How to refute the "it doesn't hurt anybody" argument?

[Nate8080]

Hello, new here. I oftentimes argue philosophy and theology with people online, and I have ran into a point which rather stumps me.

When I argue with atheists against the morality of certain types of sexual acts, they will often say, “how does it hurt anyone?” or “how does it effect you in any particular way”. They use this argument to defend perverted masturbation, fornication, and homosexuality. Obviously shooting back with “Because God said so” or “Because it is immoral” doesn’t really work, because atheists don’t believe in God, or in objective morality. So my question is this, how do I answer the “it doesn’t hurt you/anyone” point in regard to masturbation or homosexuality?

Thank you

 

[Rhubarb]

I can think of three ways to counter these sorts of argument off the top of my head.

(1) The acts are in fact harmful in ways they do not percieve.
(2) That the objectionable act’s morality isn’t tied up in harm.
(3) That by refraining from an act you are bringing about a good worth the sacrifice.

Depending on what you’re discussing you can decide which route to take. Clearly this is the hard part. An act done by consenting adults and only consenting adults is very hard to argue against. I suspect I’m telling you things you already know so I’ll stop here. If I think of anything I’ll continue.

 

[Nate8080]

I can think of three ways to counter these sorts of argument off the top of my head.

(1) The acts are in fact harmful in ways they do not percieve.
(2) That the objectionable act’s morality isn’t tied up in harm.
(3) That by refraining from an act you are bringing about a good worth the sacrifice.

Depending on what you’re discussing you can decide which route to take. Clearly this is the hard part. An act done by consenting adults and only consenting adults is very hard to argue against. I suspect I’m telling you things you already know so I’ll stop here. If I think of anything I’ll continue.

K, here is what they would probably respond.

1. Prove it, how so?
2. Objective Morality does not exist, and even if it did how is private masturbation or sex morally wrong?
3. Atheists don’t believe in good worth the sacrifice, because they don’t believe in God. Kinda falls on itself.

Ya, I kinda want unassailable arguments for the sole purpose of winning the quibble…lol

 

[heidi_storage]

“How does it affect you” can be quickly disposed of. How does genocide in another continent affect you? So why do you care?*

By extension: Why do you care whether a practice “hurts anyone”? The atheist will answer to both, probably, that you don’t need God to have a sense of morality, which at its most basic, universal root is treating people decently.

But why? Are you upholding social contract theory? Is this an evolutionary development in human beings intended to promote their spread? Does it make you feel good to act decently toward others?

The atheist will have answers for you–that it makes him/her feel good to do good, that human society wouldn’t be possible without certain behavioral standards, that it benefits him/her to promote a world that practices a certain ethic–but the fact is, a universal, logically-based morality–a sense that something is right, and something else is wrong–really isn’t tenable without positing some moral authority that is the arbiter of what should be. That unchanging moral authority (though OF COURSE individual circumstances will change the APPLICATION of morality) is God.

So–keep probing. Keep questioning. The Christian’s worldview is a coherent one, and most atheists tend to borrow from it (or perhaps from another religious tradition) rather than being consistent in relativism. For relativism ends in nihilism, in intellectual and moral suicide.

*P.S. Yes, this is a “tu quoque” argument. I don’t think it’s fallacious in this context, though, because the purpose is to get the person to examine his/her own assumptions about the nature of morality.

P.P.S. It’s very noble of you to debate these things with people, but I’m pretty skeptical that it does any good. Anything you can be argued into, you can be argued out of, and the really core issue–that is, faith in Christ–is something that must be effected by the Holy Spirit’s changing the person’s heart. Not that we shouldn’t share the gospel!

 

[Nate8080]

“How does it affect you” can be quickly disposed of. How does genocide in another continent affect you? So why do you care?*

By extension: Why do you care whether a practice “hurts anyone”? The atheist will answer to both, probably, that you don’t need God to have a sense of morality, which at its most basic, universal root is treating people decently.

But why? Are you upholding social contract theory? Is this an evolutionary development in human beings intended to promote their spread? Does it make you feel good to act decently toward others?

The atheist will have answers for you–that it makes him/her feel good to do good, that human society wouldn’t be possible without certain behavioral standards, that it benefits him/her to promote a world that practices a certain ethic–but the fact is, a universal, logically-based morality–a sense that something is right, and something else is wrong–really isn’t tenable without positing some moral authority that is the arbiter of what should be. That unchanging moral authority (though OF COURSE individual circumstances will change the APPLICATION of morality) is God.

So–keep probing. Keep questioning. The Christian’s worldview is a coherent one, and most atheists tend to borrow from it (or perhaps from another religious tradition) rather than being consistent in relativism. For relativism ends in nihilism, in intellectual and moral suicide.

*P.S. Yes, this is a “tu quoque” argument. I don’t think it’s fallacious in this context, though, because the purpose is to get the person to examine his/her own assumptions about the nature of morality.

P.P.S. It’s very noble of you to debate these things with people, but I’m pretty skeptical that it does any good. Anything you can be argued into, you can be argued out of, and the really core issue–that is, faith in Christ–is something that must be effected by the Holy Spirit’s changing the person’s heart. Not that we shouldn’t share the gospel!

Nice response, and thank you. Well, the good side of me argues with atheists because I want to understand and be able to defend my Faith more fully. The bad side of me argues with atheists for the thrill of verbally destroying another person…my lawyer side…lol

 

[HoistedSheep]

The “it doesn’t hurt anybody” argument is weak because it is shallow. Of course, stating this does not make it true. We must also explore an act and break down its harmful qualities.
Let’s start with masturbation. Its harmlessness is seemingly the hardest to refute, because it supposedly only involves one person and only affects this said person. But when we look at the definition of masturbation, and the reason for its performance, we see that this is not true. Masturbation is defined in the Oxford dictionary as a verb meaning " to stimulate one’s own genitals for sexual pleasure." The key term here is “stimulate”. This is a verb, and verbs mean action. They are not static. All actions have a cause. The cause for masturbation is sexual gratification. Sexual gratification can not be obtained by means of photosynthesis. We are not plants. Therefore, even if another person is not present, we still evoke their presence by lustful fantasies.
Is this literal sex with said person? no. But in a way, it is far more negative than sex for sex sake. In the act of sex, we are confronted with the person in flesh and blood. We hear their voice and smell their scent. Most importantly, we interact with them, laugh with them. It is almost impossible to see them solely as a means to an end. But through sexual fantasies, we are kept at a safe distance from this said person. We reduce them entirely to sexual objects. Suppose this said person is a man or woman we feel affection for. We are stripping them of their personal qualities, and therefore their humanity. They become nothing more than card-board cut outs for our genitals to enjoy.
Does this harm this said person physically? Well, no. But if the person who formed a lustful fantasy talks to him or her in real life, there is a dishonesty in this. He or she is being deceived. It harms the person who masturbates because it distances them from reality. It hampers their ability to interact on the human level. It reduces their romantic affection to a mechanical urge. Does a dog feel a romantic affection for the leg or teddy bear he straddles to satisfy his urge? No. When we reduce our romantic affections to satisfy an urge, we demean our humanity.
The need for sexual gratification has caused the sex industry. It fills brothels and lures troubled women into slavery. This need has become especially more harmful to others in the recent century because of pornagraphy. In this case, we can not say that masturbation does not physically harm the person we fantasize about. Every time a person masturbates to pornagraphy, they are ignoring the fact that this person on the screen or photograph is a three-dimensional being, a daughter, a sister, even a mother. To forget this in the name of self-satisfaction is catastrophic to ourselves and the people who suffer for the fulfillment of this urge.
It is a self-proclaimed need that fuels other atrocities, including greed, and at its most extreme, murder. How many advertisers use sex as a vehicle for sales, thereby obtaining customers for products produced by sweat shops? How many women have been killed by pimps and johns? How many have committed suicide because of sexual exploitation? How many babies have been aborted because of pregnancies caused by sex acts committed in these situations? It might seem implausible to leap from masturbation to murder. But all is connected. Even the smallest action sets off a domino effect of causes.

 

[Nate8080]

The “it doesn’t hurt anybody” argument is weak because it is shallow. Of course, stating this does not make it true. We must also explore an act and break down its harmful qualities.
Let’s start with masturbation. Its harmlessness is seemingly the hardest to refute, because it supposedly only involves one person and only affects this said person. But when we look at the definition of masturbation, and the reason for its performance, we see that this is not true. Masturbation is defined in the Oxford dictionary as a verb meaning " to stimulate one’s own genitals for sexual pleasure." The key term here is “stimulate”. This is a verb, and verbs mean action. They are not static. All actions have a cause. The cause for masturbation is sexual gratification. Sexual gratification can not be obtained by means of photosynthesis. We are not plants. Therefore, even if another person is not present, we still evoke their presence by lustful fantasies.
Is this literal sex with said person? no. But in a way, it is far more negative than sex for sex sake. In the act of sex, we are confronted with the person in flesh and blood. We hear their voice and smell their scent. Most importantly, we interact with them, laugh with them. It is almost impossible to see them solely as a means to an end. But through sexual fantasies, we are kept at a safe distance from this said person. We reduce them entirely to sexual objects. Suppose this said person is a man or woman we feel affection for. We are stripping them of their personal qualities, and therefore their humanity. They become nothing more than card-board cut outs for our genitals to enjoy.
Does this harm this said person physically? Well, no. But if the person who formed a lustful fantasy talks to him or her in real life, there is a dishonesty in this. He or she is being deceived. It harms the person who masturbates because it distances them from reality. It hampers their ability to interact on the human level. It reduces their romantic affection to a mechanical urge. Does a dog feel a romantic affection for the leg or teddy bear he straddles to satisfy his urge? No. When we reduce our romantic affections to satisfy an urge, we demean our humanity.
The need for sexual gratification has caused the sex industry. It fills brothels and lures troubled women into slavery. This need has become especially more harmful to others in the recent century because of pornagraphy. In this case, we can not say that masturbation does not physically harm the person we fantasize about. Every time a person masturbates to pornagraphy, they are ignoring the fact that this person on the screen or photograph is a three-dimensional being, a daughter, a sister, even a mother. To forget this in the name of self-satisfaction is catastrophic to ourselves and the people who suffer for the fulfillment of this urge.
It is a self-proclaimed need that fuels other atrocities, including greed, and at its most extreme, murder. How many advertisers use sex as a vehicle for sales, thereby obtaining customers for products produced by sweat shops? How many women have been killed by pimps and johns? How many have committed suicide because of sexual exploitation? How many babies have been aborted because of pregnancies caused by sex acts committed in these situations? It might seem implausible to leap from masturbation to murder. But all is connected. Even the smallest action sets off a domino effect of causes.

Great point. I was about to say the weak point in the last guys argument was that genocide is not comparable to masturbation…but thanks for the reply.

 

[Todd977]

Can science help? Perhaps there is some study showing a relationship between length of marriage to a person’s happiness and longevity. Perhaps there is some study showing an inverse relationship between a person’s promiscuity before and during his marriage to the length of his marriage. Perhaps there is some study showing a relationship between the general well-being of a child to the length of his parent’s marriage.

If you could find such studies, then they would refute the argument that sexual acts outside of marriage, including masturbation, don’t hurt anybody because they would show that such acts affect a person’s long-term happiness and longevity and the general well-being of his children.

Perhaps there is also some study showing an inverse relationship between an active homosexual lifestyle and a person’s long-term happiness and longevity. However, even if homosexual acts don’t “hurt” anyone directly, because they never produce children, they “hurt” the species’ ability to propagate. Homosexual acts also prevent their genes and any particular immunity, etc. they might carry from naturally entering the gene pool, thus “hurting” the species’ ability to survive.

 

[3DOCTORS]

The “it doesn’t hurt anybody” argument is weak because it is shallow. Of course, stating this does not make it true. We must also explore an act and break down its harmful qualities.
Let’s start with masturbation. Its harmlessness is seemingly the hardest to refute, because it supposedly only involves one person and only affects this said person. But when we look at the definition of masturbation, and the reason for its performance, we see that this is not true. Masturbation is defined in the Oxford dictionary as a verb meaning " to stimulate one’s own genitals for sexual pleasure." The key term here is “stimulate”. This is a verb, and verbs mean action. They are not static. All actions have a cause. The cause for masturbation is sexual gratification. Sexual gratification can not be obtained by means of photosynthesis. We are not plants. Therefore, even if another person is not present, we still evoke their presence by lustful fantasies.
Is this literal sex with said person? no. But in a way, it is far more negative than sex for sex sake. In the act of sex, we are confronted with the person in flesh and blood. We hear their voice and smell their scent. Most importantly, we interact with them, laugh with them. It is almost impossible to see them solely as a means to an end. But through sexual fantasies, we are kept at a safe distance from this said person. We reduce them entirely to sexual objects. Suppose this said person is a man or woman we feel affection for. We are stripping them of their personal qualities, and therefore their humanity. They become nothing more than card-board cut outs for our genitals to enjoy.
Does this harm this said person physically? Well, no. But if the person who formed a lustful fantasy talks to him or her in real life, there is a dishonesty in this. He or she is being deceived. It harms the person who masturbates because it distances them from reality. It hampers their ability to interact on the human level. It reduces their romantic affection to a mechanical urge. Does a dog feel a romantic affection for the leg or teddy bear he straddles to satisfy his urge? No. When we reduce our romantic affections to satisfy an urge, we demean our humanity.
The need for sexual gratification has caused the sex industry. It fills brothels and lures troubled women into slavery. This need has become especially more harmful to others in the recent century because of pornagraphy. In this case, we can not say that masturbation does not physically harm the person we fantasize about. Every time a person masturbates to pornagraphy, they are ignoring the fact that this person on the screen or photograph is a three-dimensional being, a daughter, a sister, even a mother. To forget this in the name of self-satisfaction is catastrophic to ourselves and the people who suffer for the fulfillment of this urge.
It is a self-proclaimed need that fuels other atrocities, including greed, and at its most extreme, murder. How many advertisers use sex as a vehicle for sales, thereby obtaining customers for products produced by sweat shops? How many women have been killed by pimps and johns? How many have committed suicide because of sexual exploitation? How many babies have been aborted because of pregnancies caused by sex acts committed in these situations? It might seem implausible to leap from masturbation to murder. But all is connected. Even the smallest action sets off a domino effect of causes.

Awesome post, especially the part I bolded should be good in the specific argument of proving there are actually quite visible victims of the smut industry. But even if a person is lusting after someone they really are attracted to in real life, they don’t have the right to use that person in that way. You may have heard of the BTK serial killer, Dennis Rader. I certainly did, as I live in the city where he committed several of his sick murders. When law enforcement found he had files upon files of pictures of women he’d cut out from catalogs and such, and used for his gratification - would you want your picture used that way? It’s disgusting and gross. I’m not trying to say everyone who masturbates is a Rader. But the Bible tells us to take no part in the fruitless works of darkness.

 

[ClearWater]

Hello, new here. I oftentimes argue philosophy and theology with people online, and I have ran into a point which rather stumps me.

When I argue with atheists against the morality of certain types of sexual acts, they will often say, “how does it hurt anyone?” or “how does it effect you in any particular way”. They use this argument to defend perverted masturbation, fornication, and homosexuality. Obviously shooting back with “Because God said so” or “Because it is immoral” doesn’t really work, because atheists don’t believe in God, or in objective morality. So my question is this, how do I answer the “it doesn’t hurt you/anyone” point in regard to masturbation or homosexuality?

Thank you

How does homosexuality, for example, affect us? Well, first of all, it becomes legal. Then, if you have a faith, like the Catholic, Christ, I think Muslim, we are not supposed to participate in homosexual acts.

Now, we are not even to, say, take pictures for a gay “marriage”, because it goes against our faith. This country was established on freedom of religion. However, when homosexual “marriage” is in, if one doesn’t participate…doesn’t want to take pictures at a gay “marriage” due to religious issues, he can be fined.

I’ve seen where people have had to close down their businesses, because they didn’t feel they had the right to practice their religion, any more.

Take, Catholic Charities adoption unit, in Massachusetts. A gay “couple” went to them asking to adopt a baby. Now, if they refuse, it would now be construed as “discrimination”.

Catholic Charities had that adoption unit which did wonderful work for, not sure how many years. There were plenty of other adoption units the gay “couple” could have gone to, just wanted to try to literally make a federal case out of this.

Okay…so this “couple” won, got the adoption unit there closed down, and I understand other Catholic adoption units across the country.

It DOES affect us. It affects this to the point some people no longer have the right to practice their faith any more.

If they don’t give to adoption to gay “couples”, they can also lose federal funding. Whereas, if we didn’t allow gays to marry, all these churches, I believe could still receive funding.

You have cakebakers who are Christian who have gotten hauled off, brought into court over this issue for trying to uphold their beliefs, gotten nasty phone calls.

Some businesses get “kiss ins” and other things.

One can get labeled a “bigot” and more.

It has repercussions up and down.

That’s just ONE example, but there are many for each.

 

[ClearWater]

With gay “marriage”, again, it makes it so that now, the taxpayers also need to pay all these survivors benefits to gay “couples” for something much of society believes is something which is actually detrimental to society.

Then, from there, it has gotten to where the taxpayer, in some cases, jails and places have been sued for not providing such things as sex change operations and services which are quite expensive.

Well, it’s just that many insurances won’t cover “cosmetic” surgery for someone, but we are in some cases paying for people’s sex change operations?

Further, statistically, people with sex change operations often don’t do well, probably because they are trying to be something they are not. Even if you fill them full of hormones, cut off parts and all, they are who they are.

These people who had these operations tend not to be happier people for it, seemingly, by gauging by the number of suicides and other indices.

So, some of us don’t think this is the proper course in encouraging what has been shown to hurt people.

We have bunches of people, and children, who no longer no what to answer when they ask what gender they are. Gender confusion is rampant, but some think this is acceptable, want to still promote this.

We need to promote what has been shown to be helpful to society rather than harmful.

 

[ClearWater]

As to fornication, ask some single mothers if they now think this was a good idea.

Some men never bothered with the child. Now granted, some married men do this, but at least with marriage, there is a commitment. With fornication, there’s no commitment, no nothing.

Children of single parents are worse on pretty much any index you care to examine. There’s more poverty…greater incarceration, delinquency. Even with marriage, imperfect as it is, it tends to give children a better chance at life.

Children of single parents have a greater probability of ending up “on the system”, receiving money.

Women who get dumped after pregnancy often end up so disappointed at being abandoned.

Fornication promotes disease. Monogamy decreases it.

If everyone were monogamous, would we even have STDs?

 

[ClearWater]

With fornication, what happens when the contraception fails? It clearly affects another life.

 

[ClearWater]

How do you refute this? You take each argument…homosexuality…fornication…one by one, show how each…the consequences can, and DO, affect the person AND others.

Fornication, for example, teaches an example to others. Young people see it, imitate it, when they often can’t handle it. Were we faithful, they’d more than likely imitate faithfulness in greater numbers.

 

[runningdude]

K, here is what they would probably respond.

…

Ya, I kinda want unassailable arguments for the sole purpose of winning the quibble…lol

Morality is not about “winning”; it is about building relationships that aid in getting to heaven. Humans possess unlimited guile, and can rationalize away any immoral behavior; attempting to “win”, when the goal post can be moved ever farther away is futile.

A debate or game is a poor way to evangelize. A debate implies that the other side might be right, when (let’s be honest) we know the atheist is wrong. The discussion needs to be fundamentally respectful and solemn, because consequences involve the individual’s immortal soul. Treating this with the triviality of a game will only lead to undesirable results.

 

[dmar198]

Hello, new here. I oftentimes argue philosophy and theology with people online, and I have ran into a point which rather stumps me.

When I argue with atheists against the morality of certain types of sexual acts, they will often say, “how does it hurt anyone?” or “how does it effect you in any particular way”. They use this argument to defend perverted masturbation, fornication, and homosexuality. Obviously shooting back with “Because God said so” or “Because it is immoral” doesn’t really work, because atheists don’t believe in God, or in objective morality. So my question is this, how do I answer the “it doesn’t hurt you/anyone” point in regard to masturbation or homosexuality?

Thank you

If “anybody” includes the person doing the act, then it does hurt them, spiritually. I would try to prove that point: prove the immorality of the act, and you can prove that it hurts the person who commits it, on the spiritual level. That moves the discussion to where it needs to be, in my opinion: whether there is a spiritual component to human beings, what its rules of conduct are, and why.

You can springboard from there to show that immoral actions hurt other people, spiritually, too. We are all connected. When one part of the body suffers, the whole body suffers with it.

You could also challenge the assumption that underlies the claim “It doesn’t hurt anybody.” The assumption there is that something has to affect other people in order to be wrong. Why do they think that? Get them to give some reasons. It seems to me that their assumption is unreasonable whether you look at it from a Catholic worldview or an atheist one.

Moreover, you could argue that, if something can be bad because of how it affects other people, then it can also be bad because of how it affects the person who does it. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and what’s bad for all is bad for each.

Or, you could argue that some acts are intrinsically immoral, not because of their consequences but because of what they are. Then prove that point using natural law morality.

Just a few ideas of how to answer this objection.

 

[Rhubarb]

K, here is what they would probably respond.

1. Prove it, how so?
2. Objective Morality does not exist, and even if it did how is private masturbation or sex morally wrong?
3. Atheists don’t believe in good worth the sacrifice, because they don’t believe in God. Kinda falls on itself.

Ya, I kinda want unassailable arguments for the sole purpose of winning the quibble…lol

Firstly you’re not going to find an unassailable argument in philosophy. They don’t exist. Now let me address the points you brought up.

(1) You need to specify exactly what you’re arguing against to start. I know of an argument that uses Speech Act Theory to show that pornography is harmful to women as a whole. This argument won’t apply to other issues.

(2) Atheists can believe in an objective morality. A formulation of Kantian deontology springs to mind. Regardless my point was that you can argue that something is immoral without appealing to the harm it does. Certain moral systems could make an appeal to intention for example - an act that is beneficial buy with a bad intention could be seen as morally wrong. Deontology also doesn’t rely on the consequences of an act.

(3) Refraining from an act for a greater good isn’t sacrifice for sacrifice’s sake. Saving your money instead of having a good time with it in order to buy a house is an example. Morally speaking, saving Sex for marriage makes the act more special is an argument that might show that refraining from pre-marital sex would lead to a greater good.

If you want to “beat” this person the first thing you need to to is agree on terms and lay down premises you share in common. Otherwise you can lay out a perfectly valid argument and they’ll have grounds to reject your premises. Figure out what they think about morality and then go from there.