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 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 147

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

  1. #71
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,755

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

    Quote Originally Posted by partier9 View Post
    Honestly i think legalizing prostitution would help the women who do that, because it would allow the government to put down rules and regulations to protect them and they could sue their pimps.
    While on paper it sounds like a good idea, you'd quickly establish an underground prostitute slave culture where powerful pimps keep women in forced prostitution, either with threats of violence, drugs or blackmail. I'm sure there is a way to significantly reduce illegal prostitution and improve the lot of women involved voluntarily, but the criminal element isn't going to just go away and get decent jobs just because you legalize it.

    Drug use on the other hand is a different matter. Saying I don't care what you inject into your body sounds nice but in reality it probably wouldn't end well if everyone was allowed to easily get what are now illegal drugs. My guess is that it would cause serious societal problems and drugs such as heroine and coke would be made illegal again.
    Likewise, you can't just legalize everything and the criminal element that now makes it's living off of soft drugs will just move on to harder drugs. Designer drugs, things that are horrible addictive and destructive, would be just as much of a problem as the soft drugs are today. Criminals aren't going to go away because we want them to.
    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!

  2. #72
    Guru
    the_recruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,177

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    However, I don't see legalizing crack or meth... too toxic and dangerous. Cocaine, possibly. Heroin, probably not.
    So what? It's none of your goddamn business if someone else wants to **** their body up. People can drink themselves into oblivion. Why, then, shouldn't we ban alcohol? People can binge eat themselves into obesity and heart disease. Should we ban doughnuts? Mandate daily exercise? 5 servings of vegetables a day or its a misdemeanor. The government has no business forcing people to lead healthy lives.

    If someone wants to do heroin, who are you to tell them they cannot? That's bull****. That completely flies in the face of personal freedom.

  3. #73
    Guru
    the_recruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,177

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Illegal drug use is harmful to others. Prostitution is harmful to others. Addiction to substances is harmful to others. I thought you probably meant those kinds of so-called victimless crimes. They are not victimless.
    who's the victim if i do a line of coke or three before i go out partying some nights?

  4. #74
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,399

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

    Quote Originally Posted by the_recruit View Post
    who's the victim if i do a line of coke or three before i go out partying some nights?
    Finish the evening then we can say if there was a victim or not.

  5. #75
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,755

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

    Quote Originally Posted by the_recruit View Post
    So what? It's none of your goddamn business if someone else wants to **** their body up. People can drink themselves into oblivion. Why, then, shouldn't we ban alcohol? People can binge eat themselves into obesity and heart disease. Should we ban doughnuts? Mandate daily exercise? 5 servings of vegetables a day or its a misdemeanor. The government has no business forcing people to lead healthy lives.

    If someone wants to do heroin, who are you to tell them they cannot? That's bull****. That completely flies in the face of personal freedom.
    Then the government has no business paying for the consequences of said action. So if these people die on the streets, let them. They ought to get ZERO financial help from the taxpayer, or frankly, from private insurance except that which they pay for entirely out of their own pocket.

    You want to be stupid, foot your own bill.
    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. #76
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,944

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    within the realm of the Constitution.
    Where in the constitution is the Government vested with the power to implement "societal standards" through law?

  7. #77
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

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

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    This is what I call the short-sightedness of the so-called "victimless crime" mindset. What you describe is only the immediate situation. The consequences and ramifications can, and often do, reverberate far beyond the lone individual. Spouses, kids, and so on are often affected, negatively, by the individual's demise. One could argue that they weren't doing much anyway, but that's not necessarily true.

    Now, I'm closer to your point of view than you probably think reading thus far, but I stop at, and reject, the "victimless crime" designation. No, there are almost always victims... just not necessarily direct victims.
    I would assume that the spouse entered into that relationship willingly, thus his/her victim status would rest on his/her shoulders. If an individual is doing drugs, and being abusive to the other spouse, then the one being abused can either leave or stay willingly. As for the offspring of said relationship, if they are in danger, then remove them from the home.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  8. #78
    Guru
    the_recruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,177

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Then the government has no business paying for the consequences of said action. So if these people die on the streets, let them. They ought to get ZERO financial help from the taxpayer, or frankly, from private insurance except that which they pay for entirely out of their own pocket.

    You want to be stupid, foot your own bill.
    I agree.

    And I think it's a very big problem with any form of universal health care. I don't mind helping pay for someone who has just fallen on hard times and can't afford the bill themselves. But I don't want to have to pay for someone's emphysema treatment cause they've smoked two packs a day for most of their adult life. Just like you don't want to pay for my risky behaviors.

  9. #79
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,143

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

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    This is what I call the short-sightedness of the so-called "victimless crime" mindset. What you describe is only the immediate situation. The consequences and ramifications can, and often do, reverberate far beyond the lone individual. Spouses, kids, and so on are often affected, negatively, by the individual's demise. One could argue that they weren't doing much anyway, but that's not necessarily true.

    Now, I'm closer to your point of view than you probably think reading thus far, but I stop at, and reject, the "victimless crime" designation. No, there are almost always victims... just not necessarily direct victims.

    (Yes, I know you didn't use the "victimless crime" phrase specifically in your post, but it is a common preferred phrase for this POV.)
    They're only victims to you because the person being an addict or whatever is doing something you don't like.

    If a person is gay and comes out to their extremely homophobic parents, it can cause them just as much psychological and familial anguish as it would if they were a drug addict. My grandmother was distraught for the first few years of my life because I was never baptized, and as an incredibly god-fearing Catholic, she feared for my soul in a way that was and is very real to her. She and my mother fought bitterly over it for years.

    Are they "victims?" At what point do I become responsible for someone else's feelings?

    While it may be true that we all agree that being upset by a loved one being a drug addict is far more reasonable, it doesn't change the reality that the pain is very real to the homophobe or the god-fearing. Just because everyone doesn't agree on it doesn't mean the pain isn't real for them.

    Yet most of us wouldn't tell the gay person to get back in the closet, or tell me I should become a Catholic. Because in those situations, we believe people are responsible for how they feel.

    Why aren't they in the case of a drug addict? Why are they "victims" when it's drugs?

    I'm not saying the way they feel isn't legitimate. or that the impact it can have on their family isn't real. I'm just saying that we are ultimately responsible for how we feel and react. It's not as though the addict is purposefully trying to hurt them. They're hurt because of their emotional disposition towards that person. The person has no control over that. And ultimately, while we should care about the feelings of the people we love, that doesn't mean we are responsible for them, and it doesn't negate the reality that addiction isn't something you can just flip off like a switch.
    Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 03-21-12 at 11:52 PM.

  10. #80
    Guru
    the_recruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,177

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

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    This is what I call the short-sightedness of the so-called "victimless crime" mindset. What you describe is only the immediate situation. The consequences and ramifications can, and often do, reverberate far beyond the lone individual. Spouses, kids, and so on are often affected, negatively, by the individual's demise. One could argue that they weren't doing much anyway, but that's not necessarily true.

    Now, I'm closer to your point of view than you probably think reading thus far, but I stop at, and reject, the "victimless crime" designation. No, there are almost always victims... just not necessarily direct victims.

    (Yes, I know you didn't use the "victimless crime" phrase specifically in your post, but it is a common preferred phrase for this POV.)
    But it's not the actual consumption of the drugs that's hurting anyone.

    These negative effects you're talking about - the same exact thing can be said of alcohol. Alcoholics can be absolutely brutal to their loved ones. But that doesn't mean drinking alcohol in and of itself victimizes someone. If someone quietly and responsibly sips a drink in the privacy of their own home while relaxing, what would you call that if not a victimless crime?

    That is what is meant by victimless crime. That is the difference between, say, smoking weed and stealing someone's wallet. By definition, theft necessarily victimizes someone. Smoking pot does not necessarily victimize someone.

Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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