(A) Whether something is of a “concern to me” does not determine the morality of acts. It does not “concern me” that two people cheated on each other thousands of miles away in Alaska. The two people that cheated probably even “consented to it,” but adultery is wrong nonetheless.
(B) I sure hope that whether I personally “lost sleep” over a Crime does not determine whether that Crime is actually a Crime. What if I didn’t have empathy? Would murder then be okay since I didn’t lose sleep over a murder? I sure hope you do not have to look at my “empathy reading” to be able to figure out if theft and murder are wrong. Simply, morality is not determined by a random person, perhaps hundreds of miles away, who might or might not be feeling a particular emotion at any given time.
C) Whether something personally offends me has nothing to do with the morality of the act whatsoever. One thing might not “offend” me (say if I was repeatedly misgendered), but it could very well offend a transgender individual. Therefore, being emotionally aware of other people (not just whether you individually are offended), is the way to go.
First, God exists and whether Jesus is God is not a “religious viewpoint.” It is a Truth claim about the world. It is either True or false. But those questions are for another thread.
Second, people do all sorts of consensual stuff in the “privacy of their bedrooms” that is immoral. What about the circumstances of the act, the proportionate weighing of the positive and negative consequences? If the fire alarm went off and you saw smoke, or if your child was screaming in the other room louder than he’d ever screamed before and needed your attention, or if you had to be to work very soon and you knew that you were going to be fired if you were late, then I sure hope you wouldn’t say: it is moral to go have sex (just as long as you agree to it), and who cares about the negative consequences because it’s in the ‘privacy of a bedroom’!
What about what is in your heart? I sure hope you wouldn’t say: being selfish or disrespectful is good, who cares about intentions because the circumstances are good (no proportionate harm). I sure hope you wouldn’t say that because you “consented” to harmful behavior, who cares about harm? Or if you were very good at being deceptive, and no one could guess what was in your heart (so there was no observable harm), then would you say: who cares about intentions! Go be selfish, etc?
Third, arguments from exclamation do not require a reply because they have no substance at all (“please let’s not have …“ is not an argument). If it were an argument, then thanks for the inguienity, I can now settle the debate by using it right back at you with an “argument from exclamation.”
I can assert right back at you:
“let’s please have none of this consent stuff. Who cares about consent? Obviously love, procreation, marriage, and freedom are what matters.”
Finally, why does the location of where you do wicked, depraved acts, such as doing it in the “privacy of your bedroom,” make it any less twisted? Would other crimes like rape or murder become moral if they were done privately?
