• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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


  • Total voters
    41

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,627
Reaction score
14,970
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"? If something doesn't "harm others" should it be legal and permitted? Should we have societal standards? Should we have some legal morals? Do people have a right to do all things they wish so long as others aren't harmed?
 
Can you give me an example of something that does no harm to others, but that is, or you think should be illegal?
 
What constitutes harm to others is debatable, but if we are ignoring externalities, I don't see a single good reason why a person should not be in control of their own life. The duty of the government is not to save us from ourselves.
 
Can you give me an example of something that does no harm to others, but that is, or you think should be illegal?

Most things people would debate are currently illegal drug use, forms of sex, addictions to substances, and other things.

I can't really give you an example of that, because I'm not of the persuasion that just because something doesn't "harm others" doesn't mean it should be legal or permitted.
 
Sure, as long as an activity isn't physically harming another human being directly, how "perverse" it is in some people's estimation isn't terribly important. At least when it comes to questions of legality.
 
The government has no business in stopping people from doing something if it doesn't harm anyone. Plain, and simple.

The fact that the government puts people in jail for weed is despicable to me.
 
Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"? If something doesn't "harm others" should it be legal and permitted? Should we have societal standards? Should we have some legal morals? Do people have a right to do all things they wish so long as others aren't harmed?

You seem to think it is not moral (or immoral) to support individual freedom.
 
Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"? If something doesn't "harm others" should it be legal and permitted? Should we have societal standards? Should we have some legal morals? Do people have a right to do all things they wish so long as others aren't harmed?

I certainly believe that we should have societal and moral standards -- so I do believe in some restrictions on people. I do not, however, believe that the proper enforcement mechanism of such standards is necessarily the government (sometimes it is, usually its not). Societies/families/people can police themselves without the need of government enforcement much better than we give them credit for.
 
Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"? If something doesn't "harm others" should it be legal and permitted? Should we have societal standards? Should we have some legal morals? Do people have a right to do all things they wish so long as others aren't harmed?

I'm sure there are always exceptions which prove the rule. But I would say that in general one should be free to do as they like so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process. Does it mean that you couldn’t have “moral” standards? No, but it would mean that if you want those exceptions, you’re going to have to demonstrate why they should be excluded from the overall rule.
 
Most things people would debate are currently illegal drug use, forms of sex, addictions to substances, and other things.

I can't really give you an example of that, because I'm not of the persuasion that just because something doesn't "harm others" doesn't mean it should be legal or permitted.

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.
 
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.

Of course they are. Please give reasoning as to why individual drug use and addiction (not theft to feed the addiction) is harmful to others. Legal, locally regulated prostitution? How does that harm others?
 
Can you give me an example of something that does no harm to others, but that is, or you think should be illegal?

I think a good example is obscenity laws dealing with certain types of pornography with just consenting adults. There is zero evidence that films by people like Max Hardcore effect things like rape, domestic violence, or divorce, but people still say it is the state's job to uphold a certain form of morality and ban the films. I think the question of the OP raises another important question. What constitutes harming others? For example, a person's drug use could be harmless to others in the sense that they are not physically coercing anyone, but they might affect their loved ones negatively.
 
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.

Those are the things I am mainly focusing on because many would argue that there isn't harm to others with such activities.

My view is that as a society we should have societal standards. People who are members of society don't have the right to do whatever they want simply because what they do in private doesn't directly harm others (like drugs). I think society, via the government, has a right to create societal standards within the realm of the Constitution.
 
Of course they are. Please give reasoning as to why individual drug use and addiction (not theft to feed the addiction) is harmful to others. Legal, locally regulated prostitution? How does that harm others?

Individual drug use fuels drug cartels.
Illegal prostitution attracts crime to neighborhoods and lowers property values. Plus, of course, all prostitution is not voluntary. Ask Leroy about his "commissions."

And why on earth would you exclude "theft"???
 
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.

Illegal drug abuse is nor more harmful to others than legal drug abuse, unless your talking about all the crime associated with the sale, and distribution of it, though that is because of it being illegal, and those problems would go away if you made them legal

Prostitution does not harm anyone either, unless you are talking about the women being abused by pimps, and their unfair wages, and all the STD's they can get, of course that would stop if you made it legal as well.

See the patter emerging?
 
Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"? If something doesn't "harm others" should it be legal and permitted? Should we have societal standards? Should we have some legal morals? Do people have a right to do all things they wish so long as others aren't harmed?


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. :mrgreen:
 
legalize weed tax it and pay off our deficit,well save billions in prison costs and drug wars costs,plus raise some cash on the side:cool:

but on the actual question theres physical and mental harm that can come of legalizing things.

some things people arent mentally ready to accept as a norm.like 30 years ago if we had legalized gay marriage saying it doesnt harm anyone,it would have harmed gays from backlash from the public.people werent ready to accept something in their minds even though it didnt physically harm them in any way.today people still arent ready for it but society is slowly accepting it.

another example of the marijuana,studies show it doesnt hurt anyone.but g around the country at least a third of people still think smoking weed will cause you to go crazy and murder and steal.truthfully i believe legalizing weed would lower crime,name one stoned person who gets up and goes around stealing.they have to plan then get up,by then they get hungry go to the fridge forget what they were doing hen sit back down and play their xbox.
 
My contention is that almost on almost every subjective "moral" issue, the government decides on the basis of revenue. Examples: Prostitution (Sexual act, revenue exchange between 2, possibly 3 parties) is illegal, while Pornography ( 2 or more actors, Camera and Film Crew, Distributed World Wide to Millions of Viewers, therefore involving far more people and profiting far greater than normal prostitution) is completely illegal and to my knowledge welcomed by most states.

Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal despite the proven health risks and subsequent deaths, yet those who make their own version of either product are routinely sued by the fed for "tax evasion."

Same goes for narcotics, if you nearly O.D. on legally on financially regulated OTC drugs they'll put you in the hospital or protective custody more times than not, suicide attempts are not legally punishable in this country, that is unless you attempt to do so with an substance they deem "illegal."
 
Last edited:
Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"? If something doesn't "harm others" should it be legal and permitted? Should we have societal standards? Should we have some legal morals? Do people have a right to do all things they wish so long as others aren't harmed?

The nice thing about morals is not only does it stop people from doing thing are destructive to the community, but they actively promote people doing the right thing. One problem with the stance that we should not do things that harm others is that often people only look at direct harm from one person to another. The old adage your rights stop where my personal space begins or whatever overlooks things like the role of manners in promoting the common good of everyone or the utility of people simply looking after one another.
 
Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"? If something doesn't "harm others" should it be legal and permitted? Should we have societal standards? Should we have some legal morals? Do people have a right to do all things they wish so long as others aren't harmed?



Yes..... I dont care what you smoke, inject, ****, or marry. Neither should the government.

And if you look close, they dont care unless they can collect fines or taxes.
 
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. :mrgreen:

This pretty much explains my position.
 
I'm not a fan of allowing people to cause serious harm to themselves.

We need as many healthy taxpayers as we can get. :)
 
Illegal drug abuse is nor more harmful to others than legal drug abuse, unless your talking about all the crime associated with the sale, and distribution of it, though that is because of it being illegal, and those problems would go away if you made them legal

Prostitution does not harm anyone either, unless you are talking about the women being abused by pimps, and their unfair wages, and all the STD's they can get, of course that would stop if you made it legal as well.

See the patter emerging?

Lots of unlesses in there.

STDs would stop if prostitution were legal? Really? Child prostitutes would no longer be in demand? Even more very young women wouldn't be drawn into the life if it were legal? Now. I could see legalizing escort-type prostitution. But on street corners? No freakin' way.

If drugs were legal, there would be millions more drug addicts. Tens of millions. Drug addiction ruins lives...the person using...their familiy...wastes public resources. Marijuana? I'm with you there. The other crap? That would be a travesty.
 
Lots of unlesses in there.

STDs would stop if prostitution were legal? Really? Child prostitutes would no longer be in demand? Even more very young women wouldn't be drawn into the life if it were legal? Now. I could see legalizing escort-type prostitution. But on street corners? No freakin' way.

If drugs were legal, there would be millions more drug addicts. Tens of millions. Drug addiction ruins lives...the person using...their familiy...wastes public resources. Marijuana? I'm with you there. The other crap? That would be a travesty.

we already have legal rc drugs 1000% more dangerous then street drugs.

marijuana doesnt kill anyone,other drugs i can see being still illegal.

nevada has legal prostitution and their legal prostitutes dont seem to have any std problems because they are regulated and tested,unlike illegal prostitution.
 
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. :mrgreen:

If he would have added "adult" to the OP question, would that help?

As for public decency, how about letting women go topless as men are allowed to do but let's all keep our pants on? :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom