Is liking this kind of stuff morally wrong?

[ernestgreene]

I do not define looking at pictures or having fantasies as harmful. I'm very suspicious of the motives of those who look for harm in the thoughts of others.

Harm is defined by action, and if no harmful action arises out of an idea, the idea itself can't be considered harmful, unless you're the sort of person who thinks what goes on in other people's heads is harmful in itself.

Now if ever there were an idea that led to harmful action, that would be the one. History and current events are littered with the victims of that kind of thinking.

[ooragoth]

I do not define looking at pictures or having fantasies as harmful. I'm very suspicious of the motives of those who look for harm in the thoughts of others.

Harm is defined by action, and if no harmful action arises out of an idea, the idea itself can't be considered harmful, unless you're the sort of person who thinks what goes on in other people's heads is harmful in itself.

Now if ever there were an idea that led to harmful action, that would be the one. History and current events are littered with the victims of that kind of thinking.

I agree a thought or idea is not inherently harmful. I am sure we all have been angry enough at one point or another to wish we could simply smack someone and simply knowing the science behind how an atomic bomb is not the same as building one.

Many ideas though do spawn harmful action, the idea of eugenics for instance, the selective breeding of people and especially the removal of so-called unfit people, was almost directly responsible for the holocaust.
The argument could infact be made that all acts must first be ideas as one must first conceptualize an action before performing it. Though I do not subscribe to that theory.

What goes on in a person's head is not in any way harmful, if this were the case dreams would be justification for imprisonment for many. It is our choices however that determine what thoughts we act on and what we do not. There are limitations to this theory as many mental instabilities or neurological imparements can cause us to act in uncharacteristic ways and even cause us to do things we know are wrong and we would normally not do.
I don't agree that harm is defined by action after all many people would claim that the inflicting of pain on another is harmful while many masochists would disagree. The same could be said for many laws, there is great disagreement right now as to whether the use of certain illegal drugs is harmful or medicinal. Harmful again is a relative term defined more by situation and participants than by a set idea of harmful. I think here the best example would be the doctor and the transplant. A doctor is forced to take an oath swearing to "Do no harm." however they routinely amputate limbs in wartime that they could otherwise save, had they the time. Now is that harmful to the pacient even though it is neccessary to the surgeon? Most would say no because the situation demands it.

I agree that the most important freedom we have is the freedom to think and decide, without it we are not human but automata, mindless and without individuality. That is the greates reason I believe that Morality should be decided upon by an individual rather than dictated to by a religion, society, or government.

[fenix0616]

edit

[bellamyspiano]

Truth, being a woman and all, I can vouch for that.