Fancying another man's wife vs chattel slavery

Seems pretty clear Christians are faced with the exact same problem, with changing opinions about the morality of slavery being a salient example. However, let's sidestep that debate and accept it for the sake of conversation. You followed it with this:


So does oxygen. Genetics, too. Can we therefore label each moral or immoral?

No. Morality is principles about the rightness/wrongness of behavior. Thinking isn't behavior, and neither are oxygen or a person's genetic makeup. Just because X influences Y doesn't make X and Y equivalent.
We're arguing against Jesus, here - we've no chance.

When Jesus says "thinking about X is the same as doing X", it's time to go home.
 
No, it's not.

The act is immoral.
Sure it is, and obviously so. You’re placing yourself way outside standard moral norms here, and you could reflect on why that’s so, as well as consider why someone should abandon such moral intuitions.
Only in so far as these things influence actions.
Not least because, unless these things are acted upon, we would never know what they are.
But that’s false: we evaluate people for these things regardless of their resulting in action. Beyond that, of course we can know about people’s intentions (say) without them acting on them: people can tell us about them!
 
Sure it is, and obviously so. You’re placing yourself way outside standard moral norms here, and you could reflect on why that’s so, as well as consider why someone should abandon such moral intuitions.
Explain why, if it's so obvious.

Without appealing to an action.
But that’s false: we evaluate people for these things regardless of their resulting in action.
And how do you know that people hold these positions until they act on them?

If somebody is a racist, but never lets on, how can you judge them for being racist?
You don't even know.
 
Explain why, if it's so obvious.

Without appealing to an action.
You’d have to ask a moral philosopher for a why, but it seems intuitively obvious that fantasising about having sex with children is wrong. A more pertinent question, given that this belief is probably pretty widespread, is why it isn’t wrong, as you suggest, and what its moral status would be otherwise: is it amoral, like breathing? Or virtuous, like giving to the poor?
And how do you know that people hold these positions until they act on them?
I’ve already answered this, in the part of my post you didn’t quote: Beyond that, of course we can know about people’s intentions (say) without them acting on them: people can tell us about them!
If somebody is a racist, but never lets on, how can you judge them for being racist?
You don't even know.
I’ve no idea what the significance of this observation is supposed to be.
 
You’d have to ask a moral philosopher for a why, but it seems intuitively obvious that fantasising about having sex with children is wrong.
There's a subtle-yet-relevant distinction between "wrong" and "immoral". By definition, the latter only involves behavior - but you're reframing the discussion to be about "wrongness", which is less precise and approaches subjectivity.

It's not obvious - to a moral philosopher - that fantasizing about having sex with children is immoral.

It might indeed be wrong, in the sense (as others here have noted) that thoughts can lead to behavior; spending time thinking things which can lead to immoral behavior is probably "wrong" on some level.

Is it immoral, though? The jury is very much still out debating this, and as far as I can tell from the sincere responses this thread has received from Christians (re. you, @Caroljeen, etc.), the counter-argument involves nothing more than pretending wrong and immoral are perfectly synonymous.
 
You’d have to ask a moral philosopher for a why,
What makes them qualified to tell me what's right/wrong?
but it seems intuitively obvious that fantasising about having sex with children is wrong.
To you.
It seems intuitively obvious to me that it's not, and I can cite my definition of "wrong" in support.
A more pertinent question, given that this belief is probably pretty widespread, is why it isn’t wrong,
Appealing to the majority, is a fallacy.
The burden of proof is on any and all claimants, be they majority or minority.
and what its moral status would be otherwise: is it amoral, like breathing?
Amoral, like all thoughts - they neither help nor harm others.
I’ve already answered this, in the part of my post you didn’t quote: Beyond that, of course we can know about people’s intentions (say) without them acting on them: people can tell us about them!
Speech is an action.
I’ve no idea what the significance of this observation is supposed to be.
Countering your "they can tell us" objection.
 
Why not just tell me where you derive your morals. It would take me too long to find it. If I'm wrong ,I apologize.
My morals are defined as follows:

if an action is intentional and causes what I judge to be unjustified harm, I consider it to be immoral.
 
What makes them qualified to tell me what's right/wrong?
Nobody has made this claim, but if you want an answer to this question, it's probably best to ask them, no?
Not just me!
It seems intuitively obvious to me that it's not, and I can cite my definition of "wrong" in support.
Sure, but that makes you highly unusual, indeed aberrant. Your definition of 'wrong' isn't support for anything.
Appealing to the majority, is a fallacy.
It is indeed, but nobody has done that here, to my knowledge.
The burden of proof is on any and all claimants, be they majority or minority.
I'm not quite sure that's true: given you're adopting such a radical perspective on the moral status of an action that seems uncontroversial to others, if there is such a burden, it probably falls on you.
Amoral, like all thoughts - they neither help nor harm others.
Thanks for clarifying. I don't accept that if something doesn't help or harm others it's therefore amoral, though.
Speech is an action.
Sure, but you asked me "And how do you know that people hold these positions until they act on them?". If one tells another about his intention to kill somebody else, he's not acting on that intention: to act on that intention is to actually attempt to kill his target.
Countering your "they can tell us" objection.
I've no idea how you think it does this.

At the moment it's a struggle to follow your train of thought: you seem to be suggesting that thoughts and other mental states per se cannot be morally evaluated because mind reading is impossible. Presumably you wouldn't endorse a position that's so silly, so help me understand!
 
There's a subtle-yet-relevant distinction between "wrong" and "immoral". By definition, the latter only involves behavior - but you're reframing the discussion to be about "wrongness", which is less precise and approaches subjectivity.
I'm not employing this distinction: assume that by one I mean the other.
It's not obvious - to a moral philosopher - that fantasizing about having sex with children is immoral.
That depends on the moral philosopher, of course.
It might indeed be wrong, in the sense (as others here have noted) that thoughts can lead to behavior; spending time thinking things which can lead to immoral behavior is probably "wrong" on some level.
Of course, most would say it's wrong quite independently of that, but I agree that this is morally significant too.
Is it immoral, though? The jury is very much still out debating this,
Is it? I think it's pretty uncontroversial that fantasising about having sex with children is immoral.
 
I'm not quite sure that's true: given you're adopting such a radical perspective on the moral status of an action that seems uncontroversial to others, if there is such a burden, it probably falls on you.
Could you give your definition of wrong? That might help me understand why you think that a thought can be wrong.
Thanks for clarifying. I don't accept that if something doesn't help or harm others it's therefore amoral, though.
I should refine this to include intent - if a thing is intended neither to help nor hinder, it is amoral.

Brushing one's teeth, for example - no intent to help or to harm others, thus, amoral.
 
Back
Top