Why can't people agree that immorality requires harm by an action, and that non-harmful acts can't be immoral?

Question

When people talk about morality, it's all too much about things like sexuality, qualifying consensual acts with no harm to others as "immoral". Like premaritial sex or homosexuality. 

If these things are done in private, not even has anybody the right to call them "disgusting" or "pervert", because he doesn't have the right to judge others' private life by his own preferences.

Can't there be a common, rational morality based on what harm an action does to others, which would restrict immorality to real crimes and harmful actions. 

Could such a morality remove pseudomoral, which usually targets anything making life joyful, like sexuality or content of media for entertainment?

? · Accepted Answer

I agree, victimless crimes aren't crimes at all.

Hilbert · Answer

Morality does not need pain. 

Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural. A penis is not made for an anus, and 2 men cannot reproduce. 

Immoral behavior is not universal. Each person has there own beliefs as to what it is. Would you consider incest immoral? Hopefully yes, but it does not cause harm to anyone.

Wait upon the Lord · Answer

God says that He is the one that knows if something is a sin. Anything God says is a sin is harmful.

Why can't people agree that immorality requires harm by an action, and that non-harmful acts can't be immoral?

3 Antworten