Can an action be morally wrong if there is no one harmed?

[McCulloch]

Can an action be morally wrong if there is no one harmed and there is no victim?

Warning: This question may be related to the Euthyphro dilemma.

[Furrowed Brow]

If I drive to a pub (bar) and drink, say ten pints of strong ale. Then stagger to my car and drive ten miles home, without harming anyone including myself; I'd say I was still being irresponsible. My actions would show a blatant disregard for others and their well being. I would be putting lives at risk. And as such I would be acting immorally. But no harm done.

[McCulloch]

If I drive to a pub (bar) and drink, say ten pints of strong ale. Then stagger to my car and drive ten miles home, without harming anyone including myself; I'd say I was still being irresponsible. My actions would show a blatant disregard for others and their well being. I would be putting lives at risk. And as such I would be acting immorally. But no harm done.

OK, then I suppose that a better question would be, "Can an action be morally wrong if there is no increased probability that someone would be harmed?"

[Vanguard]

If I drive to a pub (bar) and drink, say ten pints of strong ale. Then stagger to my car and drive ten miles home, without harming anyone including myself; I'd say I was still being irresponsible. My actions would show a blatant disregard for others and their well being. I would be putting lives at risk. And as such I would be acting immorally. But no harm done.

OK, then I suppose that a better question would be, "Can an action be morally wrong if there is no increased probability that someone would be harmed?"

Not if you believe the very purpose behind having a morality is for the betterment of oneself and others around him. And so, I guess in terms of behaving immorally there is no such thing a someone else not being harmed.

[Mark_W]

I don't think an action can be morally wrong if there is no one harmed, but as the above poster might have been suggesting, you must include yourself. And if you are harming yourself it is morally wrong.

[Darren]

To the original poster - morals change from person to person. That makes it really tough to answer your question.

To Mark_W:

And if you are harming yourself it is morally wrong.

Have you any reason for holding this position? Can you explain why you think so?

[opus49]

Can an action be morally wrong if there is no one harmed and there is no victim?

Warning: This question may be related to the Euthyphro dilemma.

I'm not being a smart ass here, but can you please define "morally wrong?"

[Confused]

If I drive to a pub (bar) and drink, say ten pints of strong ale. Then stagger to my car and drive ten miles home, without harming anyone including myself; I'd say I was still being irresponsible. My actions would show a blatant disregard for others and their well being. I would be putting lives at risk. And as such I would be acting immorally. But no harm done.

OK, then I suppose that a better question would be, "Can an action be morally wrong if there is no increased probability that someone would be harmed?"

I am not sure it is possible to answer this question. One cannot predict with a high degree of probability what an action done today might result in tomorrow, next week, next month, or even next year. If you are shopping and you steal a DVD while your son is in the cart, you might not get caught. However, your son, witnessing such action, may repeat it himself in the future. If you drink a case of beer a day but are a "functional alcoholic" (holds a job, care for his family, etc...) then your child may view this as ok and duplicate your behavior. However, your son may not be able to be a "functional alcoholic".

Current actions may not harm anyone and you might not consider the probability that it might harm someone in the future, but you cannot be sure.

To apply it to Euthyphros dilemma, is it morally wrong because it caused harm or did it cause harm because it was morally wrong? 400 years ago, it was considered normal for a 30 year old man to marry, bed, and impregnate a 14 year old girl. This wasn't considered immoral until recently. Kings and queens used to marry brothers and sisters to keep the royalty in the family. Incest wasn't morally wrong until recently. So these circumstances didn't cause harm 400 years ago and they weren't seen as morally wrong. However, now that we see these as morally wrong, they cause harm, correct?

[McCulloch]

Can an action be morally wrong if there is no one harmed and there is no victim?

I'm not being a smart [alec] here, but can you please define "morally wrong?"

Not at all, that is a very important question. Some people make the distinction between morals and ethics. I am a simple person and get confused by such things. While it may not help, to me, morally wrong and unethical are equivalent.

Read the Ethical Atheist for an essay on ethics without religion and some links to further reading.

Theodore Schick, Jr., Professor of Philosophy at Muhlenberg College addresses some of these issues in Why Professional Ethicists Think That Morality Is Not Purely "Subjective".

I do not have time to convey some of my own thoughts on this matter, but I have bookmarked this post and will return. Suffice it to say I agree with you that without an answer to your question, we cannot meaningfully address the question for debate.

[opus49]

From the link:

ethics (eth'iks): 1. a system or set of moral principles. 2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or governing a particular group, culture, etc: medical ethics. 3. the branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of actions and the goodness and badness of motives and ends. 4. moral principles, as of an individual. [1]

I think this definition fascinating! If we go with #2 - the rules of conduct of a group of people, then the answer to your original question is obviously yes. If society deems picking your nose in private as morally wrong then clearly an action can be morally wrong despite no one being harmed.

However, if we go with definition #3, we've introduced subjectivity. Who decides the "rightness and wrongness of actions?" Most people I've asked believe that there is such a thing as inherent rightness and wrongness in the universe. For instance, torturing a small child is clearly "wrong", isn't it?

Personally, I disagree with the notion of inherent good/evil. I do not think torturing a small child is inherently "wrong." This is not to say that I condone violence against children! I'm saying it's not "built-in" to the universe. Animals in nature kill and eat their young. Are they "evil?" Are they "wrong?"

As a human, I have the wonderful ability to think. I'm capable of looking at a child being tortured and feel sympathetic. I know what it's like to feel pain; therefore I can empathize. The end result is that I do not wish a child to be tortured, not because it's "wrong", but because I am capable of compassion.

Since I personally don't agree with the concepts of good/evil or right/wrong, I would shorten your question to: "Can an action be morally wrong?" To which I would answer, "no."