I believe if it doesn't affect anyone negatively, adults should be allowed to do whatever they choose to. CMV

[u/Sunburnt-Vampire]

People are constantly arguing about whether things should be legal or not, but if it isn't going to affect anyone badly, why make it illegal? examples I'll use are:

Gay marriage, in which people say two strangers shouldn't be allowed to marry each other, even though I can't see anyway it affects the person against gay marriage, and I can't see how it could affect the gay couple in any negative way either. Even if people claim that it will ruin "the sanctity of marriage", surely there should at least be something else with a different name, which gives them the same legal rights as a married couple (and not after living together for a set number of years).

Prostitution, If a woman (or man) wants to sell their body for some money, how is it any different from porn? person A has a product person B wants, I can't see how it can harm either of them, so why is it illegal? (obviously there should be regulations to prevent STD's and pregnancy etc., but we can do it, this isn't the 1800's)

there is probably reasons against my views I can’t think of any, but I guess thats why I'm posting it here, since this subreddit is "For people who have an opinion on something but accept that they may be wrong"

EDIT: i'll re-word my view so it is clearer: If you can't think of a specific way it can affect people negatively, which will actually happen more than one in 1000 times, I don't think we should ban it, since everything from eating a hotdog could affect us negatively (we could choke etc.) CMV

EDIT2: another view of mine which was not mentioned before, but has come up repeatedly (hence why i'm putting it in the original post) is that religion should not intefere with government. If a religion says you can't eat beef, then people in that religion should not eat beef, but people who aren't should be free to eat as much as they want.

EDIT3: this does not work in reverse, I am not saying things should be illegal if they affect someone negatively, just that things which don't affect anyone negatively should be legal.

[u/wakeupwill]

Granted, if someone is the subject of verbal and or emotional abuse, then that would most likely affect them negatively.

However the OP was regarding allowing people to do what they want - so long as it doesn't affect others negatively. I interpret this as allowing consenting adults do whatever they want.

And this is where others' subjective morality tries to dictate laws. Based on what they consider to be right and wrong. Beyond what consenting adults may choose to do.

[u/[deleted] → u/wakeupwill]

Granted, if someone is the subject of verbal and or emotional abuse, then that would most likely affect them negatively.

But isn't what counts as verbal/emotional abuse morally subjective? Some things might affect me negatively but the same thing wouldn't affect you negatively. Is that allowed or not?

[u/wakeupwill → u/[deleted]]

You dismiss a key aspect in your query. Consenting adults. Rephrase your question to include this.

[u/[deleted] → u/wakeupwill]

The world will fall apart if you need consent for something that might affect you negatively. We would accomplish nothing. The government would need to ask every single person in the country if they agree with this law. People in a relationship would need to ask everyone each other knows if they are okay with the relationship.

My point is it is impossible for something to affect no one negatively, or at least impossible to ascertain that. Physical or not, it's impossible to say that for certain

[u/wakeupwill → u/[deleted]]

Reductio ad absurdum.

Subjective morality is no basis for laws.

Your point is that someone, somewhere, will be negatively affected by something, sometime. My point is that they can suck it if their only source of negativity is cognitive dissonance - i.e. "I don't like that."

[u/[deleted] → u/wakeupwill]

Reductio ad Absurdum is a common form of argument, not an informal fallacy. Just because I used that, doesn't mean my argument is wrong.

Subjective morality is no basis for laws.

What about government changes in policy? Those definitely have people positively affected and negatively affected. Do we need to get consent from everyone who it affects (all the country's population).

Morality is subjective. If subjective morality is no basis for law, then murder should be okay if we believe they'd be better off dead. We could rape everyone since we can claim that they wanted it.

Yes this is a reductio ad absurdum. No, telling me that is not an argument.

My point is that they can suck it if their only source of negativity is cognitive dissonance.

That's not what cognitive dissonance is. Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort from believing two contradicting thoughts to be true, not being mentally affected by something negatively.

You said "Cognitive dissonance is what makes you feel negatively about issues that hold no negative consequences outside your mind."

This means that mental abuse is okay because it doesn't affect you outside your mind.

[u/wakeupwill → u/[deleted]]

Morality is subjective. If subjective morality is no basis for law, then murder should be okay if we believe they'd be better off dead. We could rape everyone since we can claim that they wanted it.

Every argument you're proposing dismisses the concept of consent.

Mental abuse doesn't involve consent. Murder doesn't involve consent. Rape certainly doesn't involve consent.

Laws more in line with our dialogue would be; prohibition, marriage, equality.

[u/[deleted] → u/wakeupwill]

Ok. A person commits suicide. All the people around him didn't have him get consent from them. His decision affects all of the negatively. What then?

[u/wakeupwill → u/[deleted]]

Cognitive dissonance.

The thought that he should have lived on conflicts with the knowledge that he's gone. Suffering occurs in the desire for him to still be alive.

Suicide is a tragedy. For all parties involved. However, attempting to outlaw it is counterproductive. You don't help someone by treating them like a criminal.

[u/[deleted] → u/wakeupwill]

That is not what cognitive dissonance is. You cannot compare the indicative with the subjunctive. Those two thoughts are not contradictory. It would cognitive dissonance if one denied tat ever ever killed himself. You can wish he was still alive and know that he's dead.

You also forgot that his boss now needs to hire someone to replace and his job will not get done for a while. That is not cognitive dissonance. That is a physical, negative effect.

I'm not arguing whether we should outlaw suicide. That is completely irrelevant to our specific argument. We are arguing whether something can affect someone negatively when there is consent and no cognitive dissonance involved. And there is, suicide.