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

[lissener]

@tomndebb

. . . if I discovered that my young teen son was investing a lot of energy in rape or torture fantasies, I would be concerned, because I would not immediately know whether they were fantasies or obsessions. If all his other expressions and actions indicated that the fantasies were just that, I would not have a problem with him, either.

This absolutely horrifies me.

[lissener]

@tomndebb

. . . Once we begin dragging in the thoughts of people who cannot distinguish reality or the intentions of people who are capable of acting on their imaginations, regardless how horrible, then we have moved beyond the OP. It is still a worthwhile discussion, but we have begun to conflate at least three separate topics.

I’ve been unable to make anyone understand me, so I’ve been responding with some attempts to define, or at least to agree upon, some of the fundament issues at hand. The tangents have all been “components” of the larger issue, and not outside of it.

[lissener]

Perhaps that the issues I’m trying to clarify seem outside the scope of the discussion to you should be some indication of where I’m coming from, rather than where I’m straying to.

What I’m trying to communicate is so basic and fundamental to my understanding of human life on this planet that I still believe that if I were able to communicate it clearly you’d go :smack: and say, “Oh, NOW I see what you mean!”

So try to meet my “tangents” half way, if you have any interest in understanding what I’m trying to communicate.

[Tevildo]

@lissener

Perhaps that the issues I’m trying to clarify seem outside the scope of the discussion to you should be some indication of where I’m coming from, rather than where I’m straying to.

What I’m trying to communicate is so basic and fundamental to my understanding of human life on this planet that I still believe that if I were able to communicate it clearly you’d go :smack: and say, “Oh, NOW I see what you mean!”

So try to meet my “tangents” half way, if you have any interest in understanding what I’m trying to communicate.

I think there are three distinct positions being argued here:

1. “Only actions can be immoral - thoughts can never be immoral if they don’t lead to action.”

2. “Thoughts can be immoral, but fantasies, which the person has no intention of acting on, are not immoral, whatever their content.”

3. “Thoughts can be immoral, and some fantasies are immoral by virtue of their content, irrespective of the intention of the person to act out the fantasy.”

There’s also the perennial problem of deciding whether or not something is immoral in the first place - perhaps this is the issue we should tackle, instead?

[tomndebb]

@lissener

Perhaps that the issues I’m trying to clarify seem outside the scope of the discussion to you should be some indication of where I’m coming from, rather than where I’m straying to.

What I’m trying to communicate is so basic and fundamental to my understanding of human life on this planet that I still believe that if I were able to communicate it clearly you’d go :smack: and say, “Oh, NOW I see what you mean!”

So try to meet my “tangents” half way, if you have any interest in understanding what I’m trying to communicate.

Well, apparently, I really do not have any understanding of what you are trying to communicate. The fact that you can be horrified by the possibility of fantasy, (that is, imagining that which can never be), indicates to me that you are failing to understand my position in a way that makes your position unintelligible to me.

I understand the concept that among people who consider behaving in certain ways, their thoughts tend to shape their personality in ways that lend themselves more toward accepting that behavior. However, you seem to fail to accept that one can imagine activity that one considers impossible in ways to explore feelings and reactions that are outside one’s experience or desires. As long as it appears that you believe that all thought must lead in the direction of action, we are at an impasse.

[lissener]

So a person who wishes his mother was dead lives an internal life that’s morally indistinguishable from someone who doesn’t.

If you have to bring in extenuating circumstances–his mothe abused him, whatever–then you are acknowledging that the wish to have her dead requires a morally balancing circumstance.

The thought itself, context aside: morally inconsequential to the inner life of that person?

[tomndebb]

@lissener

So a person who wishes his mother was dead lives an internal life that’s morally indistinguishable from someone who doesn’t.

If you have to bring in extenuating circumstances–his mothe abused him, whatever–then you are acknowledging that the wish to have her dead requires a morally balancing circumstance.

The thought itself, context aside: morally inconsequential to the inner life of that person?

To whom are you responding? Nothing that I have presented as fantasy matches your quoted statement, here. Someone who wishes his mother dead is expressing a desire for a real event. That is not fantasy.

[lissener]

@tomndebb

To whom are you responding? Nothing that I have presented as fantasy matches your quoted statement, here. Someone who wishes his mother dead is expressing a desire for a real event. That is not fantasy.

Back up a step. I’m just talking about morality as a concept that is not irrelevant to an inner life. I think its necessary to establish that before you categorize the different kinds of thoughts that make up that inner life.

[Miller]

@lissener

AAAAARGHHHHHHHHHH!

It’s a fictional example!!! (I never use multiple exclamation points, but you leave me no choice.) It’s a fictional example and you’ve only responded to those aspects that I didn’t mention because they weren’t my point! The example is not about a paralyzed person; that’s just a device to illustrate a separation between thought and action. Sheesh, it’s like trying to explain a concept to a precocious child.

Thanks. I really needed to be condescended to. That greatly helps in my understanding.

Just please address the points that I raise in my thought experiment, without trying to explain the practical objections to such a thing actually occurring.

What part of your “thought experiment” has not been already adressed by my original position in this debate, that thoughts do not have moral weight, only actions? A thought never acted on is not moral or immoral. The person in your experiment, therefore, can not be moral or immoral, because they cannot act.

Irrelevant; I’ve never been talking about “doing,” only thinking. That’s exactly the distinction I’ve been trying to make.

The problem, from what I can see, is that you aren’t making a distinction between them at all. Thinking about murder is not murder. One thing carries a moral implication, the other does not. The “inner life” you’re talking about is, to me, the capablity to recognize that a thought would be immoral if translated into action. Without that translation, there is no moral weight.

[tomndebb]

@lissener

Back up a step. I’m just talking about morality as a concept that is not irrelevant to an inner life. I think its necessary to establish that before you categorize the different kinds of thoughts that make up that inner life.

I will freely grant that morality is relevant to inner life. However, you then jumped past that concept to discuss a particular event. If you are still discussing whether thoughts can be moral, I will assume that I am not part of that discussion and will bow out until such time as we return to the OP.

[lissener]

@Miller

Thanks. I really needed to be condescended to. That greatly helps in my understanding.

I was not trying to be condescending; I was trying to describe the nature of my frustration. Hey, at least I called you precocious.

@Miller

The person in your experiment, therefore, can not be moral or immoral, because they cannot act.

I reject that utterly and completely. You totally deny his humanity except insofar as it is “received” by someone else. That is so bizarrely, just, wrong, that I dont even know what else to say.

@Miller

The problem, from what I can see, is that you aren’t making a distinction between them at all.

I am absolutely making a distinction. THat’s the entire thrust of this discussion, as far as I’m concerned.

@Miller

Thinking about murder is not murder. One thing carries a moral implication, the other does not. The “inner life” you’re talking about is, to me, the capablity to recognize that a thought would be immoral if translated into action. Without that translation, there is no moral weight.

My flabber remains gasted.

[lissener]

@tomndebb

I will freely grant that morality is relevant to inner life. However, you then jumped past that concept to discuss a particular event.

What event? I only posited abstract theoreticals, in an attempt to reach an understanding.

@tomndebb

If you are still discussing whether thoughts can be moral, I will assume that I am not part of that discussion and will bow out until such time as we return to the OP.

BUt Miller denies that thoughts can be moral. I felt that to a great extent you and Miller were coming from the same perspective. No?

[tomndebb]

@lissener

What event? I only posited abstract theoreticals, in an attempt to reach an understanding.
BUt Miller denies that thoughts can be moral. I felt that to a great extent you and Miller were coming from the same perspective. No?

Let’s just say that the statement

who wishes his mother was dead

expresses a different event (hypothetical or not) than the statement “enjoys rape fantasies.”

I’ll just stay out of the discussion as to whether thoughts can be moral. I am already on record as identifying the problems with such thoughts as envy.

[Miller]

@lissener

I reject that utterly and completely. You totally deny his humanity except insofar as it is “received” by someone else.

Well, yeah. That’s what I said in my first response to your hypothetical, where you said I was being too literal. How do you want me to adress this hypothetical? As if it’s a real person, as you seem to be doing now, or merely as an artificial construct for the purposes of your argument, as you were insisting on earlier?

I am absolutely making a distinction. That’s the entire thrust of this discussion, as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t really see your distinction, though, except in terms of degree: you’re saying a thought and an action can both have moral weight, but actions have more moral weight. That’s not much of a distinction. I’m saying that thoughts and actions are so wholly different that one of them falls entirely outside the sphere of moral considerations.

My flabber remains gasted.

That’ll get you arrested in Texas.

[wonky]

@Tevildo

2. “Thoughts can be immoral, but fantasies, which the person has no intention of acting on, are not immoral, whatever their content.”

This is where I stand. A fantasy isn’t the same, to me, as a thought, a plan, or a wish. A fantasy is something that is appealing despite the actual occurence being unacceptable. I fantasize about one of my coworkers being hit by a meteorite, but if it happened I would be horrified. I wish she would get fired, and would be gratified by it happening. The wish has a moral component, the fantasy doesn’t.
But the fantasy is funnier.

[jshore]

@jsgoddess

The wish has a moral component, the fantasy doesn’t.

I’m trying to decide if I believe this (the first half of the sentence). I agree that the wish comes closer to having a moral component but I am not sure if it does or not. Just in terms of personal psychological health, I don’t think, for example, that it would be worth getting down on yourself for “wishing bad thoughts” if you do nothing to encourage that co-worker’s firing and, in fact, work as congenially and helpfully with her as anyone else. (For the sake of argument here, I am assuming that you consider this wish for firing to be a “bad thought”, even though you may very well may consider it justified in this case.) Now, I admit that if you have such thoughts enough and believe them strongly enough, they may be likely to translate into actions. And, it also might be true that if you have such “bad” thoughts a lot, you might want to ask yourself why you have so much anger toward these various people or whatever…But, I am still having trouble putting a strong moral component on the thought itself divorced from any action.

[lissener]

This is making less and less sense to me. I’m bowing out.

[wonky]

@jshore

I’m trying to decide if I believe this (the first half of the sentence). I agree that the wish comes closer to having a moral component but I am not sure if it does or not.

Taking pleasure in someone else’s misfortune would be a sort of thought that I would consider having a moral component. Wishing for her firing (I think the firing would be justified) would be me taking pleasure in her firing. I would like it if she were fired (I think). That goes beyond mental noodling about something silly and unlikely and bizarre like her being trampled by aardvarks.

This may not be well-thought. I’m trying to clarify it for myself as well.

[Clothahump]

@Beware of Doug

But. Can we limit “acting upon a fantasy” to carrying it out more or less as fantasized? What if there is only the potential to deliberately do harm?

In 1931, some Hungarian bastard blew up the Orient Express and killed a few dozen innocent folks because he had discovered he could only be sexually satisfied while seeing people die.

Now let’s suppose he had sublimated his urge to the point where he was content merely to rush up to women on bicycles as if about to push them over. Most would just get a good scare and he could imagine to the point of getting his rox off. But there’s always the possibility that one would crack her skull on the pavement or careen into the path of an oncoming bus.

Ie, some fantasies, even if sublimated, have a clear potential to do harm. Somebody draw me a line here.

Your scenario is not sublimated. By rushing up to someone on a bike, he’s acting out the fantasy. And that, I believe, is the key. As long as the fantasy stays in your own skull and is not shared in any way, through word or deed, with anyone else, then it is harmless.

[Amazon_Floozy_Goddess]

I think a fantasy that involves doing harm to a living thing is cause for worry. Picture it this way:

You’ve got a friend who you’re close to and you think they’re a great person. One day you’re over at their place and they’ve mistakenly left their diary lying open on a shelf. On the open page they’ve written out a fantasy about brutally raping and murdering you.

Arguments about diary-prying aside, wouldn’t this worry you? Would you still want to be friends with this person? Worse still, what if said friend had described this disturbing fantasy about your child? Would you not want to make sure they get shipped of to some kind of therapy tout-de-suite?