>be in philosophy course
>professor talking about ethics in art
>"consider a man who's only sexual activity is imagining raping fictional women. this is immoral even though his victims are fictional."
>our attitudes toward imagined characters or events are morally praiseworthy or blameworthy because they reflect the imagining person's character
containing my psychopathy to simple daydreams of school shootings is just as bad as actually shooting up the school
got it
fucking liberals
>>973716
>"what we imagine shapes what we do, it is likely the rapist would treat real women as he treats his imagined women"
CITATION FUCKING NEEDED
WHAT A BUNCH OF HORSESHIT
>>973716
>just as bad
No one said just as bad, he said immoral.
>>973724
not immoral
>>973716
>fucking liberals
>Virtue Ethics is the invention of liberals.
>Consequentialism isn't.
No OP, you are the liberal.
>>973716
Well you're gonna have to explain his reasoning. At least give us context, if it was to demonstrate some specific kind of ethics.
>>973742
>Virtue ethics is the invention of liberals.
Yes.
I agree that rape is immoral to even fantasize about, though thoughts are not necessarily represented in actions. So it doesn't matter.
>>973750
> Plato
> A liberal
wew lad
>>973752
>gorl detected
>>973765
Are you fucking kidding me, Plato was the Bernie of the polis.
>>973752
tbqh we she be arresting for thought crime. especially all of those women with rape fantasies.
>>973716
>reflecting a persons character
Nigga we can't even prove the existence of anything outside our own experience, how does he propose we deduce another persons true character? We must be able to deduce that in order to make a judgement on if it is 'praiseworthy' or not.
>>973716
>fucking liberals
Didn't Jesus say imaginary adultery is still adultery 2000 years ago?
>>973716
>Being taught to judge people by the character of their soul rather than the merit of their actions
>In college
Whew, and people say religion isn't taught in school anymore!
>>973833
> Jesus
> Not a liberal
There's a reason we say Allah instead of God.
>>973716
>just as bad
If he claimed it was just as bad then he's a moron, but it's clear that such fantasies do reflect on the moral character of the fantasiser. Intent does matter, morally speaking, and how we behave when we have total power (as for example in a fantasy) reveals something of our nature.
>>973965
Are you implying that morals are genetic
>>973965
>it's clear that such fantasies do reflect on the moral character of the fantasiser.
How so?
>Intent does matter, morally speaking, and how we behave when we have total power (as for example in a fantasy) reveals something of our nature.
What if fantasy is almost always a rebalancing, such that those who are, in real life, extraordinarily kind and gentle, are the most likely to fantasise about rape and/or murder?
Did anyone ask this professor about eg video games?
What about when actors say that villains are more fun to play? Does that reflect poorly on their moral character?
And yeah, we need to hear more about the reasoning to properly judge, but while I can see paths to that conclusion, none of them feature especially plausible premises.
>>973716
Your professor is talking about morality. It does indeed tell something of the moral character of a person if they imagine rape and pillage of toddlers or shit. And it is kind of immoral to think these kinds of things for fun.
But I can see the dangerous line of thought here that is about to lead to establishment of thought crimes. People have thoughts all the time about all kinds of things because that's the one thing they're always allowed to do.
>>973833
Towards a real woman, yes. Sin begins in the heart.
>>973926
Yes, because you want to go to hell with Mohammad.
>>973716
Mate I'm a liberal and that train of thought is straight up retarded. I hoped you called him out on this and brought up the various competing theories for morality.
>>974279
I bet he didnt, better say "fuck of liberals" on a chinese cartoon board
Sounds like your professor doesn't understand fuck all about psychology.
>>973778
Do you even latin
You're sorta stuck where you are
But in your dreams
You can buy expensive cars
Or live on Mars and have it your way
And you hate your boss at your job
Well in your dreams
You can blow his head off
In your dreams, show no mercy
And all your bad days will end
And all your bad days will end
You have to sleep late when you can
And all your bad days will end
And all your bad days will end
And all your bad days will end
You have to sleep late when you can
And all your bad days will end
>>973911
>Being taught to judge people by the character of their soul rather than the merit of their actions
>In college
>Whew, and people say religion isn't taught in school anymore!
I wuv this post so much.
>>973965
>Intent does matter, morally speaking, and how we behave when we have total power (as for example in a fantasy) reveals something of our nature.
Fantasizing about something does not indicate an intent or desire to actually enact it.
Everything about the initial post is just crushingly simplistic. The reason we "know" somebody is a rapist is that they rape. Or a killer because they kill.
What about the audience for horror movies, who pay for scenes of bloody gore and horror? I guess they are all morally corrupt and proto-murderers. SO stupid.
Imagining rape is (rather trivially) less serious than imagining murder btw.
>>974496
>Imagining rape is (rather trivially) less serious than imagining murder btw.
>>974428
>implying your real intent and desire won't resemble your fantasies once you actually have total power
There's a reason emperors and dictators so often turn into depraved tyrants and it's not just inbreeding. They're literally living the dream.
#thoughtcrimes
>>974603
>There's a reason emperors and dictators so often turn into depraved tyrants
Or, we might say, there's a reason those disposed to become depraved tyrants seek absolute power: they desire to enact their fantasies. Those who don't desire to enact their fantasies, then, are less likely to seek absolute power.
>>974245
Are people who consume books/movies/games that are extremely violent latent murderers?
>>973750
Virtue ethics seems more like a conservative concept desu senpai.
>>973773
I'm genuinely unsure whether you're pretending to be retarded.
>>974620
Does that mean I'm evil for desiring absolute power?
>>975249
Not necessarily, though it raises the prior probability of your being evil considerably.
>>974820
That's going to be the argument when AI starts asking for rights.
This thread is spooky as fuck.
Though seriously, any consideration of morality that isn't rooted in how it plays out in practice is fucking idiotic. Be as evil as you want in your own head.
>>973716
THOUGHT CRIME
H
O
U
G
H
T
C
R
I
M
E
>>975260
>tfw /his/ thinks I'm evil
>>975290
Exactly. Right now I am thinking about the sun exploding and destroying the earth.
>>975290
>Though seriously, any consideration of morality that isn't rooted in how it plays out in practice is fucking idiotic. Be as evil as you want in your own head.
I'm happy to say that morality is a subset of aesthetics. People ITT seem to go further and regard all aesthetic judgements as moral in nature: Your mind is unpleasant to contemplate and therefore you are evil. Can't go along with that.
>>975295
The notion of a genuinely 'evil' human being was foreign to the Western mind prior to Kant's formulation of evil as the conscious willing of evil for its own sake, desu. As long as you don't do that, I don't think there are many schools of worthwhile thought that would condemn you for desiring to expand your power. The great moral traditions are built around the idea that drives like this one can be turned toward something higher and by definition not-evil.
>>975274
No it's not.
>>975306
>The notion of a genuinely 'evil' human being was foreign to the Western mind prior to Kant's formulation of evil as the conscious willing of evil for its own sake, desu.
no
wrong
cf Iago, The Jew of Malta, Richard III etc
They probably discussed a specific theory in relation to art, specifically virtue ethics, where morality is judged upon the virtues of a said individual rather than the actions. Thus the
>OMG THIS IS STUPID!
is fucking idiotic. Read up on IEP about virtue ethics, read up on why people support it instead of utilitarianism or categorical ethics etc., and then make an actual argument against it.
People judging philosophical beliefs prima facie on the internet are the fucking worst.
>These people believe this.
>IT GOES AGAINST MY VIEW FUCKING RETARDS!
Philosophy 101 threads please die.
>>975322
Well I think I read that in Zizek's Sublime Object of Ideology. I'm willing to concede the point. All the same, those people were viewed as necessarily redeemable by being human beings written about in a Christian context, which is my basic point. Kantian ethics seems to be the most widespread attempt to secularize this context. Without the possibility of redemption, essential evil becomes a potential human trait, as opposed to simply sin, which is an inclination or a capacity to fall short.
>>975345
>virtue ethics
seems like a spook son
I forgot to mention, my professor is a woman.
What is worse, immoral thoughts or immoral behaviors?
>>975832
immoral women, that is to say, all women
>>973716
Yes, I know, Skyrim, but it's relevant though.
>>975848
Gross.
>>973716
The problem with this is what follows from this, not that point in itself; that is that it is immoral and this is sufficient grounds for it to be illegal.
>>973716
>ethics in art
>professor interjects thoughts and opinions
Report him/her
>>974624
this is an interesting thought.
>>975895
immoral =/= illegal
>>976825
Legality is, at the very least, based in morality. Very few laws are based solely on social good or damages.
>>976847
>Legality is, at the very least, based in morality
Why is that?
>Very few laws are based solely on social good or damages.
This is a non sequitur
>>976895
>Implying My Gym Partner's a Monkey was bad
>>973911
underrated
>>973729
not an argument
I would argue that by condoning these kinds of thoughts and especially talking about how they are not immoral is the crux of why the thoughts are immoral.
Lets take a case where a man talks about raping toddlers and says that as long as it stays in his mind there is no moral dilemma.
This man convinces someone else that this is true. This man goes on to actually rape toddlers because his fantasies that he now thinks are ok give him uncontrollable urges.
In this particular case I would say both men are immoral in the same way that terrorist leaders who promote extremist ideologies are immoral- maybe they never even commit an act of terrorism but their speech and thought leads others to do so. Im not saying they are equal evils but that a similar thought process that claims the terrorist leader was immoral is true for the imaginary toddler rapist.
Thoughts lead to actions.
>>974820
Not criminal. Immoral.
Its not criminal to psychologically abuse someone by teasing them everyday but its immoral.
>>977434
The professor said the thought was immoral not criminal.
>>977440
>implying morons don't exist
>caring about the moral labels created by an individual other than your self
>caring about morality or ethics at all
Lmao
>>977530
Edgy
>>977530
Oh look, a libertarian.
>Thoughts can be immoral
Only actions are immoral.
itt: slave morality
I think up some pretty sick shit. I don't think I could ever go through with any of it, of course, unless I had a reset button.
He'll in most of my fantasies I do have a reset button, so I can do horrible things, satisfy myself, then reset and live a happy and normal life.
The human mind is fucking weird. I think up some really barbaric stuff but have no desire at all to reenact them in real life. They never come into my head in the heat of the moment or when they'd be applicable, rather my thoughts only seem to become twisted if I'm alone. And only rarely do I even think twisted thoughts. A majority of my fantasies are in fact quite vanilla, pg even.
So personally, I think your professor is full of shit.
>>973716
Welcome to christianity
>>977629
Fuck off, Christianity literally punishes thought crime.
>>977592
But it certainly raises some questions if the person behaves morally but in his mind doesn't share this morality at all. Also aren't some of the 10 commandments such that they can be broken without any overt actions? Can you truly call someone a true Christian if they merely behave like one but don't share this in their mind?
I thought this was going to be a thread about Bostrom's concept of Mindcrime, that the simulation or model of a person within a mind could be sophisticated enough to be a person itself, so imagining someone suffering to a high enough degree of precision would be just as bad as inflicting it on a real person.
It's usually used in the context of AIs accidentally creating people who will suffer horribly whenever they try to predict the results of bad things happening, but I guess if you created a tulpa so you could rape it, it would also apply (if you think tulpas are actually separate persons from whoever made them)
>>977434
>Its not criminal to psychologically abuse someone by teasing them everyday but its immoral.
It is.
>>977434
It can be. If the teasing results in bullying or sexual harassment, to give a few examples.
>>977647
> Also aren't some of the 10 commandments such that they can be broken without any overt actions?
Who the fuck thinks the 10 commandments have any merit?
>Can you truly call someone a true Christian
You can truly call someone a christian if they call themselves that. Any distinction you draw between christians and non-christians will be inherently arbitrary.
>>976883
>Why is that?
Because if morality is about anything, it's about maximising the well-being of conscious creatures, in this case human society.
>>977431
are you saying that i am responsible of how others interpret what i think and say?
>>977782
No but if you're clearly inciting action then your actions would be viewed as immoral [and thus regulated by the state]. This is basically JSM's argument regarding the Harm principle
>>977796
however in this case the person is not inciting action but rather advocating inaction
>>977801
My apologies, I misread initially. This becomes a much trickier question, then, but ultimately, I think if you are watching media that shows realistic toddler-rape in a sexualised context (ie the toddler-rape is portrayed as the fulfilment of fantasy rather than a "don't do that") then it's an immoral act, although obviously not on the same level as toddler rape itself.
There's several reasons for this I believe, mainly hinging around a) realistic portrayals (that is, reflective of a real-life situation that we know to be immoral)
b) likelihood that toddlers are harmed or come to harm in the production of the film
c) the extremity of the example in toddler-raping
I think this is a different argument from what the professor is making, however, which seems to be based around the intrinsic evil in the act of rape, although he also seems to share my belief in the immorality of doing so for gratification ("his only sexual activity")
I think the conversation is better framed around why someone might want to have those fantasies indulged through media, though, because it shifts the obligation from some negative liberty based around freedom to do whatever to arguing for realistic depiction of toddler rape
>>973833
Intepreting the Bible is a tricky task. You can't just intepret verses in isolation because most of them are connected to earlier or later verses, and in some cases, whole chapters because these damn things are punctuated and paragraphed a whole lot differently from what we are used to today.
The verses in question, Matt 5:27-28, on a literal intepretation, may seem to suggest that thoughtcrime is verboten. That's not taking into account that God actually expects this from us; in His mind, we're all unrepentant degenerates who actually deserve all the suffering we put ourselves through, and come eternity, we're gonna do it again even when He reveals Himself, only this time in a much hotter place. (Yes, I know this implies that God is a dick, but again, not the point here.)
There's also the alternate interpretation, if you bothered to read Matt 5:21-26, which is explaining how easy it is to condemn yourself. Taking that into context, an alternate explanation for the adultery verses shows itself; it's actually pretty damn easy to sin to begin with. And seeing how easy it is to sin, we must take steps to not sin. This does not mean removal of anything immoral (though in some cases it is necessary, as stated in the verses after them). However, it does mean you have to realize that such thoughts are bad and harmful to begin with.
Christians have a slightly easier time with recognizing bad thoughts to begin with since the Bible is there to help them. However, the non-Christian also has resources. Laws are usually the check in which the non-Christian can use. And both actually benefit from what we know from modern psychology and psychiatry.
(And if anyone is gonna fucking debate about the existence of God and start up religious shitposting, I don't want to debate this aspect because I am merely addressing the issue of Biblical intepretation of verses, one part of which is reading comprehension.)
>>977849
>You can't just intepret verses in isolation
View everything through the lens of jeremiah 8:8 and discard the whole thing.
This argument is shit tier, because almost nothing in the bible specifically sets ground to be referenced later, the connections made are all arbitrarily chosen by beliebers themselves.
