Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: A question of morality

  1. Top | #21
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    6,146
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    9,057
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Harm does not have to be objectively defined to say that doing harm is a feature of immorality.

    Is it possible for an action or inaction to be immoral when nobody is harmed?
    I personally think harm CAN be objectively defined BUT the objective definition will necessarily invoke subjectives: because everyone will, objectively, have subjective goals, we can create an objectivity from the universality of subjectivity.

    It just means that any "objective" view of harm creates general rather than specific rules.

  2. Top | #22
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,107
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    9,904
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Harm does not have to be objectively defined to say that doing harm is a feature of immorality.

    Is it possible for an action or inaction to be immoral when nobody is harmed?
    Yes, of course it is -- examples are easy to come up with. Driving drunk from the bar and making it home without incident. Pulling your revolver's trigger the seventh time when you're in a shootout after your robbery went bad. On a chat site, propositioning a forty-year-old cop who's pretending to be a twelve-year-old girl.

  3. Top | #23
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,850
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,403
    Rep Power
    81
    Harm has to flow from the stipulation that humans have the right of autonomy.

    The right of autonomy implies the right to not be lied to, to not be impeded capriciously and without justification, to not undergo cruel and unusual torture, to not be killed unjustly.

    The right of autonomy can be impeded by the right to private property. You do not have the autonomy to go everywhere when the right to private property exists. You can't walk into Bill Gates mansion and lie down on one of the 50 couches.

    Autonomy like morality also stipulates the person has free will and the freedom to act or not act.

    The transsexual is saying the transition is an act of autonomy. It is not forced. It is not harm.

    On what grounds can the baker claim it is harm? Is saying "I am a Christian" sufficient grounds?

    How does a gender transition interfere with autonomy?

    Where is the harm and where is the victim?

  4. Top | #24
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,850
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,403
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Harm does not have to be objectively defined to say that doing harm is a feature of immorality.

    Is it possible for an action or inaction to be immoral when nobody is harmed?
    Yes, of course it is -- examples are easy to come up with. Driving drunk from the bar and making it home without incident. Pulling your revolver's trigger the seventh time when you're in a shootout after your robbery went bad. On a chat site, propositioning a forty-year-old cop who's pretending to be a twelve-year-old girl.
    What is immoral is the high probability of a victim even if by luck there was no victim.

    So doing something that could have a very high likelihood of harming someone could be considered immoral as well.

    The transsexual would not fit that description.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •