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

[tonyrey]

So you evaluate autosexual behaviour as some one being untrue to themselves?

It stands to reason if they are heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual! Fantasy is replacing reality…

 

[tonyrey]

No, no lies. They had no problem in anyone knowing. No deception involved.

I stipulated that it depends whether they were deceiving others by pretending they were married - although even if they said nothing they would still be misleading people in a society where marriage is the norm. Silence is not always golden…

If anyone wants to state that having sex outside marriage causes harm, then if we had two couples, one of whom was married and the other not (both couples having sex), then all other things being equal, you must be able to tell which one was married - because of the harm caused.

Without specifically asking them if they are married, how do you do that?

Ignorance doesn’t necessarily imply the absence of harm to ourselves and society. To believe marriage is merely a matter of mutual consent implies that it has no moral or psychological effect on anyone else. It is a case of doing your own thing and to hell with the rest of society. Egoism multiplied by two!

 

[vz71]

If anyone wants to state that having sex outside marriage causes harm, then if we had two couples, one of whom was married and the other not (both couples having sex), then all other things being equal, you must be able to tell which one was married - because of the harm caused.

No, you do not.
Sin is very often a matter between God and the sinner.
Others need not know.

 

[Bradski]

No, you do not.
Sin is very often a matter between God and the sinner.
Others need not know.

So no-one can deduce harm. All you can say is that it annoys God.

Now why didn’t you admit that in the first place…

 

[Bradski]

I stipulated that it depends whether they were deceiving others by pretending they were married - although even if they said nothing they would still be misleading people in a society where marriage is the norm.

It wasn’t a secret. Everyone knew.

But if you didn’t and the fact that they weren’t married caused some identifiable harm or some negative psychological effect then how would this manifest itself to you. How would you know that they weren’t married?

Because if you couldn’t tell, you are just blowing smoke.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It stands to reason if they are heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual! Fantasy is replacing reality…

I don’t think so. Autosexual behaviour doesn’t necessarily replace sexual activities involving two people but mar occur when no other party is available. There are situations where it may displace/replace other behaviours. But in knowing that some one masturbated that information by itself doesn’t tell whether or not replacement occurred.

 

[Winterwolf00]

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

That is not moral relativism, it is a starting point for civil law.
Why is murder, theft, kidnapping, or rape wrong?
Because it causes harm to someone in some way without any consent from the victim.
Sometimes that is justifiable in the real world, but it is still a good rule of thumb to follow for the most part.

 

[Winterwolf00]

No, you do not.
Sin is very often a matter between God and the sinner.
Others need not know.

Then how can society hold people accountable for their misdeeds?

 

[tonyrey]

It wasn’t a secret. Everyone knew.

“Not many people outside the family know” seems to contradict that view…

But if you didn’t and the fact that they weren’t married caused some identifiable harm or some negative psychological effect then how would this manifest itself to you. How would you know that they weren’t married?

Because if you couldn’t tell, you are just blowing smoke.

I have already pointed out that ignorance doesn’t necessarily imply the absence of harm to ourselves and society. To regard marriage in a society where marriage has been the norm as merely a matter of mutual consent implies that it has no moral or psychological effect on anyone else. It is the thin edge of the wedge. Why bother to observe any conventions? Why not reject other moral and social obligations? Where do you draw the line and why? Do you think we are the authors of morality or are there objective reasons why it exists?

 

[tonyrey]

It stands to reason if they are heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual! Fantasy is replacing reality.

I don’t think so. Autosexual behaviour doesn’t necessarily replace sexual activities involving two people but mar occur when no other party is available. There are situations where it may displace/replace other behaviours. But in knowing that some one masturbated that information by itself doesn’t tell whether or not replacement occurred.In either case it is an inferior substitute for normal behaviour! Fantasy is still replacing reality because sexual activity is designed for coitus which has physical and psychological effects on the man and woman.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In either case it is an inferior substitute for normal behaviour! Fantasy is still replacing reality because sexual activity is designed for coitus which has physical and psychological effects on the man and woman.

The superiority or inferiority wasn’t in question. A spare tire tends not to be as good as a full sized. But it serves its purpose. No one is bring untrue to themselves or their car in using one.

 

[Winterwolf00]

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.

Speaking as a Brony some Bronies would actually qualify as Furries, other Bronies find Furries weird or just disgusting.

We’re a diverse group.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Speaking as a Brony some Bronies would actually qualify as Furries, other Bronies find Furries weird or just disgusting.

We’re a diverse group.

I suppose like most groups the members don’t all fit into a homogenous monolithic category. I’m actually curious about this My Little Pony series of which I’ve heard so much that the Bronies are associated with. I found it online, but have yet to watch it.

 

[Winterwolf00]

I have asserted what is based upon church teaching.

If the church teaching is insufficient, what is?

This reminds me of a movie I watched many years ago.
A family ended up in a shelter after a nuclear detonation.
Eventually the daughter went out of the shelter. The family tried to bring her back since they knew the radiation would kill her, but she would not be convinced. It was a beautiful day outside. The grass was still green, the sky was blue, and there was nothing to indicate danger.

The church knows we cannot always see the danger of sin.

There is more to demonstrating something is true then just sight.

 

[Winterwolf00]

I suppose like most groups the members don’t all fit into a homogenous monolithic category. I’m actually curious about this My Little Pony series of which I’ve heard so much that the Bronies are associated with. I found it online, but have yet to watch it.

If you’re into a cartoon that has surprisingly wise lessons at the end of each episode, amazing music, well-rounded characters who develop, and self-confident female role-models for your kids then I recommend this show.

Stay away from the Fandom though if you’re easily freaked out, we can be weird.

 

[Aloysium]

That is not moral relativism, it is a starting point for civil law.
Why is murder, theft, kidnapping, or rape wrong?
Because it causes harm to someone in some way without any consent from the victim.
Sometimes that is justifiable in the real world, but it is still a good rule of thumb to follow for the most part.

I would disagree.
The criminal justice system in most of the world is based on upholding the social order.
The crime is always the accused vs the state, not the victim.
In many places the police lay the charges in situations of family violence.
It is not about harm or there would be no prisons; in the USA there would be stricter gun control and freer access to drugs.
There are victim impact statements but these are important in determining a sentence.
Harm is not something on which we can base a moral system, since considerable harm can be done with no intent or negligence.
Alternatively, there are anti-terrorist laws where people are guilty of conspiring and no one is hurt at all.

 

[Winterwolf00]

I would disagree.
The criminal justice system in most of the world is based on upholding the social order.
The crime is always the accused vs the state, not the victim.
In many places the police lay the charges in situations of family violence.
It is not about harm or their would be no prisons, in the USA there would be stricter gun control and freer access to drugs.
There are victim impact statements but these are important in determining a sentence.
Harm is not something on which we can base a moral system, since considerable harm can be done with no intent or negligence. Alternatively, there are anti-terrorist laws where wpeople are guilty of conspiring and no one is hurt at all.

That’s why I said it is not a complete standard but merely a guideline, nor did I claim that any society adheres to it completely.
Sometimes it is necessary to cause harm to prevent greater harm, such as killing healthy cells around a cancer cell via chemo therapy.

 

[Bradski]

“Not many people outside the family know” seems to contradict that view…

I have already pointed out that ignorance doesn’t necessarily imply the absence of harm to ourselves and society.

C’mon, Tony. It’s a hypothetical. Work with me here…

But this isn’t ignorance of harm. It’s the absence of harm. And note that I am not saying that sex before marriage is harmless in every case.

Drinking beer is not harmfull, but drinking too much can be. Eating fatty foods is OK as long as it’s not a major part of your diet. Driving at speed can be dangerous but only relative to the conditions.

Same with most things. They could be harmful in some way at some time in some circumstances. Same with sex outside marriage. But it is patently false to say it is harmful, period. it’s needs some qualifier.

Driving at 50mph is wrong…in a built up area.
Eating deep fried chicken is wrong…if you do it every day.
Drinking beer is wrong…if you drink enough so that it becomes a problem.
Sex before marriage is wrong…if…

It’s not that anyone can’t fill in the rest of that. It’s quite easy. It’s just that they believe it’s against God’s will, therefore they won’t.

 

[Winterwolf00]

C’mon, Tony. It’s a hypothetical. Work with me here…

But this isn’t ignorance of harm. It’s the absence of harm. And note that I am not saying that sex before marriage is harmless in every case.

Drinking beer is not harmfull, but drinking too much can be. Eating fatty foods is OK as long as it’s not a major part of your diet. Driving at speed can be dangerous but only relative to the conditions.

Same with most things. They could be harmful in some way at some time in some circumstances. Same with sex outside marriage. But it is patently false to say it is harmful, period. it’s needs some qualifier.

Driving at 50mph is wrong…in a built up area.
Eating deep fried chicken is wrong…if you do it every day.
Drinking beer is wrong…if you drink enough so that it becomes a problem.
Sex before marriage is wrong…if…

It’s not that anyone can’t fill in the rest of that. It’s quite easy. It’s just that they believe it’s against God’s will, therefore they won’t.

And this is why moral absolutism fall apart in the real world.

 

[Bradski]

Harm is not something on which we can base a moral system, since considerable harm can be done with no intent or negligence.

This appears to be the problem. You are saying that if no harm is done, something can still be immoral.

And incidentally, harm with no intent is not a problem in the eyes of the law (or with someone like myself who don’t see it as a moral problem), unless negligence is involved. In which case it can be illegal and immoral.

And terrorism? If someone wants to kill you, that’s OK. If someone actively plots to kill you, that’s not.