Are there any thoughts (with no action) that are morally/ethically wrong?

[iiandyiiii]

Examples:

Hoping your boss would die because he makes you work hard-

Hoping a wealthy relative would hurry up and die so you can inherit-

Hoping an athlete opposing your favorite team would be injured-

Imagining/fantasizing about committing a really awful crime (I mean bad, baaaad stuff)-

Are any thoughts like these or any other morally wrong by themselves, without any accompanying action whatsoever?

I think I say no, but I had a moment when I was wishing for the opposing QB to get knocked out of the game, and then I felt guilty about that thought.

[Miller]

No. The only measure for the morality of something that makes any sense to me is the degree to which it harms (or helps) other people. A thought, unacted upon and unexpressed, cannot neither help nor harm any other person, and therefore carries no moral weight.

[iiandyiiii]

I agree, but why did I feel guilty about that thought?

[SnakesCatLady]

You felt guilty because you know you would feel really, really bad if something did happen to the person you wished the bad thing on.

[Roderick Femm]

You felt guilty because you are a practitioner of magical thinking. If you thought it, and then it happened, then you must have contributed to it, even against all reason to the contrary.

I agree that there is no moral weight to thoughts, provided they don't go any further than thoughts.

I would also like to draw a slight distinction between wishing for something to happen, and thinking about how you might make it happen. Both have no moral weight if that's as far as it goes, but the second is more likely to resonate in your conscience if that thing does happen.


Roddy

[Naxos]

Examples:

...



If "morally/ethically" are taken to mean the generally accepted meaning for them in our modern society, let's say, last 500 years or so, then no.

Morality and Ethcism deals with social behavior, not mental processes.

You could ask if those examples are an example of neurotic behavior or mental illness, but that's outside the scope of your question.

[drewtwo99]

Growing up as a Christian (non-denominational), I was taught that sins committed in the heart and mind alone are still sins, so if you think about doing something sinful, you have already committed the act.

I don't personally believe this, but I do think that there are at least a good percentage of Christians who do believe that one should strive only to have sinless thoughts, and should repent/ask forgiveness when sinful thoughts occur.

[AClockworkMelon]

I actually think that a thought can be evil. If I really, genuinely want to torture you to death but the only thing that stops me is a fear of getting caught and not any moral reluctance then that imo is an evil thought, for example. A person can be evil without necessarily doing anything evil.

[Trinopus]

I would say that aggressively hurtful thoughts can be (very slightly!) dangerous. I think that they can end up having an effect on one's perceptions. They can alter one's core personality.

There is (in my opinion) a kind of "physical exercise" function to thoughts. If you practice a thought often enough, it becomes second nature. If you think hateful thoughts, you, yourself, become a more hate-filled person.

I think that the sort of driver who curses, and flips the bird, and honks, and hates other drivers is slightly more likely to lose self control and do something stupid or dangerous with his car. I certainly don't think there is anything like a direct cause-and-effect link: human behavior is vastly more complex than that! But I think there is a weak correlation between bad thoughts and bad behaviors.

Much comes down to the question, what do you want in your head, anyway? I don't want hate and anger inside me, even if it turned out that they were absolutely harmless in every possible way.

Trinopus (curses like a stereotypical drill sergeant while driving....)

[Zeriel]

I am kinda-sorta with Trinopus here--the moral/ethical value attached to evil thoughts is entirely and solely bound up with whether or not habitual thinking in those veins makes you more likely to commit evil actions.

[Da Mikster]

Maybe, maybe not. There was probably a reason behind all that "Thou shalt not covet" stuff. Why tempt karma?

But then, some days I think the only thing really stopping me from going 'postal' is the logistics - the folks that really need it are too far apart and hard to find. :mad:

[orcenio]

Our thoughts do have an effect on how we act.

For example, if i honestly hold hateful/negative beliefs towards a segment of the population (gays/jews/poor/etc) Im not going to act in the same way as someone who simply doesnt hold my views.

[Wesley Clark]

I know when I am caught up in a spiral of anger and resentment inside my own head, even though I never act on the feelings, by the time I am done I feel very drained physically and mentally. So from that perspective it is a bad idea because it is self destructive. Even if you don't act on destructive thoughts, they are largely still self destructive in their own ways.

[kenobi 65]

Hoping an athlete opposing your favorite team would be injured-

I was a kid in the late 1970s, growing up in Green Bay, and I was a big Packer fan. The Packers were terrible, and their arch-rival team, the Chicago Bears, had a future Hall of Famer in Walter Payton. Payton would run roughshod over the Pack, and I remember actually praying that he'd break his leg. When Payton died young of liver disease, I felt horrible about that.

[kenobi 65]

Growing up as a Christian (non-denominational), I was taught that sins committed in the heart and mind alone are still sins, so if you think about doing something sinful, you have already committed the act.

Witness Jimmy Carter, a devout Christian, who famously stated (in an interview in Playboy, of all places) that, "I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times."

[The Hamster King]

I would argue that morals and ethics are socially constructed and so only have meaning within the social realm, i.e. anything that doesn't involve interactions with others lies outside the purview of morality.

That said, I would also argue that there are some thoughts that are unhealthy or dangerous in that they are likely to lead to committing immoral or unethical acts, or lead to unhappiness or other negative effects for the thinker.

[robert_columbia]

Growing up as a Christian (non-denominational), I was taught that sins committed in the heart and mind alone are still sins, so if you think about doing something sinful, you have already committed the act.

I don't personally believe this, but I do think that there are at least a good percentage of Christians who do believe that one should strive only to have sinless thoughts, and should repent/ask forgiveness when sinful thoughts occur.

Yes, according to at least some Christian traditions, a sin can be committed by thought only, without manifesting it by behavior.
See

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm , section "Internal Sins"

[Da Mikster]

A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes.
Mohandas Gandhi

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

If one intentionally engages in sinful thoughts than yes.

[Czarcasm]

If one intentionally engages in sinful thoughts than yes.And how does one unintentionally engage in "sinful" thoughts?

[AClockworkMelon]

And how does one unintentionally engage in "sinful" thoughts?I think in his mind it comes down to how they feel about their thoughts. If a man is, say, attracted to children but is disgusted with himself and tries to distract himself from those thoughts whenever he can then he is unintentionally having those thoughts.

As opposed to someone who revels in them, I guess.

[Ulfreida]

Buddhist thought also includes the idea that karma is incurred through "body, speech, and mind" (actions, words, thoughts), in declining order of severity but nonetheless certainly present in thoughts alone.

Noticing the quality and content of one's thoughts is a part of most spiritual practices that I'm aware of. You don't try to force them away (that cements them in place), you simply bring them to a higher level of awareness. In Buddhist practice one might make the internal observation that 'I am not my thoughts', and allow them to drift away. In Christian practice one might "offer them up" -- give them to God. And then allow them to drift away.

Personally, I find that wishing ill on others very much affects not just my relationship to them but to the whole world.

[Clothahump]

In a word, no. It's only when thoughts become deeds that ethics comes into play.

[Farmer Jane]

It is very hard to separate thought from action. If I continuously think, I'm better than that [black] person, then eventually I'll act on it if I'm not already.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

I think in his mind it comes down to how they feel about their thoughts. If a man is, say, attracted to children but is disgusted with himself and tries to distract himself from those thoughts whenever he can then he is unintentionally having those thoughts.

As opposed to someone who revels in them, I guess.

This.

[Der Trihs]

And how does one unintentionally engage in "sinful" thoughts?
Well for one thing, by trying not to have "sinful" thoughts. It's like the old joke about telling someone that a magic spell only works if they don't think of a blue monkey; naturally once you tell them that they can't help but think of a blue monkey. Tell someone that sex or whatever is sinful and you can expect them to obsess over it; the harder they try to avoid "sinful thoughts", the more such thoughts they will have. That's why the concept of "sinful thoughts" is so great for guilt tripping people.

[smiling bandit]

Tell someone that sex or whatever is sinful and you can expect them to obsess over it; the harder they try to avoid "sinful thoughts", the more such thoughts they will have. That's why the concept of "sinful thoughts" is so great for guilt tripping people.

Nonsense. I haven't met the man who could manage to sin just by thinking about something as an idea. It must engage the will, the desire, to be sinful.

[Der Trihs]

Nonsense. I haven't met the man who could manage to sin just by thinking about something as an idea. It must engage the will, the desire, to be sinful.According to your definition of sinful. Which is more defensible than "just thinking about it is a sin", but less useful to someone trying to induce guilt in people.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Well, if we are material beings, then a thought must have some physical manifestation. Memory must somehow be a long-term physical manifestation of a thought. If a thought is somehow inherently evil, it would seem in some way 'better' not to introduce those physical patterns into the universe at all, if it can be helped.

How could it not be helped? TV. Bad influences. War. Starving. Crime. Probably lots of things.

[blue6389]

i read the mental gymnastics you just took yourself through and i'm too much of a lady to tell you verbatum what i think, let's just put it this way, everyone has the right to their opinion but when you're worrying about you next meal you don't have the time or the luxry to wonder if your thoght have a physical manifestation of some kind!

[sandra_nz]

I agree, but why did I feel guilty about that thought?

Because you have a moral code and you recognise that your thoughts do not fit with your moral code. Basically, you're normal. Well, in this one thing, I can't speak for the rest of you. ;)

[SecondJudith]

I would say that aggressively hurtful thoughts can be (very slightly!) dangerous. I think that they can end up having an effect on one's perceptions. They can alter one's core personality.

There is (in my opinion) a kind of "physical exercise" function to thoughts. If you practice a thought often enough, it becomes second nature. If you think hateful thoughts, you, yourself, become a more hate-filled person.

I agree with this.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

i read the mental gymnastics you just took yourself through and i'm too much of a lady to tell you verbatum what i think, let's just put it this way, everyone has the right to their opinion but when you're worrying about you next meal you don't have the time or the luxry to wonder if your thoght have a physical manifestation of some kind!

I hear ya. But I'm looking at these physical things as a kind of 'seed' that can get latched onto and grow into something terrible.

I just watched 'The Thin Blue Line' the other day. True story- a cop gets shot, the guy who did it comes up with a story to blame someone else. Based on this story the wheels of justice get turning on this other guy and he winds up in prison for over a decade. At what point did the injustice against the innocent guy begin? I think we could trace it back to the killer's idea to blame someone else. The idea itself was the seed for everything that followed. See what I mean?

I agree though, in the heat of things this isn't going to be something practical to worry about.

[studmuffin]

I still harbour unclean thoughts about Sarah Palin..................

[Candyman74]

I'd say that a thought can be morally wrong, but it can't be criminally wrong.

[you with the face]

If thoughts and feelings were entirely exempt from judgement (in a social sense), then we'd only attach value to actions. But we don't. We routinely label thoughts as "good" and "bad".
So given that, why shouldn't we describe thoughts as ethical or unethical? It's in keeping with our social norm.

If a bigot believes any member of his hated enemy class should be killed on sight, is he not being unethical in thought if he hasn't yet had the opportunity to carry out his plan? Let's say that he is being unethical. Is there more to lose than gain by judging him this way? Why should we care enough to characterize him differently?

The OP's question is like asking whether a sound is made if a tree falls and there's no one around to hear it.

[olivesmarch4th]

I think intent makes a difference. It's human nature to have thoughts about things that would be unethical in deed. I've had plenty of thoughts that would be offensive to drag out in the light of day. And I wasted a lot of time feeling like a horrible person because of them, and trying to control them, until I learned that it's just human nature and thoughts are just thoughts. Moreover, they can't be controlled - but one can learn to view them from a more detached and objective standpoint, without investing in them.

So basically, no, I don't think thoughts have moral weight by themselves. As for the idea that thinking ''bad'' thoughts increases the likelihood of committing ''bad'' actions, most of the research I'm familiar with refutes that. For people with OCD it's one of the paramount myths to bust for those who suffer, because they are terrified that their thoughts are predictions of their action. The more they try to suppress the thought, the more they think it, which then confirms their belief that they are bad and must engage in safety behaviors to prevent themselves from losing control. A major key to healing is learning to treat thoughts as they are - inconsequential, random, only imbued with the power we give them.

[you with the face]

As for the idea that thinking ''bad'' thoughts increases the likelihood of committing ''bad'' actions, most of the research I'm familiar with refutes that.

Really? I would need to see that research because this is completely counterintuitive. If what you're saying is true, people who routinely lie, cheat, and steal (and do so in a premeditated fashion not on impulse) are equally as likely to be thinking "bad thoughts" as people who don't do those things.

I think there is a big difference between someone with OCD whose brain keeps playing a naughty sound track, and someone without OCD who acts in unethical ways based on forethought and deliberation.

[Zeriel]

I think there is a big difference between someone with OCD whose brain keeps playing a naughty sound track, and someone without OCD who acts in unethical ways based on forethought and deliberation.

My understanding is that it's the difference between random thought and habitual thought.

As an example, I have (managed, treated) anger issues. Occasionally, when having my morning coffee, I will get the impulse to throw the mug against the wall and start screaming.

If I dwell on it, and magnify it, and revel in the imagined sense of how good that'd feel, it will probably eventually habituate me to thinking that's normal.

If I dwell on it, and magnify it, and get horrified at myself for even daring to think such a thing, it will stay in my head and I'll STILL get habituated to thinking that it's normal.

If I think it and dismiss it, it probably won't affect me at all.

[Mangetout]

Well for one thing, by trying not to have "sinful" thoughts. It's like the old joke about telling someone that a magic spell only works if they don't think of a blue monkey; naturally once you tell them that they can't help but think of a blue monkey. Tell someone that sex or whatever is sinful and you can expect them to obsess over it; the harder they try to avoid "sinful thoughts", the more such thoughts they will have. That's why the concept of "sinful thoughts" is so great for guilt tripping people.

Although it's not possible to avoid the intrusion of thoughts, it's definitely possible to choose how much, if at all, one will dwell on and develop a thought. We are somewhat in control of ourselves (including our own thought-lives) are we not?

[Kobal2]

Although it's not possible to avoid the intrusion of thoughts, it's definitely possible to choose how much, if at all, one will dwell on and develop a thought. We are somewhat in control of ourselves (including our own thought-lives) are we not?

I don't think so. Some thoughts behave like earworms. I often have unpleasant memories barging in unannounced and mostly unwelcomed. Not triggered by anything, really. Just the old noggin' going "hey, I noticed you're not doing much with me right now, so I thought I'd ask whether you'd lived this one down by now ? Oh. Apparently not. Sorry I mentioned it. Carry on. Oooor you could just dwell on it, I guess. Teehee."

Speaking of which, earworms themselves are essentially recurring thoughts that you can't seem to shake off, aren't they ?

Another example would be obsessing over trivial details - like the name of that actor who played that role in that film and GOD I know who he is I just can't remember his name...WIKIIII ! Whelp, I'm sure everyone has some thought patterns along those lines, where you just won't be able to rest or concentrate until you look it up. Or find the word you're looking for, or whatever put the stops to your train of thought at the time.
Maybe I simply have a bit of OCD though :)

[~Olive~]

i don't believe in the thought police ...

[Mangetout]

I don't think so.Not at all?

I know we sometimes have thoughts we can't shake off, but by and large, we're somewhat in control of the conscious direction of our thoughts, aren't we? If it were not so, it would be impossible to hold down a job, learn a trade, study anything.

The freewill issue arises here, along with all the stuff about how our brains are doing stuff we don't realise, and acting in ways we think they're not, but we can still do things like deciding to dwell upon something else, busy ourselves with something, distract ourselves with other stimuli, etc.

Otherwise, no advice or decision on how to deal with anything would be of any use.

[Kobal2]

Not at all?

Well, sure, we do have a good dose of control. I'm just saying that thoughts sometimes do just pop up unbidden, and thoughts can be hard to just shake off in spite of one's best efforts.
Which is my take on that whole unwillingly having sinful thoughts thing. Especially when boobies are involved. For once I feel Qin didn't deserve the snark (I mean, besides the concept of sinful thoughts in the first place, but that's a whole other thang)

[Mangetout]

Absolutely, bad thoughts pop up (I think it's called the 'dark passenger' or some such) - I get quite absurdly dark thoughts intruding upon me at times myself, but what most people do tend to have a choice about is whether we dwell on them, or try to dismiss them and think about something else. Often (but not always) easy - occasionally very hard or impossible.

AFAIK, where thoughts are regarded as sinful in a religious context, the provocation or temptation (i.e. the initial, or even repeated intrusion) is not the sin; the sin is wilful engagement and development of the thought.

[SecondJudith]

As for the idea that thinking ''bad'' thoughts increases the likelihood of committing ''bad'' actions, most of the research I'm familiar with refutes that. For people with OCD it's one of the paramount myths to bust for those who suffer, because they are terrified that their thoughts are predictions of their action. The more they try to suppress the thought, the more they think it, which then confirms their belief that they are bad and must engage in safety behaviors to prevent themselves from losing control. A major key to healing is learning to treat thoughts as they are - inconsequential, random, only imbued with the power we give them.

This seems to me to reinforce, rather than negate, the point that habitual thoughts* affect behaviour, especially the bolded part. This is a major part of CBT as well, that learning how to overcome habitual eg anxious thinking leading to anxiety attacks is difficult, and takes time and hard work, because thoughts do become somewhat ingrained and harder to move on from once you've been habitually thinking them for a while.

*I agree the distinction between habitual thoughts -- thoughts that are dwelled on and engaged with -- and 'accidental'/casual thoughts is an important one

[Lubricious Integument]

No. The only measure for the morality of something that makes any sense to me is the degree to which it harms (or helps) other people. A thought, unacted upon and unexpressed, cannot neither help nor harm any other person, and therefore carries no moral weight.

That's an interesting way of measuring morality but I wonder if it is incomplete. For (a despicable) example, say someone tortures and kills a stray cat which is not anyone's pet and will not be missed, and does so with no witnesses. No persons other than possibly the perp himself have been harmed. Is this an immoral act?

[orcenio]

That's an interesting way of measuring morality but I wonder if it is incomplete. For (a despicable) example, say someone tortures and kills a stray cat which is not anyone's pet and will not be missed, and does so with no witnesses. No persons other than possibly the perp himself have been harmed. Is this an immoral act?With a few tweaks I'm sure I can "Cat friendly" Miller's comment. There.

"No. The only measure for the morality of something that makes any sense to me is the degree to which it harms (or helps) others. A thought, unacted upon and unexpressed, cannot neither help nor harm anyone, and therefore carries no moral weight."

[Lubricious Integument]

With a few tweaks I'm sure I can "Cat friendly" Miller's comment. There.

"No. The only measure for the morality of something that makes any sense to me is the degree to which it harms (or helps) others. A thought, unacted upon and unexpressed, cannot neither help nor harm anyone, and therefore carries no moral weight."

Is harming something while acting in self defense moral under this measure?

[Zeriel]

Is harming something while acting in self defense moral under this measure?

Go with utilitarianism at that point--was your act of self-defense justified? Did it use the minimum necessary force?

[TriPolar]

Yes, if you think this thought:

This thought is morally/ethically wrong

[Lubricious Integument]

Go with utilitarianism at that point--was your act of self-defense justified? Did it use the minimum necessary force?

I think justifiable self-defense is a moral action, but I'm not certain that orcenio's measure of morality is necessarily applicable. Here's a ridiculous and contrived example.

a) I'm out in the back 40 with my child and for some reason I am armed. A vicious-looking dog appears, baring teeth, and taking an aggressive posture. I am convinced we are in danger so in self-defense I shoot the dog. I help my child but harm the dog, and on balance I feel I acted morally.

b) Same as a) except it is just me without my child. Here I harm the dog but help no others. Is the action moral?

[Zeriel]

I think justifiable self-defense is a moral action, but I'm not certain that orcenio's measure of morality is necessarily applicable. Here's a ridiculous and contrived example.

a) I'm out in the back 40 with my child and for some reason I am armed. A vicious-looking dog appears, baring teeth, and taking an aggressive posture. I am convinced we are in danger so in self-defense I shoot the dog. I help my child but harm the dog, and on balance I feel I acted morally.

b) Same as a) except it is just me without my child. Here I harm the dog but help no others. Is the action moral?

Er, incorrect. Helping yourself and/or preventing someone from hurting yourself is a moral act as well. In scenario A you are helping two and harming one, and in scenario B you are helping one and harming one.

[Lubricious Integument]

Er, incorrect. Helping yourself and/or preventing someone from hurting yourself is a moral act as well. In scenario A you are helping two and harming one, and in scenario B you are helping one and harming one.

I agree with you. However, this hypothetical is posed to test the statement

"The only measure for the morality of something that makes any sense to me is the degree to which it harms (or helps) others. A thought, unacted upon and unexpressed, cannot either help nor harm anyone, and therefore carries no moral weight."

A possible correction would be

"The only measure for the morality of something that makes any sense to me is the degree to which it harms (or helps) me or others . A thought, unacted upon and unexpressed, cannot either help nor harm me or anyone, and therefore carries no moral weight."

This goes back to the question raised in the OP. Thoughts with no action certainly don't harm anyone else. Can they harm the one entertaining the thoughts? Does this possibly make them immoral?

[Bryan Ekers]

It's immoral to tell someone their thoughts are immoral.

[Lubricious Integument]

It's immoral to tell someone it's immoral to tell someone their thoughts are immoral.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

I want to go to the beach. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oliathtPzoY)

Particles of pain, in my brain
I guess they're here to stay.
They worked their way inside, and I can't hide
Or even walk away.

I expect my bad thoughts are different from what Iggy Pop is dealing with, but he seems to agree that an immoral thought is a physical thing, a 'particle of pain.'

So don't think bad thoughts. You are only hurting yourself.

[Kozmik]

It's immoral to think it's immoral to tell someone it's immoral to tell someone their thoughts are immoral.

[olivesmarch4th]

This seems to me to reinforce, rather than negate, the point that habitual thoughts* affect behaviour, especially the bolded part. This is a major part of CBT as well, that learning how to overcome habitual eg anxious thinking leading to anxiety attacks is difficult, and takes time and hard work, because thoughts do become somewhat ingrained and harder to move on from once you've been habitually thinking them for a while.

*I agree the distinction between habitual thoughts -- thoughts that are dwelled on and engaged with -- and 'accidental'/casual thoughts is an important one

But the question here is whether there's a causal relationship between thinking about something and actually doing it. Sure, thoughts about X may cause a person to behave in a way to avoid doing X, but the real relevant question is whether thoughts about doing X will increase the likelihood that X will actually happen.

That urge or thought of doing terrible things - the imp of the perverse - is found to be present in the majority of the non-clinical population. Every day perfectly normal people have horrible thoughts about harming loved ones or jumping in front of a bus or whatever. Where the disorder comes in for many is the belief that there is something wrong with them for having those thoughts in the first place - that can lead to an obsession with those thoughts and full-fledged anxiety disorder when the afflicted tries to resist thinking those kind of thoughts. In this case it is the act of trying to suppress the thought that causes the thought to resurface again and again.

I do not believe people should be held morally accountable for their thoughts. This is partly because I don't believe thoughts can be controlled. We have plenty of evidence that they can't. We can change how we relate to our thoughts, but we can't change the actual content of the thoughts. Even the most successful CBT client will probably admit they still have crazy thoughts, they've just learned not to give them as much power as they did in the past. And one natural consequence of not being afraid of those kinds of thoughts is that they do tend to diminish - but it's not ''control'' in the sense that you can actively force yourself not to think a certain way. It's more like old habit being replaced with new.

And from personal experience, I find the less we try to avoid and suppress unpleasant things in general, the more we are able to respond rationally to our environment, and the happier we are overall.