And using this test, we can show that wearing clothes made of two different fabrics is immoral if we have a problem with more people wearing clothes made of two different fabrics. Which totally justifies stoning those who do.
This test is just “whatever the majority think is immoral is, and whatever the majority think is moral is”. For instance, homesexuality didn’t pass your test in 1970 in the USA, and so was clearly immoral back then. And it’s still immoral now in Russia or Saudi Arabia.
But “what the source of morals is” is precisely the question here. And what you said basically amounts to “morals are based on the general consensus”, and you will probably admit that it’s not exactly foolproof. The consensus changes, what most people thought immoral yesterday most people find perfectly moral today. And it will keep changing. So, for instance, if someone advances a novel idea (“cultural appropriation is wrong”, “eating meat is wrong” “watching people showering is fine”) how do I determine whether or not I should support it? If everybody bases his opinion on the current consensus, then we could as well be still ruled by the code of Hammurabi. It’s certainly a workable system but doesn’t provide any kind of even remotely objective moral system (note that in truth I don’t believe there can be such a thing as an objective moral system). At least “do not cause harm” provides a guidance independant from random changes in cultural preferences.
IMO, our source of morals is basically our instincts as evolved through millions of years as a social species, plus our cultural upbringing.
For example, if the most intelligent species on the planet were evolved from ants instead of primates, they would likely have no problem with slavery, caste systems, etc., assuming their basic structure (queens, drones, etc.) stayed intact. If the most intelligent species on the planet evolved from lions, they might consider it immoral if the new pride lion didn’t kill off the children from the previous pride male. You would have philosophers explaining why the most moral thing to do is to kill off the previous children so the new pride male could better provide for the pride.
What I’m saying is that it’s impossible to separate our evolutionary past and our cultural environment from our morals. Chimp societies and human societies share some traits – sharing, helping, and so on – they obviously didn’t reason it out, it’s just behavior that helps that kind of social species thrive.
Back to the OP, since it’s impossible to know at the time of the filming that the pervert will be successful in destroying the tape before dying, it’s still an immoral act. Once the tape is destroyed, I guess it’s a nullity, but so what? It was immoral for possibly decades before that – there are many ways the tape could have gotten out. Is it immoral for a Peeping Tom to do that, if he’s really excellent at staying hidden? Perfect at it? I’d say yes. A Peeping Tom is like our pervert, but he immediately destroys the tape.
To those who ask why there is harm if the tape is destroyed without being viewed by anyone else, it makes the question boring. Someone up top said, what if he helps an old lady and tomorrow an asteroid destroys the Earth – should he not help old ladies? Well, one day, all perverted tapes will be destroyed and everyone will be dead – that doesn’t mean that there are no immoral actions.
What is the moral issue with having people wear clothes made of two different fabrics?
How does having more people do that end up an issue?
What has stoning got to do with anything?
I don’t think you are using my test at all. Tell me where the harm comes from having more people wear such clothes.
If the argument is “everyone who knows about the problem dies so now it’s okay”, then it’s perfectly moral to murder entire civilizations as long as you also eliminate everyone who knows about the civilization, and as long as you yourself eventually die too. Eventually nobody will remember, so no harm done!
Peeping is considered to be a harmful act because the fact that somebody else knows your illicit information is itself the problem - the same as when somebody reads your diary. You don’t get mad about it until you find out, but the fact that you found out isn’t the problem - the illicit breach of privacy is.
In the hypothetical the illicit breach of privacy very explicitly occurs. There’s not really a question here, except in the “if I murder you after I rob you then it’s not immoral because you’re no longer mad” sense.
Exactly. Murder is fine, because once the person is dead they no longer exist and therefore can’t experience the bad feeling of being dead.
I guess the only bad part about murder is that maybe the victim’s family will be sad about it, therefore decreasing their net happiness. But the victim themselves, being dead, has no cause for complaint.
In this case, murdering homeless people is perfectly fine, because nobody will miss them after they’re dead.