Cut out the lies, cheats, and steals. If you want to get into a bout of moral, not a single step out of line. I have a outward ankle, here I post, what's that?

What about a moral entrance forum?

What is your native language?

 

[kx000]

Does that guy existing there bother my morality? Yes.

See me.

 

[Rhaedas]

Does that guy existing there bother my morality? Yes.

See me.

Good thing you're not in charge. We've seen in history where that path goes.

I don't think any of those things listed are immoral in their own sense, but the problem is the person's determination that their actions don't affect another person. Suicide (outside of euthanasia) is common with this, assuming that the loss won't hurt others. Pedophilia also, it's the continuation of the desire because of the rationalization that the younger person is probable okay with it and mature enough to decide that's the problem. Drug use, another one where the judgment of the user is probably not a good one, so while they think it's just them, it's not.

 

[Thoreau]

Good thing you're not in charge. We've seen in history where that path goes.

I don't think any of those things listed are immoral in their own sense, but the problem is the person's determination that their actions don't affect another person. Suicide (outside of euthanasia) is common with this, assuming that the loss won't hurt others. Pedophilia also, it's the continuation of the desire because of the rationalization that the younger person is probable okay with it and mature enough to decide that's the problem. Drug use, another one where the judgment of the user is probably not a good one, so while they think it's just them, it's not.

Maybe I'm just out of it, it has been a long day. But can you further explain your points on the pedophilia and drug use examples? I'm not sure that I grasp what you're trying to say.

Thank you!

 

[Rhaedas]

My point for them all is that the person in question is not the best judge for what is and isn't damaging to others. People tend to rationalize their actions, especially if it's something they really want.

I guess it doesn't really directly answer your question. I don't think we can *not* influence others with our actions, even if it seems isolated. So there is some immorality to things, even if indirectly.

 

[wellwisher]

Morality was actually designed for the best interest of the group; maximizes the species. It was not designed to maximize the choices of the individual. If you pick any of the ten commandments, these rules all help maintain group cohesion. Even the first commandment or, only one god, helps group unity since a religious divide can divide the group. It was not about individual choices but keep the group strong.

For example, stealing would result in problems for the group. It can lead to more expense to maintain security and order. This rule was not designed to maximzed all individuals, since some people are lazy and like to steal and they would feel left out. If we all decided to steel the group would suffer and dissolve.

Immorality, in the group sense, would be individual behavior that disrupts the cohesion of the group and/or increase the costs for the group. Again immorality is not about the desires and needs of the individual but its impact on the group.

The church used to have a thing called a jubulee, where someone who did a lot of good deeds was given a waiver, so they could do some basic immorality. This waiver was possible because their morality math still added up in the positive, even with some negative.

In other words, say you not only followed the rules of morality, for the group, but also did even more for group cohesion; provide money and good deeds. One gains morality surplus so there was slack, allowing some immorality slack.

 

[kx000]

Basic morality calls on pure faith in a imaginative world.

I am skhitz king.

 

[Thoreau]

. I don't think we can *not* influence others with our actions, even if it seems isolated. So there is some immorality to things, even if indirectly.

I don't think "things" can be immoral. Actions, however, can. And that's what I'm questioning here. An action which has no affect on others (such as my example of the pedophile who does not act on his urges), how can it be immoral, even indirectly?

Morality was actually designed for the best interest of the group; maximizes the species. It was not designed to maximize the choices of the individual. If you pick any of the ten commandments, these rules all help maintain group cohesion. Even the first commandment or, only one god, helps group unity since a religious divide can divide the group. It was not about individual choices but keep the group strong.

For example, stealing would result in problems for the group. It can lead to more expense to maintain security and order. This rule was not designed to maximzed all individuals, since some people are lazy and like to steal and they would feel left out. If we all decided to steel the group would suffer and dissolve.

Immorality, in the group sense, would be individual behavior that disrupts the cohesion of the group and/or increase the costs for the group. Again immorality is not about the desires and needs of the individual but its impact on the group.

The church used to have a thing called a jubulee, where someone who did a lot of good deeds was given a waiver, so they could do some basic immorality. This waiver was possible because their morality math still added up in the positive, even with some negative.

In other words, say you not only followed the rules of morality, for the group, but also did even more for group cohesion; provide money and good deeds. One gains morality surplus so there was slack, allowing some immorality slack.

The implication of design means that it is structured and fixed. I disagree with this. I think, if anything, morality is very fluid.

An example of my point is murder. In small, controlled communities, murdering another person is immoral so long as there is not justification behind it. But say there is an over-population problem and not enough food for everyone. This creates starvation, disease, and suffering. To minimize those things, killing others may be very moral if it serves the greater good.

Your examples of theft don't relate to the question at hand. Of course, if one steals from another, it is an action which affects another. But is the DESIRE not incorporated with action, is that immoral?

Essentially, the question at hand really is: "Can a thought be immoral?"

Of course, there are a few actions that can be called into the same question of morality as well, (ex: the pedobear who pleasures himself to idea of children). Is this an immoral action? If so, why? If it harms no one else, and affects no one else, how is it moral or immoral?

Again, we know what morality and immorality are. But we don't know what, exactly, is moral or immoral.

I personally think it's immoral FOR ME to do drugs. But that is my own morals for myself. Someone else may think it's moral for them to do drugs. So their morality and mine differ.

So, in my opinion, all thoughts and desires are neutral until expressed through action. Then, the action has three ways in which it can results:

1) It can negatively affect others, thus being immoral.
2) It can positively affect others, thus being moral.
3) It can affect no one else, thus is neither immoral or moral or ethical or unethical.

I'm drifting off a little from where I was going, but will say one more thing...

The action can be both moral and immoral at the same time. If an individual is trying to murder another individual, and I come along and kill the attempted murderer, that actions is both moral (because I saved a life), and immoral (because I took a life). So, really, it ends up canceling itself out and become neutral again.

But again, that's regarding actions that affect others.

My main inquiry is mainly with thoughts and actions that do not affect anyone other than the thought-holder/action-taker themselves.

If you're claiming that every thought or every actions has an affect on others, even if indirectly, then supporting evidence or a logical explanation is needed.

 

[kx000]

Pedophiles have no business. I will kill you.

Sex is holy. fuck off

Don't tell children and make gay respect first.

 

[Tiassa]

Notes on ... something

Is there anything that is inherently wrong or immoral if it doesn't affect or harm anyone else in any way?

Here are a few examples just to reiterate my question:

Suicide:
Is suicide immoral? What if the victim is suffering from a fatal illness which causes pain?

Pedophilia:
Assuming one is sexually attracted to minors, yet never acts on it - is it in inherently immoral to be attracted to minors?

Drug Use:
Assuming that one does drugs in complete privacy around no one else, is drug use immoral?

Suicide is not immoral per se. One can construe your examples tiptoeing toward an abstract line, but that's not problematic. With suicide, we must also presume that the motives are correctly represented in the suicidal's mind. Yes, that is a broad standard. And, yes, if that standard is not fulfilled, the morality of a particular suicide can become an issue deserving of consideration. And things only get more complicated from there.

Pedophilia, as you have described, is more a functional question than a moral one. Even presuming that the pedophile is completely controlled insofar as he or she never lays a finger or other impropriety on a child, the fact of pedophilia will inherently affect how that adult relates to children in general. While it is possible that such an outcome presents no ill will, example, or other effect toward a child, it is very, very unlikely. The morality of the pedophile you describe is a very delicate, intricate assertion. It is also a question that cannot be answered until after the fact.

Drug use is not, in and of itself, immoral. As a species, it can be reasonably asserted that one of the first things any given group of people did after settling beyond a nomadic existence—and, we must acknowledge, in many cases during, or concomitant to, their nomadism—is begin intoxicant production. As such, one can go so far as to suggest that intoxication is fundamental to societal evolution; even without drugs, many religious mysteria over the years have sought ways to elevate consciousness through meditation or mass hysteria.

The questions of drug use in a more practical, contemporary context are myriad. But as with suicide, any harm one does oneself, one can also pass along to others. As case-in-point, we might consider ... well, me. In a more daring and belligerent expression, one might call me a sedentary vagabond. I don't like the world; I don't get along with it well. And, generally, I avoid interacting with it directly. I don't "hurt" anyone; I'm not violent, and not even threatening. But I cost people around me a lot of money in order to perpetuate my existence.

Drug use? Sure, I'm not hurting anyone by smoking pot, but I live on a lot of other people's money; it wouldn't be such a bad thing, would it, to lighten that burden on them? To the other, I suppose I can always hide behind the argument that they're willing to let me wander through life like this. It is a somewhat privileged existence, but I doubt whatever insight I may communicate on occasion resulting from my luxurious bounty of time to think would convert to any monetary value close to an even return on investment.

Or maybe I'm just depressed. But at what point does my failure to reconcile with the world around me harm the people who sustain my life functions?

Even if we're not "hurting" people directly by our actions, in what ways might we be causing them detriment?

It's not that I don't get the underlying points of your proposition, but, rather, that I can't find a place to draw a hard line. Because of the interconnectedness of all things that I do, in fact, believe in—and, in truth, consider observable in the world around me—I have a hard time containing any of the examples specifically within the individual. Everything treads into someone else's experience, even when they and we alike are unaware.

 

[Thoreau]

Suicide is not immoral per se. One can construe your examples tiptoeing toward an abstract line, but that's not problematic. With suicide, we must also presume that the motives are correctly represented in the suicidal's mind. Yes, that is a broad standard. And, yes, if that standard is not fulfilled, the morality of a particular suicide can become an issue deserving of consideration. And things only get more complicated from there.

Pedophilia, as you have described, is more a functional question than a moral one. Even presuming that the pedophile is completely controlled insofar as he or she never lays a finger or other impropriety on a child, the fact of pedophilia will inherently affect how that adult relates to children in general. While it is possible that such an outcome presents no ill will, example, or other effect toward a child, it is very, very unlikely. The morality of the pedophile you describe is a very delicate, intricate assertion. It is also a question that cannot be answered until after the fact.

Drug use is not, in and of itself, immoral. As a species, it can be reasonably asserted that one of the first things any given group of people did after settling beyond a nomadic existence—and, we must acknowledge, in many cases during, or concomitant to, their nomadism—is begin intoxicant production. As such, one can go so far as to suggest that intoxication is fundamental to societal evolution; even without drugs, many religious mysteria over the years have sought ways to elevate consciousness through meditation or mass hysteria.

The questions of drug use in a more practical, contemporary context are myriad. But as with suicide, any harm one does oneself, one can also pass along to others. As case-in-point, we might consider ... well, me. In a more daring and belligerent expression, one might call me a sedentary vagabond. I don't like the world; I don't get along with it well. And, generally, I avoid interacting with it directly. I don't "hurt" anyone; I'm not violent, and not even threatening. But I cost people around me a lot of money in order to perpetuate my existence.

Drug use? Sure, I'm not hurting anyone by smoking pot, but I live on a lot of other people's money; it wouldn't be such a bad thing, would it, to lighten that burden on them? To the other, I suppose I can always hide behind the argument that they're willing to let me wander through life like this. It is a somewhat privileged existence, but I doubt whatever insight I may communicate on occasion resulting from my luxurious bounty of time to think would convert to any monetary value close to an even return on investment.

Or maybe I'm just depressed. But at what point does my failure to reconcile with the world around me harm the people who sustain my life functions?

Even if we're not "hurting" people directly by our actions, in what ways might we be causing them detriment?

It's not that I don't get the underlying points of your proposition, but, rather, that I can't find a place to draw a hard line. Because of the interconnectedness of all things that I do, in fact, believe in—and, in truth, consider observable in the world around me—I have a hard time containing any of the examples specifically within the individual. Everything treads into someone else's experience, even when they and we alike are unaware.

Hmmm, I think you and I see eye to eye. Well said, Tiassa! Very well said!

 

[wynn]

My point for them all is that the person in question is not the best judge for what is and isn't damaging to others. People tend to rationalize their actions, especially if it's something they really want.

I guess it doesn't really directly answer your question. I don't think we can *not* influence others with our actions, even if it seems isolated. So there is some immorality to things, even if indirectly.

Exactly.

I don't think "things" can be immoral. Actions, however, can. And that's what I'm questioning here. An action which has no affect on others (such as my example of the pedophile who does not act on his urges), how can it be immoral, even indirectly?

It has an indirect effect, in one way or another.

Your example of the pedophile who does not act on his urges: he might not act on his pedophile urges directly, but he can act on them indirectly, or in a sublimated or compensatory manner. For example, get drunk in order to numb his pedophile urges, and then drive a car, and then, due to the effects of alcohol, be unable to control his vehicle and kill a few people.

The implication of design means that it is structured and fixed. I disagree with this. I think, if anything, morality is very fluid.

Aspiring explanations of morality certainly tend to be very fluid. That doesn't mean morality itself is.

Essentially, the question at hand really is: "Can a thought be immoral?"

Of course.

There are three kinds of actions: mental, verbal and physical.

Mental actions may be more subtle than physical ones, but they are still actions.

If you wouldn't already believe that mental activity are actions, you would see no use in thinking and discussing, and you wouldn't be reading and posting here.

My main inquiry is mainly with thoughts and actions that do not affect anyone other than the thought-holder/action-taker themselves.

If you're claiming that every thought or every actions has an affect on others, even if indirectly, then supporting evidence or a logical explanation is needed.

One thing you may have learned in Buddhism is that everything everyone does affects everyone else, in some way. This is because we are not living in a vacuum, each person a world of their own, isolated from others.

 

[Balerion]

Is there anything that is inherently wrong or immoral if it doesn't affect or harm anyone else in any way?

I don't believe there is any such thing as "inherent" morality. Ethics and morality are human constructs, not innate universal laws. I think the more interesting question is whether any of these items you list here would be (or perhaps, should be) considered immoral in the context of modern morality, rather than asking if there's some boogeymonster who imprinted a code on our brains.

Suicide:
Is suicide immoral? What if the victim is suffering from a fatal illness which causes pain?

It's really hard to say. If the person committing suicide has a fatal disease as you say, and there is no hope for a cure or relief from the pain, then no. Even if that decision causes pain to loved ones, ultimately the wishes of the ill should be of greater import than family and friends. Of course, one could always cite the angsty teen who kills themselves over the girl/guy who dumped them, but I think there's quite a bit about depression that we don't yet understand. In other words, it's likely that "regular" suicide is the byproduct of a damaged brain.

Pedophilia:
Assuming one is sexually attracted to minors, yet never acts on it - is it in inherently immoral to be attracted to minors?

Of course not. Attraction is an involuntary response.

Drug Use:
Assuming that one does drugs in complete privacy around no one else, is drug use immoral?

It depends. Does it hurt family and/or friends? If so, then I would say yes.

I personally don't agree with any of these, with exception to voluntary euthanasia under certain situations. But then again, I find myself wondering why. If it doesn't hurt anyone else, why would I have a stance against it? Sure, the idea of being sexually attracted to minors creeps me out and makes me gag, as does damaging one's body with drugs. They both aren't something I'd ever find myself being/doing. But that's my morality for myself. How can someone else say what is moral or immoral for another person if it doesn't affect anyone else but that one person?

Another thing to consider is that just because someone else gets hurt by another's actions, it doesn't mean that those actions are therefore immoral. If I have stage four cancer and decide to end things before my illness robs me of my dignity, chances are my decision is going to hurt others. If my spouse is abusive and I cheat, my infidelity is going to hurt my spouse, regardless of how little right they have to such a claim. Therefore, the question isn't always "Will this hurt someone else," but "What is the context?"

 

[wynn]

Is there anything that is inherently wrong or immoral if it doesn't affect or harm anyone else in any way?

The issue is with the inherent to begin with.

Is there anything that is inherent?

And if it is not inherent, how can it be relevant?

 

[The Marquis]

Basic morality calls on pure faith in a imaginative world.

I am skhitz king.

You know, Jim Morrison called himself the Lizard King.

His poetry can take quite an effort to read. More so to understand.
And yet, for the most part, I actually do.

You, on the other hand, for all the similarities in expression, possess nothing which might be considered "insight".
Other than, perhaps, into some personal hell.

 

[The Marquis]

The issue is with the inherent to begin with.

Is there anything that is inherent?

And if it is not inherent, how can it be relevant?

The basic premise here appears to be, for the most part, that morals are absolute.
The rest is watching a gaggle of priests attempting to define the nature of god.

Wade in, if you will... but be prepared for the frosty stares.