View Poll Results: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • Everything should be permitted that doesn't "harm others"

    32 68.09%
  • We should have some societal standards based on morals

    10 21.28%
  • We should have more standards than what we have now

    4 8.51%
  • Other

    5 10.64%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 141 to 147 of 147

Thread: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

  1. #141
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Moonshine is illegal and it certainly does have it's "cartels", although it doesn't have a huge following and that keeps the power of the moonshiners relatively low. That said though, I'll bet you still have moonshiners buying political influence, etc. in areas where moonshine is commonplace.

    There's always going to be a point at which anything, be it drugs or alcohol or prostitution, where you cannot justify having it be legal. All you can do is move the line further along the continuum. Past that line, no matter where that line is, you're going to have problems.
    Almost everything that has regulations attached has an illegal market. There are companies making millions a year from knock-off handbags, perfumes, etc. - so we need to ban designer purses and perfumes?
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  2. #142
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,225

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    That is the $64,000 question isn't it? It is fundamental to how we want to govern/be governed.


    Personally I think going to either extreme would be disasterous; I favor a middle-of-the-road approach. We should have some basic standards yes... for instance we've decided that a 15yo cannot consent to sex, even if she does consent, because her consent is too uninformed and so on. Public sex doesn't "hurt" anyone but I don't think it should be allowed; some fundamental standards of public decency make for a better society.

    OTOH trying to legislate virtue into law is something that ought to be done very sparingly and very carefully, when it is done at all.... else we could fall into a dictatorship of the well-meaning.


    EXACTLY where to draw that "go no further" line is always the question of course.




    Keep to the middle of the road please.
    I voted for the first option, but I'm not completely there. I think age of consent doesn't count, as the children are still being manipulated even if they are consenting. Drug use is more complicated. The psychological effects on family, seeing their own children, brothers and parents becoming addicted to vile substances such as meth. However mature consensual prostitution and gay relationships are things that I feel should be supported.
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  3. #143
    Student
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    03-06-13 @ 02:59 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    272

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Yes, as I believe we should have control over own lives so far as that is possible, including ending them if we so desire, I can't think of an example of something that doesn't directly harm others that I think should be illegal. We can reasonably debate what constitutes harmful and whether indirectly harming others is ever permissible, or whether we should take a utilitarian approach. To me, that sometimes depends on the circumstance. While you wouldn't want some 40 year old creep flashing school kids, what about running in the naked mile or nude beaches? With the mile, there were dozens of cops, some on horseback, with nothing better to do than ruin everyone's fun apparently and threaten the runners with sex offender arrests. What about girls who are minors sending nudes of themselves on their cell? How can someone be simultaneously victim and perpetrator?

    Often the behavior neither is harmful to others nor self-harmful, for example certain drug use, yet still illegal. That really is nonsense to me. If we operated on more of a free, live and let live system, you wouldn't see such absurd and embarrassing stories as "Woman arrested for planting vegetable garden in her own yard." Yes, that's Detroit's problem, too much vegetation. The result of the alternative is constant fear of arrest for basically doing nothing. It benefits no one.

  4. #144
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?


  5. #145
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Almost everything that has regulations attached has an illegal market. There are companies making millions a year from knock-off handbags, perfumes, etc. - so we need to ban designer purses and perfumes?
    There is *NOTHING* whatsoever out there without regulations attached. Nothing. It's not possible to find anything, from food to clothing to drugs to cars, that have no regulations.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  6. #146
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    There is *NOTHING* whatsoever out there without regulations attached. Nothing. It's not possible to find anything, from food to clothing to drugs to cars, that have no regulations.
    Exactly my point - and most of their illegal side is like alcohol/moonshiners, not big enough to make a real difference (cars are a notable exception because of their individual value). The handbags and alcohol are legal and their "cartels" mean nothing. Drugs are illegal and their cartels are dangerous to say the least. Prostitution and gambling are similar where they are illegal with "organized crime" usually picking up the pieces there. We spend billions a year fighting the various wars on all these illegal activities, billions more supporting the criminals created by these crimes and for what? Morality's sake? I mean, who are we protecting unless it's protecting would-be addicts from themselves, which isn't working anyway. It would be cheaper to regulate these industries and treat the resulting addicts openly than it is to ban the products/services.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 03-28-12 at 12:11 AM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  7. #147
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Exactly my point - and most of their illegal side is like alcohol/moonshiners, not big enough to make a real difference (cars are a notable exception because of their individual value). The handbags and alcohol are legal and their "cartels" mean nothing. Drugs are illegal and their cartels are dangerous to say the least. Prostitution and gambling are similar where they are illegal with "organized crime" usually picking up the pieces there. We spend billions a year fighting the various wars on all these illegal activities, billions more supporting the criminals created by these crimes and for what? Morality's sake? I mean, who are we protecting unless it's protecting would-be addicts from themselves, which isn't working anyway. It would be cheaper to regulate these industries and treat the resulting addicts openly than it is to ban the products/services.
    We don't really fight most of those things. We talk about it, we make a show of it, we just don't really fight these 'wars. We ought to, we just don't.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •