Timeline for Why is something immoral if it does no harm?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 25, 2023 at 17:28 | comment | converted from answer | user354948 | Purely depends on your ethical theory. If you are a utilitarian, for example, you could say that the rule followed by the would-be thief diminishes utility. If you are a Kantian, that’s not what you want to become a universal rule. If you are a virtue ethicist, the thief hadn’t virtue behind their actions, etc. | |
| Mar 25, 2023 at 17:04 | history | edited | Ludwig V | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Improved focus by deleting all but one of the questions.
|
| Mar 23, 2023 at 22:21 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 28, 2023 at 3:01 | |||||
| Mar 23, 2023 at 19:35 | comment | added | user65174 | exactly @RodolfoAP like we can't mistreat or be immoral to someone who bounces back? it'd be insane and degrading for yourself to take that as your single moral principle | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 17:54 | comment | added | RodolfoAP | The action is to steal, the reaction/consequence is harm (or not, if the pocket was empty). Morals are rules that govern actions, not reactions/consequences. | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 15:01 | comment | added | user65174 | anyway define harm. | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 14:49 | comment | added | user65174 | many inanimate objects are harmful. really weird non-argument, if you're trying to to prove your point from the fact that they aren't immoral. | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 14:27 | answer | added | user65174 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 12:29 | history | edited | ActualCry | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 27 characters in body
|
| Mar 22, 2023 at 19:13 | history | edited | ActualCry | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Mar 21, 2023 at 16:42 | history | edited | ActualCry | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 121 characters in body
|
| Jan 6, 2022 at 12:52 | answer | added | gnasher729 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 4, 2022 at 16:27 | comment | added | Dave | You're getting close votes probably, in part, to having two questions: 1) immorality in the absence of negative consequences, and 2) what about inanimate objects. I'd suggest that you eliminate one or the other of them to better focus this question. | |
| Jan 4, 2022 at 16:25 | comment | added | Dave | in para. 1 you give an example where the action just happens to not have a negative impact. in para. 2 you switch to "if no harm /can/ be done"; these are very different cases to consider. | |
| Jan 4, 2022 at 16:22 | comment | added | Dave | Related: philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/14271/3733 | |
| Jan 4, 2022 at 3:39 | answer | added | Ben | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 3, 2022 at 16:55 | answer | added | Wakem | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 3, 2022 at 12:52 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 13, 2022 at 3:08 | |||||
| Jan 2, 2022 at 16:25 | comment | added | Logikal | Why do you think harm has to do with the definition of MORAL? How do you define HARM? Do you strictly mean physical harm as in pain? Do you believe in psychological harm as real? Imagine I break onto your home at 3 a.m. every morning to watch cable television. Suppose I somehow managed to copy your key because you dropped it outside your home for 20 minutes and you could not find them for that time. I go copy the key and place them around where you dropped them. You find them. This morning I am found watching TV eating popcorn at your place. I caused no harm. Is it okay for me to do the act? | |
| Jan 2, 2022 at 8:58 | comment | added | J.G. | If you're asking why a desire that happens to be harmless is still wrong, the concept of moral luck is worth a read. Because if the scenario you describe weren't immoral, that would be an example of moral luck, which is a very controversial prospect. | |
| Jan 2, 2022 at 7:43 | comment | added | armand | The answer will depend on what moral framework is considered. You mention the fact that no harm is done, which points to consequentialism (no bad consequences). But obviously under virtue ethics, failing to do theft is just as bad as theft itself: the wannabe thief has demonstrated their lack of virtue by their attempt (if respect for private property is considered a virtue, of course). Under a form of social contract ethics, one would certainly be justified in losing trust into someone who demonstrated their lack of concern for others' property rights. | |
| Jan 2, 2022 at 4:53 | history | asked | ActualCry | CC BY-SA 4.0 |