You know what, I agree with you. The only diference I make, is that when the thought turns to "an external action", or physical reaction, or whatever is called, for ME, given the way I understood the thread, it stops being related to the topic.
Thoughts dont exist in a vaccum, I also agree with that. But I never thought this was a practical discussion, just more of a "theoretically speaking" discussion.
So what I think is, if we COULD isolate thoughts in a vaccum, for the purpose of discussing them, being fully aware that we are omiting all the information that would lead to a practical response. Thoughts by themselves have no moral value.
If not isolated in a vaccum, you have to consider a myriad of factors, that are outside the "thinker", that will shape not only the subjects thoughts, but also how he reacts or acts on them, not to mention defining what is "healthy" and "unhealthy", and marking a correct line to separate what is normal behaviour and what is abnormal.... wich sounds like a lot of work for someone like me, who doesnt have all this concepts fresh in the mind.
EDIT: To be more in touch with the OP, what I think of all this, is...
A and B subjects are not inmoral, regardless of the nature of their thoughts. Because they either dont have thoughts at all, or can succesfully diferentiate between fantasy and reality, and are healthy enough to feel empathy and be a part of society as a functioning member.
C subject is inmoral, because he commits inmoral acts.
if instead of raping children, C would write articles about how paedophilia is just fine, I would say he is still inmoral, regardless of not acting directly on his impulses, because he is STILL taking actions that would take him closer to being able to commit his inmoral acts.
I can agree with you, but I'm not sure of your point. If we are creating a hypothetical situation where 'a thought' could exist in a vacuum it would have no moral value. I think that it's a trivial conclusion though, because 'a thought' is inherently the product of 'thought'. To me, your hypothetical is basically asking 'if a thought had no moral value, would it be moral or immoral'.
I guess...if you were to stimulate a lizard's brain to duplicate the electrical and chemical impulses of what we consider 'a thought', it wouldn't be moral or immoral, because the lizard would lack the context to understand it or be influenced by it (at least by the content of the thought itself). Or a hypothetical cloud with an state that duplicates the state of a human brain for a microsecond.
But I still feel that morality is a matter of degree. While subject B is not as immoral as subject C, subject B actively engaging in immoral fantasies is immoral.
I cannot find any reputable source to cite on this so I do not expect you to accept this on my word alone, but I recall reading about there being a strong correlation between legalizing pornography and a sharp decrease in the number of rapes. Granted, correlation does not imply causation, but it is still something to consider. If anyone could find a decent source for this claim I would be thankful. I remember it was about Norway and a few other countries.
Furthermore, your line of reasoning leads me to the following question: if purposeful thoughts reinforce and normalize something and thus make you more likely to believe in it and or act on it, why don't 'reflexive' thoughts lead to the same? Isn't this principle exactly what advertising firms and propaganda arms attempt to abuse?
The following is me musing about the subject rather than an actual argument (or else it would be a shameless appeal to fear), but if the above is true then the majority of our media can be said to be harmful, in the sense that it presents nonethical behavior and thus reinforces the same thought patterns in us. I find that hard to swallow (though I cannot reject the possibility outright).
I would certainly be interested in seeing information on that. The skeptic in me thinks correlation for a variety of reasons (liberalization of society, modern policing, changing attitudes on women's rights, rape being about power / control, etc) but I'd be interested.
I was reluctant to touch on the morality of impulsive thoughts because I don't think that an involuntary act is immoral (or moral). While I do feel that there is a level of active conditioning that we can use to affect or modify our 'reflexive' thoughts, it really widens the scope of the discussion and brings up a number of 'nature of the mind' questions that we can't really answer yet.
I do agree though that even those involuntary 'reflexive' thoughts influence our actions and behavior, because as you pointed out marketing works hard to take advantage of those involuntary impulses. I think ALL of our thoughts influence our actions and behavior, which is why I have the position that actively fostering and engaging in immoral / taboo thoughts is unhealthy and immoral because of the influence on our future actions.
Posts
I can agree with you, but I'm not sure of your point. If we are creating a hypothetical situation where 'a thought' could exist in a vacuum it would have no moral value. I think that it's a trivial conclusion though, because 'a thought' is inherently the product of 'thought'. To me, your hypothetical is basically asking 'if a thought had no moral value, would it be moral or immoral'.
I guess...if you were to stimulate a lizard's brain to duplicate the electrical and chemical impulses of what we consider 'a thought', it wouldn't be moral or immoral, because the lizard would lack the context to understand it or be influenced by it (at least by the content of the thought itself). Or a hypothetical cloud with an state that duplicates the state of a human brain for a microsecond.
But I still feel that morality is a matter of degree. While subject B is not as immoral as subject C, subject B actively engaging in immoral fantasies is immoral.
I would certainly be interested in seeing information on that. The skeptic in me thinks correlation for a variety of reasons (liberalization of society, modern policing, changing attitudes on women's rights, rape being about power / control, etc) but I'd be interested.
I was reluctant to touch on the morality of impulsive thoughts because I don't think that an involuntary act is immoral (or moral). While I do feel that there is a level of active conditioning that we can use to affect or modify our 'reflexive' thoughts, it really widens the scope of the discussion and brings up a number of 'nature of the mind' questions that we can't really answer yet.
I do agree though that even those involuntary 'reflexive' thoughts influence our actions and behavior, because as you pointed out marketing works hard to take advantage of those involuntary impulses. I think ALL of our thoughts influence our actions and behavior, which is why I have the position that actively fostering and engaging in immoral / taboo thoughts is unhealthy and immoral because of the influence on our future actions.