Legislating the immoral

[Electric Sceptic]

Assume that there is an activity, X, which you believe to be immoral.

Assume further that there is no evidence that X is harmful in any discernable way to either the person performing X or anyone else.

Should X be illegal?

Now assume that there is conclusive evidence that X is physically and/or mentally harmful to the performer of X, but not to anyone else.

Should X be illegal?

 

[Clem is Me]

No and no.

 

[SarcasmDispenser]

In the first case, X is not illegal, and no it should not be.

The second one, it depends what you are talking about "harmful", and I'm not sure you can provide me with an example... it's not so black and white there.

 

[lovemysoldier]

nope.....their rights end where mine begins.........
If it doesn't bother anyone let them do as they wish.

 

[Sucoyant]

Assume that there is an activity, X, which you believe to be immoral.

Assume further that there is no evidence that X is harmful in any discernable way to either the person performing X or anyone else.

Should X be illegal?

Now assume that there is conclusive evidence that X is physically and/or mentally harmful to the performer of X, but not to anyone else.

Should X be illegal?

Depends on the philosophical/ethical stance your ideals rest upon.

In the utilitarian sense, is it for "the greater good"? Say for instance the variable X is murder. This is an immoral act, but if you are stranded on an island with people you love and care for. There is no food, so would murdering yourself to become food for the others be immoral? Or, what about murdering a bear that's charging at your son/daughter?

Alternatively, Kant's categorical imperative essentially states "Can this act be made universal in all applications?" Since there is harm involved, then Kant would most likely state that the action is immoral and should be illegal.

The last item I'm going to touch on is virtue ethics. Virtue ethics is all about what type of person one wishes to become. Jesus and Buddha both followed virtue ethics. Jesus's act of being murdered to wash away the sins of humanity is a virtue ethic.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Depends on the philosophical/ethical stance your ideals rest upon.

In the utilitarian sense, is it for "the greater good"? Say for instance the variable X is murder. This is an immoral act, but if you are stranded on an island with people you love and care for. There is no food, so would murdering yourself to become food for the others be immoral? Or, what about murdering a bear that's charging at your son/daughter?

Alternatively, Kant's categorical imperative essentially states "Can this act be made universal in all applications?" Since there is harm involved, then Kant would most likely state that the action is immoral and should be illegal.

The last item I'm going to touch on is virtue ethics. Virtue ethics is all about what type of person one wishes to become. Jesus and Buddha both followed virtue ethics. Jesus's act of being murdered to wash away the sins of humanity is a virtue ethic.

I'm asking you, based on "the philosophical/ethical stance your ideals rest upon."

 

[Sucoyant]

Sorry, I get carried away sometimes.

Honestly, I can't make a decision until I know what X is. I've replaced X with many things and come up on both sides.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Sorry, I get carried away sometimes.

Honestly, I can't make a decision until I know what X is. I've replaced X with many things and come up on both sides.

I find that a strange response. Can you give me some examples of what you've replaced X with, and why you've come up on both sides for those things?

 

[Sucoyant]

Assume that there is an activity, X, which you believe to be immoral.

Assume further that there is no evidence that X is harmful in any discernable way to either the person performing X or anyone else.
(X is not harmful at all)

Should X be illegal?

Now assume that there is conclusive evidence that X is physically and/or mentally harmful to the performer of X, but not to anyone else.
(X harms only the performer)

Should X be illegal?
--------


In the first statement, X does not harm anyone. In the second statement X harms only the performer. If X harms only the performer, then what reason is there to make it illegal? The *only* way X can exist legally is if X does not infringing upon others.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Assume that there is an activity, X, which you believe to be immoral.

Assume further that there is no evidence that X is harmful in any discernable way to either the person performing X or anyone else.
(X is not harmful at all)

Should X be illegal?

Now assume that there is conclusive evidence that X is physically and/or mentally harmful to the performer of X, but not to anyone else.
(X harms only the performer)

Should X be illegal?
--------


In the first statement, X does not harm anyone. In the second statement X harms only the performer. If X harms only the performer, then what reason is there to make it illegal? The *only* way X can exist legally is if X does not infringing upon others.

Yes, I know. There are two questions. What is your answer to both?

 

[an7222]

First case:

X should be legal. It is called freedom. Case closed.

Second case: depends.

If somebody does X deliberately as a wish, and not as something against his own wish, as happens with an addiction, I think it should be legal too.

But if somebody does X against his own wish, but because of some kind of mental or physycal illness, as is the case of an addiction, I think it shoud be illegal. For instance, drugs.

 

[coyoteBR]

Assume that there is an activity, X, which you believe to be immoral.

Assume further that there is no evidence that X is harmful in any discernable way to either the person performing X or anyone else.

Should X be illegal?

No, it should not.

Now assume that there is conclusive evidence that X is physically and/or mentally harmful to the performer of X, but not to anyone else.

Should X be illegal?

In that case, yes, it should be, but with certain graduations:
X1 is potentially harmfull, and it's effects will appear after long years - should be desencouraged, with educative campains and such.

x2 is in fact harmfull and it's effects will appear on the spot - illegal

x3 is harmfull to the one and pottentially to the others (for example, driving under effects of x3) - illegal with great fines and other punishment.

 

[coyoteBR]

First case:

X should be legal. It is called freedom. Case closed.

Second case: depends.

If somebody does X deliberately as a wish, and not as something against his own wish, as happens with an addiction, I think it should be legal too.

But if somebody does X against his own wish, but because of some kind of mental or physycal illness, as is the case of an addiction, I think it shoud be illegal. For instance, drugs.

very good points, better than what I wanted to say

 

[GreenDragon]

I think neither of them should be illegal. If it harms only them, they should have the choice to do that. They want to drink alcohol excessively and become addicted, then God bless them. As long as they're not driving on the road under the influence running into me, I don't care what they do to themselves. The government makes too many choices about what is "best for you"...

 

[gracefaith]

But if somebody does X against his own wish, but because of some kind of mental or physycal illness, as is the case of an addiction, I think it shoud be illegal. For instance, drugs.

Do we outlaw drugs more for its social implications than we do for the physical toll it takes on those addicted to it? If someone wants to harm or kill themselves by whatever means they wish, should they be allowed that freedom? People regularly drink themselves to death and it's not the excessive alcohol we outlaw (not anymore anyway.) Instead we make laws about the resulting behaviour - domestic violence, drunk driving, etc.

Perhaps it gets sticky when X is a vice, even if it "harms" no one but the one performing it. Vices have a way negatively effecting everything around them even if you can't blame them directly. Where exactly do you start making the laws?

 

[the Colonel]

Assume that there is an activity, X, which you believe to be immoral.

Assume further that there is no evidence that X is harmful in any discernable way to either the person performing X or anyone else.

Should X be illegal?

It depends on what you define to be harmful. I might see that x leads to what I believe is harmful to the structure of society as a whole which leads to more and more problems. You may not consider these negative consequences at all because you are content to live within the new "definition" of society.

 

[Blockwell]

Using your vote to make or keep an activity illegal that does not infringe upon your own rights is not un-Christian, but it is un-American.

 

[morningstar2651]

Victimless crimes are stupid...end of story.

 

[Akasa]

no and yes. Unfortuanately, some people are too ignorant to take care of themselves. Need to be saved from themself. They may have children or others who rely on their health, and when their behavior means that WE will end up taking care of their responsiblities, then they ARE infringing upon our rights.

 

[GMRELIC]

the answer to #1 is no it should not be illegal
the answer to #2 depends on alot of things