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
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Without knowing why social group A's disapproves of social group B's code of conduct we can't say if the act of joining social group B causes no harm. Plus, if the code of conduct is benign and group A disapproves for purely subjective reasons, then I'm not sure their objection has anything to do with morality.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
I think your argument raises other questions. Is driving drunk immoral or potentially immoral? If we modify your hypothetical so that no innocents could possibly be harmed I think we illustrate drunk driving is not inherently immoral on it's own.
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
You're not seeing the point I'm trying to make (poor communication on my part no doubt!). It seems you're basically defining morality as codes of conducts which are culturally approved, but isn't morality more than consensus? For instance, if Group A views leaving group A as immoral...or (say) eating strawberries as immoral - that doesn't make these actions immoral.
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 66%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 56%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 58%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 33%  
  Substantial: 45%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Only God will make that decision on judgement day. Therefore, no “harm” done today in our physical domain.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 33%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 56%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Who are “we” to dictate to any social group what their moral code of conduct to be? Besides, tyrannical codes of conduct is not a subject of this debate.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 11%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 67%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Good question! However, God is not the subject of this debate. I only used religion as an example of an “immoral” action causes no “harm.”
From that example, you went off on some tangent describing the actions of your God, will somehow, harm the one who converted to another religion.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
How about this example, the classic “generation gap.” A parent may find their child’s rap music “immoral,” relative to the child no “harm” is done.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 78%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Let's explore it. Other than opinion (which I do not consider to be morality), why would the parent consider the music immoral?
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 31%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
What I may find “immoral” may be pleasure to you. Therefore, no “harm” is done to either.
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 49%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 75%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
Mike, do you consider morality to be arbitrary? Is it a matter of personal preference? I don't think either is true and an argument with such assumptions built-in are not compelling.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Good question. I find “morality” and a moral “code of conduct” are two different manifestations of a “universal morality.” That is, in forming a group, the objective of morality is the genesis as well as the evolution of a subjective code of conduct, while following a code of conduct becomes a moral event preserving the life of the group. The evolution of a human moral code of conduct is a function of the “Golden Rule” which is an outgrowth from a “universal morality”, which is an outgrowth of life’s “unalienable Rights”, which is an outgrowth of the physical constructal law.
For other forms of life, according to research of Jonathan Haidt, Marc Hauser, Frans de Waal, considers a universal morality, or a variant thereof, responsible for group formation (schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolfs or other primates) that seems to be more genetic than social or a combination thereof.
Take for example, the historic lamenting over the “changing moral values” relative to Elvis Presley’s activities in the 1950’s.
So in conclusion, relative to my subjective code of conduct, which evolved from the subjective norms of the culture in which I live; what I may find “immoral” may be pleasure to you. Therefore, no “harm” done to either.
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.58  
  Sources: 6  
  Relevant (Beta): 42%  
  Learn More About Debra
You acknowledge a function of morality is preservation. You suggest this is limited to a group, but this is demonstrably false.
Most charities help individuals regardless of their religion, race, sex, etc. This would be counter-intuitive if morality were nothing more than preservation of social groups.
We can observe this same impulse to protect life even across species boundaries. For instance, the label "endangered species" arises from the realization that we can affect other animals in positive and negative ways - we might be causing extinction and/or we can fix the problem. Morality across species is not limited to humans either. Dolphins have been seen protecting seals and even humans from predators. Why would they do such a thing if the group were the heigth of morality?
Suffice to say, without preservation of life as a basis, there is no morality. Ill agree how we go about doing this is subjective (there are many ways to achieve this), but the thought that morality is nothing more than a whim which has no connection to prevention of harm and preservation of life is misguided.
In short, if you find something 'immoral' in which no one is harmed, then your definition of morality is meaningless.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 23%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
A group who embraces charities is a group that intersects many other groups. I see no conflict here. Also, interspecies morality presents no conflict to my position. I’m not sure where you are going. As for my definition of morality is based on Stanford University’s position on a “universal morality.”
I feel I spent enough time and supplied enough examples in attempt to answer your question, “Can actions which cause no harm be immoral?” I regret I have not made myself clear enough to satisfy your objective. And on that note, I must move on, good luck in finding what you are looking for.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.44  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 62%  
  Learn More About Debra
I will take your eloquent and thoughtful argument into consideration.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 26%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Thank you for your input, Mike. Maybe next time we'll find better ways to communicate our views to each other.
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 42%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Onto the debate question itself. I do think that some actions can be immoral while still not harming people. If we were to draw a circle and list all immoral things under harm, would that make harm the only judge for if an action is immoral? I think that there could be another category, say relationships. I hate to bring this up but say if cheating on your girlfriend and gay marriage are not harmful. That would still make them immoral because they deal with improper relationships. Another example that might not be controversial like gay marriage. Say you betray your family when they need you the most, leaving them to harm but not causing it to them. That is immoral because a universal morality states that you always care and stand by family members. Therefore, morality is the second judge of immorality besides physical or mental harm caused to a person. While our beliefs to some issues might differ, a universal morality judges us all and that makes that the second category to immoral behavior. We might disagree about what makes up a universal morality, but that is besides the point for now and to hopefully be discussed later.
If you have any questions or flaws in my argument, let me know, I will try to respond ASAP.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 59%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.02  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
Thanks for the lead on C.S. Lewis’ book. I like Wikipedia’s take on Lewis’ view on morality, “Lewis argues that the moral law is like the law of nature in that it was not contrived by humans. However, it is unlike natural laws in that it can be broken or ignored, and it is known intuitively, rather than through observation.”
Today we have empirical observations of a “universal morality”, which is an outgrowth of “unalienable Rights,” which is an outgrowth of the physical constructal law.
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.84  
  Sources: 8  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 20%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 71%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 66%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.82  
  Sources: 8  
  Relevant (Beta): 44%  
  Learn More About Debra
I believe some of the examples you cite actually do involve harm or, at the very least, the potential for harm. Harm is not merely physical damage, but psychological and/or emotional injury. Cheating on your partner is considered immoral because it introduces harm, or the potential for harm, into the equation. Betraying your family and leaving them to harm does the same. These are immoral acts.
Gay marriage is something altogether different. I agree there is no harm caused by it, and as suggested in the OP, something which does not cause harm cannot be immoral. More work will need to be done to show gay marriage as immoral.
Also, it should be noted, "morality is the second judge of immorality" is circular and, I'm sorry to say, nonsensical. You can't legitimately judge something red because it is non-red. You need to know what "red" means before you can understand non-red. It is the same with morality or any coherent concept.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
I would appreciate linking a definition of 'universal morality'. I don't believe Stanford has an absolute position on it. I might need to re-read Lewis' Mere Christianity. It has been a few years since I read it!
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 51%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 56%  
  Learn More About Debra
http://merechristianitystudyguide.blogspot.com/2008/12/c-s-lewiss-three-arguments-for-moral.html
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.98  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
The link lead me to "Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist." :-/
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
If a person pleasures themselves to donkey porn, maybe no one gets hurt but....
  Considerate: 20%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you have 10 pirates on a ship and zero of them think pillaging wealth is immoral then on that particular ship you can pillage wealth all you want, and if the outsider wants to bring God into the discussion they'll just laugh it off. But also, if 6 out of 10 of those pirates say sleeping with another man's wench is immoral then that behavior becomes immoral (on that ship, at least). This is a simple example but it's just to drive home the fact that opinion of majority heavily influences what is moral and what isn't.
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
Picture this scenario. You trap somebody innocent in a room. There is a 99% probability that the room will fill with a toxic gas, and a 1% probability that it will not. Let's suppose that, somehow, against the odds, the room does not fill with the toxic gas, and the person is free. The person does not mind being kidnapped because the person was unconscious (not caused by you) or the person was having fun inside the room, not aware of the danger. Did you do any immoral action in this scenario?
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don't think morality is personal given that it deals with actions which affect other people, so something more than personal beliefs needs to inform it. (a morality informed by opinion only is no morality) Sure, we'll need to agree life has value, but after that actions can be objectively weighed against whether they are good or bad for life.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Demonstrating one reason why those religions should be disregarded as a moral authority. ;-)
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 31%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Whether you regard the morality of each religion or not is inconsequential. The fact is people everyday judge others actions as immoral, even when those actions hurt no one for many reasons.
Religion is just an easy target to prove this point.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
What makes something immoral to a group is when that thing violates their constructs of morally acceptable behavior.
Individually, it's up to each of us to decide for ourselves.
For example, many people don't agree with the, "No working on the sabbath."
Some do it anyway and DON'T feel they've acted immorally even though the morality of their chosen religion, says otherwise.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Ok, by that reasoning: if morality is determined by the individual, then religion should acquiesce to moral determinations of individuals rather than being acting as a moral authority.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra