"If it doesn't hurt anyone..."

[Nate8080]

Another thread about this topic, I need some really good answers here. This particular claim made by moral relativists everywhere always seems to stump me.

Whenever someone is attempting to justify some immoral or deviant sexual act, such as masturbation, zoophilia (jerking off to cartoon animal porn), homosexuality, etc. they will simply refer to the adage, “If it doesn’t hurt anyone there is nothing wrong with it.” I always get stuck here…how do I refute this point? Abstract logic and philosophical answers never seem to satisfy, I need something more concrete…

If someone is masturbating to some cartoon porn or **** like it, how does it actively harm anyone, and why is it wrong? Assumming the person doesn’t believe in God.

Thanks

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Another thread about this topic, I need some really good answers here. This particular claim made by moral relativists everywhere always seems to stump me.

Whenever someone is attempting to justify some immoral or deviant sexual act, such as masturbation, zoophilia (jerking off to cartoon animal porn), homosexuality, etc. they will simply refer to the adage, “If it doesn’t hurt anyone there is nothing wrong with it.” I always get stuck here…how do I refute this point? Abstract logic and philosophical answers never seem to satisfy, I need something more concrete…

If someone is masturbating to some cartoon porn or **** like it, how does it actively harm anyone, and why is it wrong? Assumming the person doesn’t believe in God.

Thanks

For starters, the extent of their belief in God doesn’t affect whether or not God exists, and as such by engaging in sinful actions they are harming themselves whether they think they are or not.

That aside, if they think that viewing pornography doesn’t hurt anyone then they are sorely mistaken:

chastity.com/article/pornography-what%E2%80%99s-the-problem

For starters, many of the women in pornography are abuse victims, and many women get into pornography due to their boyfriend’s pushing them into, or outright forcing them to. There’s a significantly increased rate of suicide and drug use among pron stars, and there’s also the consideration of the high potential for std transmittal. These are only a few of the reasons that pornography hurts -other- people. It also causes a significant amount of damage to the user. It’s effects have been likened to a controlled substance such as cocaine in that they overstimulate several areas of the brain and create a dependence on increasingly-graphic stimulation in order to maintain “normal” levels.

As for homosexuality, we only need to look at medical studies to illustrate how that is anything by neutral health-wise. I believe the website I linked to includes information and links to studies on the subject.

I hope that helps, God Bless!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Whenever someone is attempting to justify some immoral or deviant sexual act, such as masturbation, zoophilia (jerking off to cartoon animal porn),

I think you are referring to “furries” here.

If someone is masturbating to some cartoon porn or **** like it, how does it actively harm anyone, and why is it wrong? Assumming the person doesn’t believe in God.

The basis I hear for why these things are “wrong” is that they are harmful to the soul. But this argument isn’t effective to some one that doesn’t believe their is a soul or does not hold the same beliefs about how a soul may be injured.

At best you could link the behaviour to some type of potential harm that it makes more likely or to which it contributes. But if it can’t be shown that it is possible for such an act to be committed without any one else being harmed then the effectiveness of this type of argument diminishes. For example, one of the arguments in the thread about prohibiting porn is that the person in the film may have been forced into it through some type of sex trafficking. But if I think my porn is traffic free then I won’t mentally classify it as problematic.

 

[DanielJT]

Pain is not a good measure of morals.

If I punch you in the face and you didn’t want it we can both agree that was wrong. I hurt you. This is “If it doesn’t hurt any one, there is nothing wrong.”

If I drive around all day drunk but never hurt anyone we can agree that I am still doing something wrong because, despite the lack of actual pain being caused there is still a potential for pain.
OK, so actually, “if it doesn’t hurt or POTENTIALLY hurt someone that it isn’t wrong.”

If my government promises that they will not promote any one religion (and this is especially relevant with the atheists) and then erects a large crucifix next to the statue of liberty making sure that the construction is sound and there is no potential for anyone near it to come to harm, this is wrong.
AH HA, symbols are powerful and promises, especially by those in power, mean something. A citizen of the United States has the right to practice any religion they want without their government’s imposition. Even freedom to not practice religion.
Adjust again, “if it is not hurting, potentially hurting, or infringing upon the rights of the individual as a citizen . . .”

Pain is not the limit of morals. Let’s take it the other way.

Is there every a time to impose pain upon another human being?

Were you born? And how did your mother feel as you were being squeezed through that birth canal? If the only reason you did not want to have a baby was because she did not want to deal with the pain of birth (and even with drugs it is not a comfortable experience) would that be a justifiable reason to have an abortion?

What about a flu shot? You don’t want the shot but you don’t want to get sick either (ignoring the hoopla surrounding vaccines right now)

Physical therapy. Is this intrinsically evil because there is no way around the pain?

How about self defense? should you be expected to gently deal with an attack that will not relent because, hey, “As long as you are not hurting them, you are most likely in the right.”

Hope this helps a little.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Pain is not a good measure of morals.

I don’t think that harm (hurt) is necessarily being equated to “pain.”

ex: a morphine overdoes doesn’t hurt, but it can harm.

 

[Al_Gonkwin]

If someone is masturbating to some cartoon porn or **** like it, how does it actively harm anyone, and why is it wrong? Assumming the person doesn’t believe in God.

If they don’t believe in God, there is no reason to believe that such acts are ‘wrong’.

 

[Bradski]

That aside, if they think that viewing pornography doesn’t hurt anyone then they are sorely mistaken:

I think you’ve missed the point of the OP. The question was not ‘is something wrong if it hurts someone (even if you think it doesn’t)’ but ‘is something wrong if it doesn’t cause harm- period’.

For example, my grandparents had a fantastic marriage that lasted over 60 years. If they had sex before they got married and they personally had no problem with it (being totally committed to each other) and no-one else knew, then you are going to have a hell of a time convincing me that any harm was done.

So no, if it does no harm (physically, emotionally, mentally or any other type of harm you would care to nominate), then there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[MarcoPolo]

If someone is masturbating to some cartoon porn or **** like it, how does it actively harm anyone, and why is it wrong? Assumming the person doesn’t believe in God.

During a sexual act, the body releases various chemicals like dopamine that addict the person toward the object of gratification. This is why people get addicted to porn. In a committed relationship, the body actually fortifies what was already committed. Masturbatory acts damage one’s ability to engage in a healthy relationship because of the sterile imagery addiction toward which pornography, even cartoon, pull the person. Likewise, I think this quote from C.S. Lewis is relevant:
*“For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back; sends the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides.

"And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman.

"For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no woman can rival.

"Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover; no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification ever imposed on his vanity.

"In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself. . . . After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of our selves, out of the little dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is to be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison.”

• Personal Letter From Lewis to Keith Masson (found in The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume 3)

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I think you’ve missed the point of the OP. The question was not ‘is something wrong if it hurts someone (even if you think it doesn’t)’ but ‘is something wrong if it doesn’t cause harm- period’.

Sorry, but I believe you are the one that has missed the point of my post. His question was specifically related to pornography, and my response was addressing the fact that pornography -does- hurt someone, and therefore would not fall under the clause of “doing no harm, period”

For example, my grandparents had a fantastic marriage that lasted over 60 years. If they had sex before they got married and they personally had no problem with it (being totally committed to each other) and no-one else knew, then you are going to have a hell of a time convincing me that any harm was done.

Whether you’re convinced or not is of no consequence, either harm was done or it wasn’t. I would argue that from a moral standpoint, harm was done, even if the effects of that harm were not made visible within the extent of his life. You have to consider more than just your grandfather and grandmother, however, and think about the woman (women) your grandfather slept with, and take into account if those actions had any effect on their lives or the lives of their families. To put it bluntly, there’s absolutely no way for you to make the declaration that no harm was done. Your grandfather may have been fine, that doesn’t mean everyone else was.

So no, if it does no harm (physically, emotionally, mentally or any other type of harm you would care to nominate), then there is nothing wrong with it.

I agree, if no harm is done, then there’s nothing wrong. The problem is in determining whether or not harm was done. Things are not sins because the Church denounces them, the Church denounces them -because- they cause harm. The effects of an action may not be readily apparent, but that does not mean that they are non-existent. All of the examples the OP gave cause harm to the individual doing them, another individual engaged in the production of them, or both to varying degrees.

 

[Bradski]

Whether you’re convinced or not is of no consequence, either harm was done or it wasn’t. I would argue that from a moral standpoint, harm was done, even if the effects of that harm were not made visible within the extent of his life. You have to consider more than just your grandfather and grandmother, however, and think about the woman (women) your grandfather slept with, and take into account if those actions had any effect on their lives or the lives of their families. To put it bluntly, there’s absolutely no way for you to make the declaration that no harm was done. Your grandfather may have been fine, that doesn’t mean everyone else was.

We are talking hypothetically here. As well as I got on with my Grandad, we never actually got around to talking about his sex life. Especially with my grandmother…

Nevertheless, if there was, in this hypothetical scenario, no-one else involved and neither partner were in any way harmed and no-one else even knew about it, then quite literally, no harm was done so, as you yourself say:

….if no harm is done, then there’s nothing wrong.

 

[Aloysium]

I think “cause no harm” is part of the Hippocratic Oath; it isn’t one of the commandments. We are to love God with all our hearts and our neighbor as ourselves.

Perhaps someone can explain how masturbating is an act of love towards another; how does it benefit anyone?

Masturbation and acts that treat the other as a sexual object do harm to the individual him/herself.
Clearly it only brings pleasure to the person alone.
It is also addictive, short-circuiting the mind/brain’s natural functioning.

I have heard masturbation being touted as being healthy and necessary. This is a symptom of a society whose central core is not Love, but rather selfishness, isolation, discontent, and meaninglessness.

(BTW: The CS Lewis quote above is as right on the mark as it is scary - I hadn’t read it before. Thanks.)

 

[madtom]

Sorry, but I believe you are the one that has missed the point of my post. His question was specifically related to pornography, and my response was addressing the fact that pornography -does- hurt someone, and therefore would not fall under the clause of “doing no harm, period”

actually, I think you have missed the point. the OP clearly used the example of “cartoon porn” so that we specifically do in fact have an example where no one is being harmed. but the OP should have title this thread as “If it doesn’t hurt anyone ELSE…” because it seems that the only concern is whether our actions harm other people. but what about harming ourselves? If someone commits suicide, and they have no family or friends that suffer from their death, does that make it ok? or is it still wrong? the simple answer is that even if the only person we hurt is ourselves, then you are still doing harm and you are doing something destructive and wrong.

 

[Bradski]

…the simple answer is that even if the only person we hurt is ourselves, then you are still doing harm and you are doing something destructive and wrong.

That’s not an answer, it’s a further qualification to the question. The question is: If NO HARM is done, so that would include oneself.

Going back to the couple having sex outside marriage and then going on to have a blissfully happy and successful umpteen years of marriage together, then…I’m sorry to keep labouring this….no harm has been done. It is therefore not wrong.

If by every criteria you can think of, the couple said that they experienced no harm whatsoever, it is chutzpah of the highest order to say: ‘No – you are wrong. I’ll be the best judge of that!’

If anyone has the attitude that despite anyone being able to find anything at all that could be possibly described as harmful, then it must still be wrong ‘because the church says so’, then just say so.

 

[DanielJT]

That’s not an answer, it’s a further qualification to the question. The question is: If NO HARM is done, so that would include oneself.

Going back to the couple having sex outside marriage and then going on to have a blissfully happy and successful umpteen years of marriage together, then…I’m sorry to keep labouring this….no harm has been done. It is therefore not wrong.

If by every criteria you can think of, the couple said that they experienced no harm whatsoever, it is chutzpah of the highest order to say: ‘No – you are wrong. I’ll be the best judge of that!’

If anyone has the attitude that despite anyone being able to find anything at all that could be possibly described as harmful, then it must still be wrong ‘because the church says so’, then just say so.

In your example of the couple having sex outside of marriage, I would argue that there is harm being done.

Human beings do not live so that each and every moment is completely separate from the next. We make associations and create “mind-sets”. Those associations are what build the experience which we refer to as reality.

The full experience of marriage includes the sexual act between a man and a woman because it is the beginning of preparing to raise children.

When a couple engages in sex outside of a fully committed relationship (one that has been not only agreed upon between the two, but promised before God, family, the community, and the law) they separate what would otherwise be an act of a committed couple from the full experience of marriage. When this connection is lost, the marriage suffers and opens itself up to jealousies with the idea that sex is casual, disrespect in the form of treating each other as sexual objects, and unjust expectations of each other in the form of expecting sex.

The same happens with masturbation to pornography. The person doing this is creating a set of experiences that orient their thoughts to a certain mind-set. When a boy habitually masturbates to pornography of women, he begins to see all women as sexual objects. His tendencies in interactions with women will show this mind-set through disrespect and an inability to relate on a basic human level because his mind-set is such that the women are objects, not humans with inherent value.

These kinds of mind-sets are harmful to both the individual and those around the individual. We are everything that we experience. It forms us and we act it out. Just because it is not immediately apparent does not mean is does not have very real effects.

 

[Bradski]

When this connection is lost, the marriage suffers and opens itself up to jealousies with the idea that sex is casual, disrespect in the form of treating each other as sexual objects, and unjust expectations of each other in the form of expecting sex.

If there were jealousies and the even if they began to think that sex was casual and disrespectful and if there were unjust expectations and I agree that that was harmful for the sake of the argument then harm has been done and it would be wrong.

But if none of that happened, if the couple themselves told you that they experienced none of that and, in fact, the sex brought them even closer together, then, not to labour the point, but no harm has been done.

You are not in a position to dispute their own testimony.

 

[madtom]

That’s not an answer, it’s a further qualification to the question. The question is: If NO HARM is done, so that would include oneself.

Going back to the couple having sex outside marriage and then going on to have a blissfully happy and successful umpteen years of marriage together, then…I’m sorry to keep labouring this….no harm has been done. It is therefore not wrong.

If by every criteria you can think of, the couple said that they experienced no harm whatsoever, it is chutzpah of the highest order to say: ‘No – you are wrong. I’ll be the best judge of that!’

If anyone has the attitude that despite anyone being able to find anything at all that could be possibly described as harmful, then it must still be wrong ‘because the church says so’, then just say so.

your example presumes that no harm was done because two people got married and went on to have a happy life together. but at the time, they were causing harm to themselves. they should be happy that they were able to overcome it. do you think lying is wrong? well, if I lie to someone and we both go on to live happy lives, then it was ok for me to lie? by the way, something isn’t wrong just because the “church says so.” something is wrong because GOD said so.

 

[Nate8080]

I think you are referring to “furries” here.

So I’m not the only one with knowledge about this obscure, diseased hovel of society…I wonder if that’s good or bad…

If there were jealousies and the even if they began to think that sex was casual and disrespectful and if there were unjust expectations and I agree that that was harmful for the sake of the argument then harm has been done and it would be wrong.

But if none of that happened, if the couple themselves told you that they experienced none of that and, in fact, the sex brought them even closer together, then, not to labour the point, but no harm has been done.

You are not in a position to dispute their own testimony.

Well, I think one of the first people who posted in this thread (can’t find the name) gave a pretty good analogy to counter that. A guy is drunk, gets in his car and drives home, but doesn’t hurt anyone. He didn’t actually hurt anyone, but he was deliberately engaging in an act which had high likelihood and potentiality of hurting someone. Same goes for the premarital sex, even though nothing but good may have come of it 20 years later, that doesn’t change the fact that it was a dangerous and bad act at the time, that it COULD have resulted in hurt.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So I’m not the only one with knowledge about this obscure, diseased hovel of society…I wonder if that’s good or bad…

Who knows…I’ve got an associate that accidentally wondered into a Furries convention. He got to ask many of them about their lifestyle before security (dressed as racoons) escorted him and his girlfriend out.

If you go to any of the comic conventions (Dragon Con, Comic Con) the Furries show up in large numbers. I go to Dragon Con because it’s a cool place to people watch and the parking for my day job is close enough without being in the congested area. Bronies are also another interesting group at those conventions. But I get the impression the Bronies are living chaste lives.

 

[Nate8080]

Who knows…I’ve got an associate that accidentally wondered into a Furries convention. He got to ask many of them about their lifestyle before security (dressed as racoons) escorted him and his girlfriend out.

If you go to any of the comic conventions (Dragon Con, Comic Con) the Furries show up in large numbers. I go to Dragon Con because it’s a cool place to people watch and the parking for my day job is close enough without being in the congested area. Bronies are also another interesting group at those conventions. But I get the impression the Bronies are living chaste lives.

Bronies are mere manchildren, idiots…but not bad people. Furries are very messed up people, and despite the innocent, playful attitude they try to concoct when the news cameras are centered on them, the statistics don’t lie. One of the convention founders actually has a panel at every Con where he instructs his minions when and how to respond to news interviewers to portray their sick fandom in the best light possible…I think the very fact that he does this proves that they are trying to hide something.

You want an accurate description of furries, go listen to the Howard Stern interviews…They most likely escorted you out because you would have probably attained similar answers to the ones he got, effectively exposing the fandom for the cancer that it is. But whatever, kind of irks me that other people, especially people on a Catholic forum, would know about them…I always thought they were pretty obscure…a non-event. If you try to call these people out on their behavior they usually respond with the stance “it doesn’t hurt anyone”…hence the title thread.

 

[Bradski]

your example presumes that no harm was done because two people got married and went on to have a happy life together. but at the time, they were causing harm to themselves.

Yes, I’m presuming that because it’s my hypothetical. I get to dictate the scenario. And the scenario is that no harm was done. The couple, if asked, would say: ‘Hey, no harm was done. We’re good. We’re happy’.

If you want to show that harm *did *occur, then what questions do you ask? Who do you ask? What needs to have occurred? How do you determine it? It’s no good just stating it as a bald fact without something to back it up.

…by the way, something isn’t wrong just because the “church says so.” something is wrong because GOD said so.

Well, that saves you from having to bother investigating the matter from that point onwards. No further explanation is required.

‘You are not showing any harm has been done’.
‘Well, it’s still wrong because God says so…’

QED I guess.