A general question on morality

[Atreus21]

I hear very many people on this forum subscribing to the view of crime as anything that harms someone else. And I take issue with this.

What exactly do you mean by harm? Some crimes don't directly harm anyone, nor are they intended to. For instance, there's a thread right now about a guy who took pictures of an underage relative while she was drunk. Suppose she had been unconscious. And he never shared the pictures with anyone. He intended them only for personal pleasure. Has he committed a crime? She wasn't harmed, and had no knowledge that this took place. Do we have any basis of convicting him of crime other than his actions were morally reprehensible? (Keep in mind, you have a constitutional right to privacy. That doesn't mean invasions of privacy are illegal.)

This extends to suicide also (although that's a slightly separate argument.) Suicide is illegal. Why? No one is harmed.

There seems to be a very big problem in this. Some crimes are called criminal sheerly on the basis of being "just plain messed up." Incest, for example, between consenting adults, is still illegal. No one is harmed or damaged. On what basis do we criminalize this other than that it's morally wrong?

This goes further. If you establish that some activities are "just plain messed up," you have to be able to provide a source of that assumption, yet none exists (especially if you can't bring religion into your reasoning.)

Can anyone provide completely secular reasoning for criminalizing acts like these?

 

[Newbian]

So as long as you don't know you were sexually abused that it's all right provided you don't find out?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Newbian
So as long as you don't know you were sexually abused that it's all right provided you don't find out?

No, certainly not.

 

[Newbian]

Well suicide can hurt those that know the person but usually it's the people that assist the person by killing them that are looked at but in cases such as certain diseases or when old age makes your life not worth living is something that needs to be looked at again.

Also for incest many times the people become pregnant and the state is forced to raise the children that have numerous items wrong with them and spends money from the tax payers to do this and by making the people that cause it helps everyone feel a bit better.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Newbian
Well suicide can hurt those that know the person but usually it's the people that assist the person by killing them that are looked at but in cases such as certain diseases or when old age makes your life not worth living is something that needs to be looked at again.

Also for incest many times the people become pregnant and the state is forced to raise the children that have numerous items wrong with them and spends money from the tax payers to do this and by making the people that cause it helps everyone feel a bit better.

The suicide point makes sense, in that it causes bad collateral damage (sp?).

But I disagree with the incest point.

 

[Newbian]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Newbian
Well suicide can hurt those that know the person but usually it's the people that assist the person by killing them that are looked at but in cases such as certain diseases or when old age makes your life not worth living is something that needs to be looked at again.

Also for incest many times the people become pregnant and the state is forced to raise the children that have numerous items wrong with them and spends money from the tax payers to do this and by making the people that cause it helps everyone feel a bit better.

The suicide point makes sense, in that it causes bad collateral damage (sp?).

But I disagree with the incest point.

Well too many genetic lines of animals have been permanently damaged by inbreeding and this has happened is cases of humans for a time that something was needed to be done.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Newbian

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Newbian
Well suicide can hurt those that know the person but usually it's the people that assist the person by killing them that are looked at but in cases such as certain diseases or when old age makes your life not worth living is something that needs to be looked at again.

Also for incest many times the people become pregnant and the state is forced to raise the children that have numerous items wrong with them and spends money from the tax payers to do this and by making the people that cause it helps everyone feel a bit better.

The suicide point makes sense, in that it causes bad collateral damage (sp?).

But I disagree with the incest point.

Well too many genetic lines of animals have been permanently damaged by inbreeding and this has happened is cases of humans for a time that something was needed to be done.

Actually, what I've read is that incest doesn't directly cause genetic disorders necessarily. It simply provides the possibility that genetic deficiencies inherent to the family will likely be passed on to the next generation.

To me, the genetic argument is valid, but if I were a pro-incest activist, I would argue that you have no right to restrain me from engaging in consensual sex because of 1. the unlikely possibility that we'll get pregnant, since we're not trying, and 2. the fear of perpetuating genetic deficiencies. What is this anyway, Nazi Germany?

This is me roleplaying an activist. I am certainly not advocating this.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I hear very many people on this forum subscribing to the view of crime as anything that harms someone else. And I take issue with this.

What exactly do you mean by harm? Some crimes don't directly harm anyone, nor are they intended to. For instance, there's a thread right now about a guy who took pictures of an underage relative while she was drunk. Suppose she had been unconscious. And he never shared the pictures with anyone. He intended them only for personal pleasure. Has he committed a crime? She wasn't harmed, and had no knowledge that this took place. Do we have any basis of convicting him of crime other than his actions were morally reprehensible? (Keep in mind, you have a constitutional right to privacy. That doesn't mean invasions of privacy are illegal.)

This extends to suicide also (although that's a slightly separate argument.) Suicide is illegal. Why? No one is harmed.

There seems to be a very big problem in this. Some crimes are called criminal sheerly on the basis of being "just plain messed up." Incest, for example, between consenting adults, is still illegal. No one is harmed or damaged. On what basis do we criminalize this other than that it's morally wrong?

This goes further. If you establish that some activities are "just plain messed up," you have to be able to provide a source of that assumption, yet none exists (especially if you can't bring religion into your reasoning.)

Can anyone provide completely secular reasoning for criminalizing acts like these?

Read any Crim Law 101 text.

 

[Modelworks]

Not to make it a thread about religion but that is where a lot of it comes from . Like it or not the country was founded by people who believed in religion and their morals were based on that.
Suicide was wrong because it is considered wrong by the church. The same with incest and other related crimes.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Not to make it a thread about religion but that is where a lot of it comes from . Like it or not the country was founded by people who believed in religion and their morals were based on that.
Suicide was wrong because it is considered wrong by the church. The same with incest and other related crimes.

Well, I'm trying to see if secular arguments exist.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Not to make it a thread about religion but that is where a lot of it comes from . Like it or not the country was founded by people who believed in religion and their morals were based on that.
Suicide was wrong because it is considered wrong by the church. The same with incest and other related crimes.

Well, I'm trying to see if secular arguments exist.

Then you have to go back in history to determine why the church made such things immoral.

A couple I know of.
Incest was prohibited because it leads to deformities. If you live in a village where the same families have lived for a hundred years and there really is not much new genetic material added, deformities from incest are much more likely. Although it was allowed that kings could wed sisters to keep the bloodlines pure.

Suicide because it is considered murder, the thou shalt not kill law applies, and since the church believes that in order to not go to hell you have to ask for absolution, you can't in the case of suicide because you are dead.

 

[racolvin]

The pictures weren't his only "crime". He provided alcohol to a minor, which in itself is illegal. He then proceeded to take dirty pictures of her while she was under the influence of said alcohol and her judgment too impaired by that to realize the full impact of allowing him to take pictures - those pictures might have been kept for personal masturbatory purposes or they could have been shared around the world on the Internet. Either way, getting her drunk (crime #1) and inducing her to allow him to take nude photos of someone under 18 (crime 2) results in "harm" to the minor in question. That "harm" might not be the same as beating her up or raping her but he effectively drugged her and took advantage of her.

 

[QuantumPion]

I think there are two different levels of Morality.

Absolute morality: basically private property rights over yourself. Doing anything that would harm someone else's personal property rights is inherently immoral. This includes murder, theft, etc. An argument could be made that this also precludes adultery (i.e. you have a binding contract with your spouse).

Cultural morality: morality based on cultural norms passed down over generations, subject to gradual change. This includes stuff that, even though is between consenting adults, is taboo, e.g. incest, polygamy, drugs, suicide, etc.

 

[LumbergTech]

I don't agree that no one is harmed if someone commits suicide. Someone may or may not be harmed

Shall we define harm to get to the point of this?

I would say that when someone loses a loved one, there MAY be verifiable physical damage.

It would be easier to tell such things if you had a before and after assessment of said "someones" brain and or body.


Also, when someone commits suicide, someone has to clean up the mess or handle the body etc.