A list of 'non-crimes'

HypnoToad · Jun 2, 2005

No, it doesn't. There's no moral judgement needed for me to know that you being mugged is harmful for you, or for you to know that me being murdered is harmful to me.

So, it's harmful. So what?

Randall McNally · Jun 2, 2005

Lifesaver said:
Again, just to stress the point:

-To say that an action is harmful to those who do not consent in being affected by it involves a moral judgement.

Er, no. To say that an action is harmful is to make an observation.

To say that an action should be prohibited because it is harmful is to apply ethics.

An act is moral/immoral if it is intrinsically good/bad.

HypnoToad · Jun 2, 2005

It doesn't matter, for the purposes of the law.

Sure it does. If there is a right and wrong, but we should ignore it, then you should tell us why it should be ignored.

For the same reason everything else does. Because if it doesn't, it'll cease to be.

So?

Are you serious? You have to ask why it matters to me if I get hurt?

Totally serious.

HypnoToad · Jun 2, 2005

That's like asking why should a car have an engine and wheels. Having and protecting members is what DEFINES a state. A state that doesn't protect its members stops being one.

So what if it stops being one? Who cares?

Electric Skeptic · Jun 2, 2005

XianJedi said:
So, it's harmful. So what?

I give in, so what?

I would have bothered to actually give a reasonable answer to this question, but it's becoming apparent that yuo're not really trying to debate the issue.

XianJedi said:
Sure it does. If there is a right and wrong, but we should ignore it, then you should tell us why it should be ignored.

Guess again. If there is a right and wrong, you need to tell us what it is, and why it should NOT be ignored.

XianJedi said:
So what if it stops being one? Who cares?

Who said anything about caring? What are you talking about? Are you actually trying to discuss the issue, or just being flippant?

Charlie V · Jun 2, 2005

I agree and disagree with the original post.

I do not think these things should be crimes.

On the other hand, there are certainly moral and medical issues.

I've personally known people whose lives have been harmed by these things.

Including alcohol and tobacco on the "recreational drug" list, and those are legal. I've known people who have died for recreational drug use, including legal recreational drugs. (Recently someone close to me died from recreational overuse of prescription painkillers.)

But these are medical issues, not criminal.

Charlie

MuAndNu · Jun 3, 2005

Electric Skeptic said:
After a number of posts in another thread where I put forward the viewpoint that the ONLY valid reason to make an act illegal is if it harms someone other than the performer of the act (ie., moral opinions about the act are completely irrelevant), here's a list of things currently illegal in some states of the US, Australia, the UK, and/or Canada that I believe should not be, as they are illegal for purely moral reasons:

- prostitution
- gambling
- recreational drug use
- post-pubescent adolescent sexual activity
- public nudity
- blasphemy
- sexual acts between consenting adults (eg., oral sex, sodomy)
- inappropriate contentography

In any reasonable society, all of the above things would be legal (IMO). Opinions about the morality of the acts are completely irrelevant to their legality (or should be).

I find it all but impossible to conduct a fruitful debate over what does and what does not cause harm. Perhaps it's because there's no consensus about what harm is. To many Christians, harm comes simply in anything that might lead one contrary to the Faith. Thus, if prostitution, for instance, is contrary to biblical morality, harm is caused merely by not publicly condemning it. Therefore, under no circumstances is prostitution to have anything but society's frown.

But prostitution can be said to be harmful for purely pragmatic reasons. Does it weaken or break up families? Does it make sexual committment more difficult to achieve for those who frequent prostitutes? I'd say there's a good chance it does. But how do you prove that when no one can agree on a standard of proof?

In the end, I have less faith in a "reasonable" resolution than you do. There are too many conflicting "agendas." It's possible to erect a virtually impregnable empirical rationale to justify a very bad idea. Happens all the time.

Electric Skeptic · Jun 3, 2005

Charlie V said:
I agree and disagree with the original post.

I do not think these things should be crimes.

On the other hand, there are certainly moral and medical issues.

I've personally known people whose lives have been harmed by these things.

Including alcohol and tobacco on the "recreational drug" list, and those are legal. I've known people who have died for recreational drug use, including legal recreational drugs. (Recently someone close to me died from recreational overuse of prescription painkillers.)

But these are medical issues, not criminal.

Charlie

Then I think you agree with my OP - not disagree at all. I at no stage said there are no moral issues associated with these things - merely that those moral issues should not have an effect on the law.

Electric Skeptic · Jun 3, 2005

MuAndNu said:
I find it all but impossible to conduct a fruitful debate over what does and what does not cause harm. Perhaps it's because there's no consensus about what harm is. To many Christians, harm comes simply in anything that might lead one contrary to the Faith. Thus, if prostitution, for instance, is contrary to biblical morality, harm is caused merely by not publicly condemning it. Therefore, under no circumstances is prostitution to have anything but society's frown.

But prostitution can be said to be harmful for purely pragmatic reasons. Does it weaken or break up families? Does it make sexual committment more difficult to achieve for those who frequent prostitutes? I'd say there's a good chance it does. But how do you prove that when no one can agree on a standard of proof?

In the end, I have less faith in a "reasonable" resolution than you do. There are too many conflicting "agendas." It's possible to erect a virtually impregnable empirical rationale to justify a very bad idea. Happens all the time.

I disagree. I find it not difficult at all to come to a reasonable conclusion as to what constitutes harm. Leading someone away from a certain belief doesn't qualify.

As for prostitution - it's not a question of proof. It's a question of evidence. Do you have ANY evidence to support what you think prostitution does?

Charlie V · Jun 3, 2005

Electric Skeptic said:
Then I think you agree with my OP - not disagree at all. I at no stage said there are no moral issues associated with these things - merely that those moral issues should not have an effect on the law.

Okay, that's cool.

By the way, I think I could come up with a few exceptions.

For example, there may be conflict-of-interest laws that would prohibit gambling, say, the manager of a ball team betting on a game or a boxing coach betting on (or against) his boxer.

Charlie

MuAndNu · Jun 3, 2005

Electric Skeptic said:
I disagree. I find it not difficult at all to come to a reasonable conclusion as to what constitutes harm.

Well, of course not. You only have to convince yourself.

Electric Skeptic said:
As for prostitution - it's not a question of proof. It's a question of evidence. Do you have ANY evidence to support what you think prostitution does?

I use "proof" in the sense of "compelling evidence," not "true beyond a possibility of doubt." I believe in received wisdom. In other words, I think wisdom handed down to us is to be clung to until there's good reason to discard it. Many atheists don't see things that way. They'll tell you all received wisdom is suspect until it proves itself.

So, no, I probably don't have anything that would sway you.

daddypop82 · Jun 3, 2005

Quijote said:
You know, sticking parts that, according to how nature has equipped us, are suppoused to go in a particular part of another's body somewhere where they were not meant to be.

cheers

There goes oral sex!

daddypop82 · Jun 3, 2005

Quijote said:
You know, sticking parts that, according to how nature has equipped us, are suppoused to go in a particular part of another's body somewhere where they were not meant to be.

cheers

There goes oral sex!

Electric Skeptic · Jun 3, 2005

Charlie V said:
Okay, that's cool.

By the way, I think I could come up with a few exceptions.

For example, there may be conflict-of-interest laws that would prohibit gambling, say, the manager of a ball team betting on a game or a boxing coach betting on (or against) his boxer.

Charlie

I don't understand how you think that is an exception?

Electric Skeptic · Jun 3, 2005

MuAndNu said:
I use "proof" in the sense of "compelling evidence," not "true beyond a possibility of doubt." I believe in received wisdom. In other words, I think wisdom handed down to us is to be clung to until there's good reason to discard it. Many atheists don't see things that way. They'll tell you all received wisdom is suspect until it proves itself.

So, no, I probably don't have anything that would sway you.

I didn't ask for anything that would sway me. I asked for ANYTHING. Do you have ANY evidence to support your claims about prostitution?

MuAndNu · Jun 3, 2005

Electric Skeptic said:
I didn't ask for anything that would sway me. I asked for ANYTHING. Do you have ANY evidence to support your claims about prostitution?

What were my "claims"? Do you remember what I said?

"But prostitution can be said to be harmful for purely pragmatic reasons. Does it weaken or break up families? Does it make sexual committment more difficult to achieve for those who frequent prostitutes? I'd say there's a good chance it does."

That's hardly a "claim."

But I do have my own experience to go by. No, I've never visited a prostitute, but for me, sex is a very bonding experience. It would be impossible for me to engage in it without becoming deeply emotionally attached to my partner. And if I were to try to divide my affections between two or more women, none would get all she deserved. Let's just say that years ago I had the opportunity to put that to the test. Believe me, very much harm was done.

Now, I don't think I'm so unlike most people. What makes a sexual union emotionally satisfying is the exclusivity of it. That a sexual partner feels hurt by infidelity underscores that.

Thus, as a rule, I see sexual infidelity as harmful. (Whether it's with a lover or a prostitute.) To me, that's a perfectly rational conclusion based on personal experience. In fact, I find it inescapable.

David Gould · Jun 3, 2005

MuAndNu said:
What were my "claims"? Do you remember what I said?

"But prostitution can be said to be harmful for purely pragmatic reasons. Does it weaken or break up families? Does it make sexual committment more difficult to achieve for those who frequent prostitutes? I'd say there's a good chance it does."

That's hardly a "claim."

But I do have my own experience to go by. No, I've never visited a prostitute, but for me, sex is a very bonding experience. It would be impossible for me to engage in it without becoming deeply emotionally attached to my partner. And if I were to try to divide my affections between two or more women, none would get all she deserved. Let's just say that years ago I had the opportunity to put that to the test. Believe me, very much harm was done.

Now, I don't think I'm so unlike most people. What makes a sexual union emotionally satisfying is the exclusivity of it. That a sexual partner feels hurt by infidelity underscores that.

Thus, as a rule, I see sexual infidelity as harmful. (Whether it's with a lover or a prostitute.) To me, that's a perfectly rational conclusion based on personal experience. In fact, I find it inescapable.

But prostitution is not necessarily sexual infidelity. I think you are confusing the two things.

MuAndNu · Jun 3, 2005

David Gould said:
But prostitution is not necessarily sexual infidelity. I think you are confusing the two things.

So, would you have laws restricting visits to prostitutes to only those "unattached"? Have fun justifying that!

David Gould · Jun 3, 2005

MuAndNu said:
So, would you have laws restricting visits to prostitutes to only those "unattached"? Have fun justifying that!

Not necessarily. I am simply pointing out that you are arguing against prostitution on the grounds of infidelity. Most infidelity has nothing to do with prostitution and much of prostitution has nothing to do with infidelity.

In other words, you were in fact arguing for infidelity to be made illegal, when you thought you were arguing for prostitution to be made illegal.

MuAndNu · Jun 3, 2005

David Gould said:
Not necessarily. I am simply pointing out that you are arguing against prostitution on the grounds of infidelity. Most infidelity has nothing to do with prostitution and much of prostitution has nothing to do with infidelity.

It isn't infidelity when a married man visits a prostitute? You don't believe a high percetage of "johns" aren't married or in some other way sexually attached?

David Gould said:
In other words, you were in fact arguing for infidelity to be made illegal, when you thought you were arguing for prostitution to be made illegal.

Yes. In fact, I'm arguing for both. If we're going to use harm as the criterion, infidelity should be illegal. But the usual tactic is to try to deny any harm is done. I don't find that believable.

A list of 'non-crimes'

*croak*

Secrecy and accountability cannot coexist.

*croak*

*croak*

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Practical Atheist

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Practical Atheist

Member

Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Practical Atheist

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Practical Atheist

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Practical Atheist

Similar threads

croak

croak

croak