Asserted: a fantasy, even a disgusting one, is morally neutral.

Great Debates
21

Do you think that lying is by definition immoral? If the truth would lead to more harm than the lie, isn’t the lie more moral than the truth? What is the moral answer to the question, “Are you hiding any Jews in your attic?”

I think that someone who has deep prejudices against a group, but never acts on them in any way, is far more moral than someone with identical prejudices who never misses an opportunity to express them in public. Sure, the first guy isn’t as honest, but in his deceptions, he is hurting far less people than the guy who’s out there marching in a Klan rally.

22

I think that whether or not a fantasy is immoral depends on whether you enjoy it or not. There are people who have fantasies about rape or murder or cannibalism and don’t like those things at all; they are troubled by their involuntary thoughts. It’s a symptom of OCD. And no, I don’t think it’s immoral.

But if you enjoy your fantasies, I don’t see how that can be considered moral. You’re glorifying rape and murder in your mind and making them seem like good things. Sure, you’re not as bad as the people who actually commit the acts, but it’s still a gray zone. Hatred (either of an individual or a group) is usually considered immoral, yet most people who hate don’t do anything to the people they hate. I don’t think saying a fantasy is immoral is “thoughtcrime” since that implies I’d like to root out these people and take their fantasies away, which I don’t want to do. But I don’t see how a guy who takes delight in fantasies of naked boys isn’t getting into the gray areas of morality.

Of course, we all get into these gray areas of morality; none of us has a totally clean thought record. And what goes on in other people’s minds is none of our business. But I still don’t think that actions are the only thing that matters when it comes to morality.

23

Do you think slasher flicks like Friday the 13th are immoral? Are the people who make them immoral? The audience who watches them? Which group is worse?

24

I don’t think most slasher flicks glorify murder. They take murder to ridiculous extremes so we can examine death from a detached viewpoint, and in doing so, examine ourselves. The vast majority of horror-movie fans do not have wanted, enjoyed fantasies about killing people. And anyway, like I said, we’re all immoral.

25

The obvious objection to the Kantian view of morality. :slight_smile: To answer your specific question - yes, I regard lying as always immoral. However, there are circumstances in which committing a minor sin, such as lying, is preferable (and therefore less immoral) than allowing a greater evil, such as murder, to occur. But lying is still immoral, even though it may, occasionally, be the right thing to do.

However, that’s not the issue. The question is not “What sort of things are moral?”, but “Can thoughts alone be immoral?”. I would answer an unqualified “yes” to the second question.

I would say that both are equally immoral - the second person causes more harm through his immorality, but he isn’t any more reprehensible than the first.

26

I was watching some old Star Trek Next Generation episodes about the Holodeck. Seems to me that anyone could have programmed that deck to have anything in it. Say it came out to someone on the Enterprise that someone on board was programming it to live out the imprisonment and torture of someone, or living out the life of a serial killer or something else.

WWKD (What Would Kirk Do)? Is this a person whom you would want as an officer?

What if you found out that the person you were married to fantasized about snuff porno or children without ever acting on those thoughts?

I don’t think we should criminalize thought, however it’s hard to separate a person from their fantasies on purely emotional levels.

All of which is why it’s not a good idea to let people into the inner sanctum of your mind. Some crazy shit might be going on in there, stuff you might never act on for all the tea in China, but the human reaction is to be quite suspicious at such thoughts and I don’t think that’s unfair. I’d be guilty of it myself.

27

So speaking about your racism is no different, morally, from harboring racist thoughts and doing nothing to act on them? I find that bizarre. Now, it’s possible that someone would refrain from expressing racist thoughts simply because it was socially unacceptable, in which case their moral code is probably no stronger than someone who made racist jokes. But their actions are still the relevant part. If one person acts in a way that harms others, it’s immoral. Compare, then, three racists. One keeps it to himself. One makes jokes around like-minded friends. And one publishes a newsletter for other racists. Are they all three equally morally culpable? Really? I don’t understand this at all.

And what about the fact that you simply don’t have total control over your thoughts? For example, I’ve seen a couple threads - one fairly recently - about people who feared they were becoming racist from experience getting lousy tips from black people. So if you find yourself thinking a certain way, but you don’t like it, is that equally reprehensible? How about someone who was molested as a child, goes on to develop similar tendencies, but feels terrible guilt at his impulses? Also bad?

I just find the idea of assigning any sort of moral value to something hidden away absolutely unfathomable. And further, there are people who fantasize about things that they do not want to do, which is a point that I’ve made several times but everyone seems to be ignoring. If someone fantasizes about sexual murder - which, judging by what you find on the web, is apparently not that far outside the realm of normal - but limits it entirely to fantasy and is truly morally outraged at the thought of real life murder, are they really bad for indulging in a fantasy that they honestly wouldn’t enjoy in reality?

28

Can you just offer a reason why having a thought would be an immoral act?

29

It seems that our fundamental disagreement is on the issue of whether people are immoral, or only actions. If “immoral” is a word that can only be applied to actions, then, yes, my views are incorrect. However, I still feel that someone can be immoral, or evil, or sinful, or whatever other word you prefer, even if their actions don’t harm anyone else. You may disagree - if so, I accept your viewpoint, and hope that you will accept mine as a different one.

This is a good point. I agree that we can’t completely control our thoughts and fantasies. However, I would also argue that we should be able to know whether or not our thoughts are immoral. In your examples, I would not consider someone who had evil thoughts, but recognized that they were evil and something that they should fight against, to be immoral. However, I would regard someone who recoginzed their desires were evil, but continued to enjoy and encourage such desires, as immoral, even if they didn’t act on them. Someone who didn’t think their thoughts of rape and murder were evil - that’s a question for a psychiatrist rather than a moralist, IMO.

No, because a thought isn’t an act. My point is that both thoughts and acts can be immoral.

30

Moral and ethical codes don’t have to be correct, therefore all it would take for a unacted lone thought to be morally or ethically non-neutral is that the prevailing moral or ethical code define it to be so.

31

As the thought criminal who started this thread, I have a POV that is so far missing from the discussion: I think it is not only OK but GOOD to express one’s thoughts and feelings, not just for oneself but for society as a whole.

This is particularly true in the case of bondage fantasies. Look what has happened in society as a result of people being free to express their bondage fantasies for a couple of decades: a bondage community has sprung up, and with it, an ethos for sexual bondage (or to be more accurate, BDSM in general) behavior. It’s the same “safe, sane and consensual” ethos that governs gay sex (which was forged in the time of AIDS). I believe this new sexual morality is a SUPERIOR sexual morality to the old Judeo-Christian morality – if only because it dispenses with a lot of crap baggage that comes form its origin 2000 years ago.

But that’s not the only benefit, or necessarily even the best one, though I gotta admit, it’s a pretty good one. The simple fact of the existence of a BDSM community means that some people who might otherwise believe that the only outlet for their bondage fantasies would involve illegal activities – say, by tying someone up against their will and having sex with them, also against their will – instead know that there are women who enjoy being tied up and having sex, that they can express their fantasies without hurting anyone, in fact, while giving others pleasure, and hence that they aren’t dangerous maniacs.

How many guys who might have turned into for-real bondage rapists have instead been productive members of society because they had such an outlet? Even if it’s only a few, it’s a great thing because of the rapes it has prevented. Having a community means that such fantasies can be normalized and brought into society.

All of this because people DID express their sexual feelings and fantasies, even thogh they were generally frowned upon by society. It was a good thing for everybody, even if it did make some people uncomfortable to hear the discussion, and apparently still does.

I recognize that there are some fantasies that no amount of discussion will ever lead to a safe way of being realied – pedophilia, tired old rag that it is, qualifies here simply because children cannot give informed consent to sex, so any sex with kids is rape. But even if discussion does not lead to realization of fantasies, if it leads to better understanding and a better social response to the fantasy, that’s a good thing, too.

Therefore, as a general rule, I think there are very few if any fantasies left unvoiced. Let there be light, and beyond that, understanding.

32

The thing about sexual fantasies is that they don’t go away. No matter how much your conscience (superego, inner parent, whatever) lambastes you over them they’ll still be there in the morning. They are as much a part of you as your sexual orientation.

Given this fact what should people do with their fantasies? For many, probably most people this isn’t really a moral question, as most people’s sexual fantasies are morally neutral. But some people have very disturbing fantasies. What should they do about them? Should they spend their lives fighting an internal struggle which is impossible to win and leaves them feeling utterly depressed, possibly suicidal. Or should they simply acknowledge those fantasies, enjoy them in private, and treat people in the real world with normal consideration and respect. The first option will lead to stress and mental illness, the second offers the chance for a normal life.

With certain disturbing fantasies it is possible to find a willing partner, a lid to fit your pot, if you will. BDSM and the like can be acted on morally if the setting is safe sane and consensual. Of course the irony with BDSM play is that it’s the bottom who winds up calling the shots, since s/he gets to set the limits. Other fantasies have to be kept strictly within the mind, because acting on them would either be reprehensible (if they involve children or animals) or impossible (If they involve aliens, mermaids, three-breasted women and the like). I have nothing but sympathy for a person with pedophilic urges who takes all the right steps to avoid acting on those urges. Such a person may never have children, must limit their careers to avoid being in contact with children, and will probably never have a satisfying sex life.

What bugs me is the sense of smug moral superiority I see coming from some posters, notably lissener in the now locked pit thread. First of all it’s cheaply won. You didn’t do anything for it, you just won the role of the paraphilic dice. Secondly it’s sanctimonious, a pet peeve of mine. Thirdly it’s cruel, since you’re labeling someone as morally inferior not for doing anything but just for an aspect of their personhood they can’t control. Finally it places on the judgee an impossible burden, as it is pretty much impossible to get rid of sexual fantasies, so s/he’s doomed to be “immoral” under the “your fantasies have moral weight” idea.

Obviously the above is based on sexual fantasies only. Non-sexual fantasies are a somewhat different matter, though even there I hold nothing’s immoral if it stays in your head.

my $0.02

33

I would agree with you here, but I would also say that I don’t regard BDSM as immoral in the first place. :slight_smile: Do you accept that there are some fantasies which are not moral by absolute standards?

34

If fantasizing about immoral actions is itself immoral, then it follows that fantasizing about moral actions counts as moral behavior, even if those thoughts are never acted on. So a person who fantasizes about curing all the world’s diseases has a stronger moral character than someone who fantasizes about giving a thousand dollars to charity, while both are morally superior to a person who never imagines either scenario, even if their actions are exactly the same.

This suggests an easy solution to the dilemma: every time you fantasize about raping someone, follow it up with a fantasy in which you heal a crippled child with magic. That way it should all even out, more or less.

35

A bit of a strawman. I think everyone would agree that actions are more moral, or immoral, than thoughts - the question is whether or not thoughts are always morally neutral.

36

That made me laugh, Terrifel. What a perfect solution! :slight_smile:

37

Now I understand you even less. If you’re denying that thought is an act at all, then what in the world makes a thought immoral?

Are you saying thoughts can be immoral just as a way of describing the content? like saying a thought about elections is a political thought? A thought about the nature of sin is an evil thought?

38

I didn’t intend to suggest that thoughts carry equal moral weight to actions, only that if the immorality of one’s thoughts is relevant, then the morality of one’s thoughts should be relevant too. Surely that’s a reasonable conclusion? So far the thread has focused solely on whether bondage fantasies are immoral, regardless of whether they’re acted on. But it should be equally possible to come to a conclusion by considering whether fantasizing about moral acts is itself moral, right?

I’m fantasizing about rescuing someone from a burning building right now. Does this thought have any moral significance or not?

39

Yes, basically. Certainly on the “political” point, although I would use the word “ethical” or “philosophical” rather than “evil” in your second example. “Moral”, in my opinion, is a way of describing the degree of compliance of a thought or an action with “moral standards”. The definition of these moral standards is one of the most fundamental problems of philosophy, and everyone will have their own answer to the question “Is this moral?”. However, I still feel that the question can be asked of thoughts, as well as actions.

40

[ul]
[li]I’m uncomfortable being called out in a GD thread. A GD thread should be a debate about an idea, not a referendum on the position of any particular Doper. Not to play junior mod, but it’s my understanding that such a thing is frowned upon.[/li][li]**Tevildo **and CS Lewis have made most of the points I would have made if I had chosen, rather than been challenged, to participate in this thread.[/li][/ul]