The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Can actions which cause no harm be immoral?in General

MayCaesar

SkepticalOne said:

MayCaesar said:

Moral systems are highly subjective. While in general they are always based on some practical considerations, those considerations are not always related to what is directly harmful and what is now. There is a wide array of traditionalist, cultural or religious reasons as to why a certain action can be considered immoral - reasons not necessarily based on practicality.

For example, in Hinduism it is considered highly immoral to eat beef. Eating beef does not cause any direct harm to anyone, but since cows are considered sacred and beef comes from them, eating beef is a sacrilege. 

It is also worth noting that "harm" itself is a somewhat subjective term. Walking up to someone on the street and saying a racial slur in their face does not exactly harm them, as the only objective effect of your words is a few pressure waves in the air from your voice - but it would be considered immoral by almost anyone, because it can cause a certain level of psychological discomfort to the person. That discomfort is not harmful, but it is unpleasant. Some might see it as a psychological harm, depending on their level of psychological tolerance and/or their level of compassion.

I personally think that, for our society to truly prosper, we should indeed build our moral system around purely practical considerations. This is a minority opinion at the moment, however.

In your view, is there a purpose to morality? If so, what is it?

I see morality as a shortcut for our brain to know how to act in what social situation, without always having to consider everything from the zero point. My personal morality is built around the practicality-based reasoning: over the course of my life, I thought about different situation and tried to understand what action I see as practically best, that is as maximizing my happiness. 

SkepticalOne

@MayCaesar

It seems we define morality in completely different ways.  I see morality as an overarching principle(s) concerned with right or wrong behaviour. If an action can be considered right and wrong at the same time, then there is no such principle and no morality. Principles that makes sense (to me) would be ones concerned with avoiding unnecessary harm, increasing happiness,  or something which all humanity would generally be interested in. 

MayCaesar

SkepticalOne said:

@MayCaesar

It seems we define morality in completely different ways.  I see morality as an overarching principle(s) concerned with right or wrong behaviour. If an action can be considered right and wrong at the same time, then there is no such principle and no morality. Principles that makes sense (to me) would be ones concerned with avoiding unnecessary harm, increasing happiness,  or something which all humanity would generally be interested in. 

But that is how I classify "right" and "wrong": morally right actions in my eyes are the ones that are practical, meaning maximizing my happiness - and morally wrong actions are the ones minimizing it. I do not take the collective interest of humanity into account per se, because, strictly speaking, my brain is the only object in the Universe that affects how I feel, and how I feel is what determines how I act - however, I find that I am happier, in general, when people around me are also happier, so the collective good naturally becomes a part of the equation, without being its objective.

When building a moral system, we need to have some objective system of axioms to build it upon; a moral system cannot exist in a vacuum and has to be attached to something depending on the objective reality. However, the objective reality is prone to subjective interpretations, varying from individual to individual - hence, from my point of view, every individual should build their own moral system, as it is the only way to stay true to one's nature.

Mr_Bombastic

@SkepticalOne
Can an action that is immoral not hurt someone?

Mr_Bombastic

@Grenache
What if 6 of 10 pirates say it's OK to kill you and gang rape your woman? Is that moral? Going by your own example, it's kosher.

LogicVault

Morals are subjective. There is no absolute when it comes to morals.

AlexOland

Morality is subjective. There may be people who classify things as "immoral" even though they cause no harm. So, yes. Things that cause no harm can be immoral.

SkepticalOne

@Mr_Bombastic

I don't see how an immoral act can happen without harm, but I am open to examples to the contrary.