The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
when does a thought become wrong?
Jars
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I have been thinking about this because not long ago I was in the spinning room at the gym and I saw someone dropped their ipod nano. now it certainly occurred to me that I could keep it. There was no guarantee it would ever get back to the owner, but I still turned it into the frost desk. but things like petty theft and lying are things a lot of people have probably thought about. what if we turn the stakes up a bit?
say:
person A never thinks about murder
person B has thought about it but they know it is wrong and does not act on it
person C commits murder
or since murder can be influenced a lot by swing emotions something more chronic:
person A never thinks sexually about younger children
person B does, but again is kept in line by their moral code
person C acts on their desires repeatedly
is there a difference between B and C? what about A and B? is person B just as bad as C or does the fact that they understand why these actions are wrong and chooses not to act on them absolve them?
say:
person A never thinks about murder
person B has thought about it but they know it is wrong and does not act on it
person C commits murder
or since murder can be influenced a lot by swing emotions something more chronic:
person A never thinks sexually about younger children
person B does, but again is kept in line by their moral code
person C acts on their desires repeatedly
is there a difference between B and C? what about A and B? is person B just as bad as C or does the fact that they understand why these actions are wrong and chooses not to act on them absolve them?
0
Posts
IMO, fantasies are only "wrong" when they could reasonably lead to action. I don't consider Person B to have done anything wrong in either scenario, despite our cultural taboo against sexualizing children...
...with a caveat: when it comes to sexuality, it is obviously harder for some people than for others to control their behavior. In our culture, mild expressions of anger or hostility are treated differently from mild expressions of sexual interest (particularly regarding kids), so an errant look or facial expression might be noticed and have real-world consequences.
On top of that, impulse control is often one of the first functions to be impaired when somebody suffers a brain injury or trauma. (By the way, this has interesting implications for common notions of responsibility and justice, but that's pretty deep rabbit hole to go down this early in the thread.) It's not uncommon for traumatic brain injury patients to act out either sexually or violently (or both) because of impaired impulse regulation. So somebody who has been harboring taboo fantasies for years could end up acting on them given unfortunate circumstances.
So I do think that if an individual is frequently entertaining fantasies that, if acted upon, would cause harm, then that individual has a responsibility to try to dismantle the schema leading to those fantasies. This is not because the fantasies are wrong, but simply so they don't end up inadvertently hurting others.
Also, a note about terminology:
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Ultimately, I think it still all boils down to intention and reasonable expectation. If you spend every waking moment fantasizing about raping underage nuns, but you know you will never act on it, does it matter? Does it harm anyone? (Hint: No, it does not.)
If these are the kinds of thoughts you are constantly entertaining, wouldn't there be a pretty good chance of escalating to acting them out? I agree with you in theory, but do you see what I am getting at here? I would think that the average person would have a thought like that in passing, think to themselves, "hmm, that's no good, shouldn't dwell on that" and move on. I would think if someone was constantly having thoughts that we could deem "aberrant" that it would be a sign of some deeper issue.
For what it's worth, the Christian perspective is that if you think about sinning, you're already a sinner.
Matthew 5:28: But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Etc.
I don't need to worry if a dude has sexual fantasies that he's never going to act out. Maybe Jesus does, and if so, that could be a problem for him later, but never for me on Earth--so it's okay by me, but I'd advise people to get square with their own religions, which only seems to make sense. The way I understand Christianity, you can't really avoid being a sinner, you can only keep exerting effort to try to be less of a sinner.
...it is definitely wrong.
I've had odd impulses pop into my head of all sorts - taking a cop's gun, taboo sexual impulses, etc. That's not wrong because they are just there. Those arent actions, so to speak.
Now, if I entertain those impulses and turn them into thoughts or fantasies, that is a form of action. If I'm entertaining morally wrong fantasies its still not right. Not as bad as physically acting those fantasies out, but still wrong.
By consciously engaging the random thoughts that bubble up from your subconscious and expanding on them, you are taking a step towards action. If the act is morally wrong, it's wrong to take any step in that direction. Same thing with good thoughts.
There's a limitation of the english language at work here; we use the same verb for several different concepts.
I can say "I'm thinking about suicide" and I can mean several different things
(1) I've been actively considering killing myself because I'm really unhappy, depressed or in pain.
(2) I've been putting thought into defining exactly what is suicide and what isn't, and how our society reacts to logically equivalent acts in very different ways due to context, tradition & so on, because I'm going to write a paper about this subject.
(3) I'm investigating an unexplained death, and I'm now considering suicide as an explaination
(4) I'm making a joke about my reaction when I just lost favourite Tech 3 cruiser in EVE
(5) The subject just popped into my mind for no obvious reason
But sometimes I think that people in general are gooses with goose-filling and different coatings.
Yeah, but how would you ever know unless she told you?
...what? No. Thoughts don't compare to physical objects like that.
I have just given you a thought. But don't worry, thoughts aren't bad because they are impulsive. I don't believe people who say they have control of their thoughts enough to avoid thinking about something when they hear it or read it. Even for a split second, it occurs.
I'm with Silas Adams. Thoughts are bad when you act on them or when they guide your path in a negative manner. If you think about murder but decide against it, your thoughts guided you to a path of positive action (or in this case inaction).
Reminds me of MacBeth when he was going crazy about the idea of killing the king.
Edit - Changed my opening phrase to be less crude. <_<
Well context is everything. The would-be murderer still did everything leading him to the moment of truth. The key is intent. It doesn't let him off the hook because he was executing actions up 'til the moment.
"Murder" isn't just the exact moment of action, it's the lead-in. It's why motive is part of any investigation and trial.
I agree with your overall sentiment I question your answer to the last bit. I think it may be harmful to the person doing the thinking, or at least unhealthy. I don't think I'm comfortable with saying that is "wrong" though.
I agree with the first part about distinguishing between 'entertained / encouraged' thoughts and 'impulsive / involuntary' thoughts. It's not morally wrong to have impulsive / involuntary thoughts because they are, by nature, impulsive and involuntary. While there is probably more nuance (how involuntary really is involuntary, how much can we shape our subconscious / impulses) getting into that too much would be a major sidetrack and rehash a lot of the arguments in the 'Philosophy' thread.
Now, I have trouble with the second part - the extreme example that someone spending every waking moment fantasizing about (harming people) knowing they won't act, and the conclusion that it doesn't harm anyone.
The biggest problem I have is that nobody really knows how they will act in the future and our brain is an unreliable narrator. Thoughts don't happen in a vacuum, and what we think shapes our actions and reactions. Someone who fantasizes continually about (harming people) may eventually begin to think that (harming people) is more acceptable and normal. They may create extreme scenarios where they feel this behavior would be acceptable. Over time, these fantasies may become a fetish and / or shift the baseline so that 'would never harm a person' becomes 'would never harm a person because it's wrong' becomes 'would never harm a person because of the consequences'.
I'm not usually a fan of 'slippery slope' arguments, but it's not always a fallacious argument. A fantasy implies desire, and if that desire is fostered, it's possible that a person could face a situation where their desire could pass the threshold of their impulse control. Perhaps they suffer head trauma as Feral pointed out. Perhaps they are under the influence of drugs / alcohol. Perhaps they have simply shifted the baseline and are in a situation where they think they won't have to face consequences.
While I don't think that a bad fantasy is necessarily as 'wrong' as the bad action, I still feel there is some level of moral 'wrong' to entertaining bad / harmful fantasies.
I do want to note that I would allow room between an entertaining a fantasy and academically evaluating something - the difference between thinking about suicide (in general) and contemplating / fantasizing your own suicide, for example. I think both can potentially lead to harm though, especially if the 'academic evaluation' becomes obsessive.
It can however be repugnant, unhealthy and incorrect.
An emotional affair between a spouse and a third party would also fit here.
Don't think the n-word.
Now, if you've just "thought" the full n-word in your head, was that a racist thing for you to do? I would say no because I tricked you into thinking it.
If a person of african descent cuts you off in traffic, and you have the n-word come up in your mental chastising of that person, was THAT a racist thing for you to do? That's a bit tougher to discern... Was it a kneejerk reaction? Was that thought indicative of your worldview towards persons of african descent?
Please let the answer be no. Be gentle, mods.
An 'immoral thought', therefore, is immoral because it either increases the likelihood of an immoral action or is harmful to the thinker. For example, dwelling on fantasies of violently attacking your boss both makes you more likely to lash out (physically or in a more subdued but still harmful way) and increases your own stress level.
This is obviously an analysis that would require nuance in any practical setting, since you're getting into questions of 'is it immoral to engage in self-destructive behaviors?' and 'to what degree is a person able (and ergo expected) to recognize and address harmful thought patterns?'
o_O
Of course it's immoral to harbor secret racist thoughts! Don't be a goose - society is worse off as long as that thinking exists and whatever harms society is immoral. That old widow's racist thoughts need to be discouraged.
That's have a lot more going on than what is a current train of thought. Like you said, it is susceptible to deception and play. This is why thought crimes aren't a thing. It takes very little to conjure up very physical disturbing thing in ones mind. All I say is Hitler killed Jews and you're probably filled with images of someone getting throw in an oven or gas chamber, or lined up and shot. Were they your thoughts? No they were related imagery of a planted idea. The same basic idea can be found in a multitude of ways.
If I am near a cop I almost always think "Gee what would happen if I stole his gun and shot people." It's not a normal thought I have but it's always triggered when I see a cop. Every time.
I think we need to get deeper than just thinking about shit if we want to determine where it becomes wrong. We do this now to some extent don't we? People who have a history of mental unstable-ness and lack of judgement often don't get put into positions where they can hurt others or themselves.
Now I trust you slightly less. Even though you are a rational and stable individual who would never do this, you have strange obsessions that I don't share, making me uneasy.
What is the difference between an immoral thought and a worrying thought?
And when where would we stop?; you should posit.