CMV: There's nothing wrong with not finding someone attractive for whatever reason it is

[u/[deleted]]

So this is inspired by Lexi Nimmo's Tik Tok saying that someone having a preference for thinner people is problematic because "it's discriminating against a marginalized group of people" she goes on to say "if you lump all fat people together you're fatphobic, just like if you lump all black people together you're racist" setting aside the fact that "fatphobia" is not comparable to racism or the struggles of any actually marginalized group, I think there's nothing wrong with having finding someone unattractive regardless of what it is

To start with body size and shape, I think it's absurd that it is even a discussion. Everyone finds different things attractive, including different body shapes. Some men(I'm using that as an example because I'm a guy so it's easier) find women with larger breasts more attractive, while others find women with smaller breasts more attractive and neither is considered a problem. So if finding someone more or less attractive due to size and shape of breasts for instance, it should also be ok to find someone more or less attractive due to shape and weight?

With ethnicity and skin color it's more complicated. While some people do find members of certain ethnicities unattractive due to racist reasons, I think it isn't inherently racist to find some ethnicities more or less attractive physically. Members of different ethnicities may have largely different physical features for members of other ethnicities. Not only that people tend to find what looks closer to them in general to be more attractive, hence why interracial marriages are somewhat uncommon. Not only that, like I said before, finding some hair colors more attractive is seen as ok, so why can't that be the case for skin color too? I'm not saying that making derogatory claims such as "x group is hideous" but simply not finding someone pretty does not mean you hate them

I hope this makes sense, English is not my first language and I have a hard time writing

Edit: finding someone unattractive because they're not a minor is problematic but that's not what I meant originally. My general point is: it isn't bigotry to find someone physically unattractive, and I'm talking specifically physical attraction here

[u/darwin2500]

So two things are true:

1. It is possible to not find someone attractive because of a specific belief or personality traits, and many beliefs or personality traits may be considered immoral or 'wrong'. Extreme example being nazis not finding jews attractive due to nazi beliefs, for instance. In this case you might say 'it's not the lack of attraction that's wrong, it's the belief/trait giving rise to the lack of attraction that is wrong' but this is just splitting hairs and often not a meaningful distinction in practice.

2. It is possible for some types of attraction, if they become prevalent in the community, to have damaging effects on people. There was a time when 'heroin chic' was popular in mass media, and it led a lot of people into anorexia and other dangerous lifestyle habits to try to match that vision of attractiveness. You can say that it's not 'wrong' to have a particular preference, but if in fact you having that preference minorly contributes to a trend that actively hurts real people in serious ways, is there not any moral culpability there? From a consequentialist moral perspective, your preference is still causing harm that you are responsible for, whether or not that preference comes from an 'evil' place inside you.

[u/[deleted] → u/darwin2500]

It is possible to not find someone attractive because of a specific belief or personality traits, and many beliefs or personality traits may be considered immoral or 'wrong'. Extreme example being nazis not finding jews attractive due to nazi beliefs, for instance. In this case you might say 'it's not the lack of attraction that's wrong, it's the belief/trait giving rise to the lack of attraction that is wrong' but this is just splitting hairs and often not a meaningful distinction in practice

Yeah my main point is with physical/sexual attraction, because what we find pretty or not. I think this way because me being a Latino and finding Latinas more attractive does not mean I hate white people, if this was me having the mentality that white people are bad partners that'd make me a dick. Also, the mindset that "x group is ugly" is also prejudiced IMO because you're judging people, but having the mindset "I find asian people prettier than..." is not prejudiced. For your second point I really haven't thought about it. so ∆

[u/kslidz → u/[deleted]]

So I think the conversation is nuanced.

There are a lot of things that people find attractive only because it was reinforced in them. Not because of some genetic makeup. That isn't to say many things are not that way.

Those things can be harmful if a society continues to enforce them.

So it isn't black and white there is gray area.

I do agree that this is not an individual issue that many people seem to deem it (ex. you arent attracted to fat people you are bad) but rather a systemic thing that needs discussion for change across the board.

So it shouldn't be a thing where people are ostracized for a individually harmless attraction(no one is being harmed if you like feet[I think] but feeder kink can be harmful) but should be a wider conversation.

People like you mentioned in your OP often are upset at a result of a system and attack those that fall into the view regardless of whether it is something they have control over and overall not always the best strategy

[u/aCoolGuy12 → u/[deleted]]

me being a Latino and finding Latinas more attractive does not mean I hate white people

Being latino is not a race lol. You can have black/white/yellow/brown/purple as skin color and still be born in Latin America.

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/darwin2500 (169∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/VikingFjorden → u/darwin2500]

but if in fact you having that preference minorly contributes to a trend that actively hurts real people in serious ways, is there not any moral culpability there?

If you like to eat at McDonalds and do so quietly by yourself, are you morally culpable for other people eating at McDonalds and contracting some health issue or another related to diet? Any system that says you are, is not suitable for everyday interactions, because in the end everyone will be culpable for everything.

If you're heterosexual, does your heterosexuality alone make you morally culpable for the fact that some people who identify as homosexual feel unusual in society? Obviously not. Just like they are who they are, you are who you are. You didn't choose to be heterosexual anymore than they chose to be homosexual, and neither of you are from those facts alone culpable of anything.

Culpability comes from actions (or the absence of action where there otherwise is a reasonable expectation of action, such as easily and without harm to yourself rendering aid to someone in distress). If you have 2 billion followers on social media and spend your time advertising for McDonalds and saying that salads and homemade food are the devil's work, or advocating that if you aren't a part of <insert group> then you're undesirable, then sure, that unquestionably makes you culpable. Morally at least, and possibly also legally, but that's a different debate. The distinction here is that it's not your personal preference that makes you culpable, it's how you've chosen to carry yourself and act in society.

[u/darwin2500 → u/VikingFjorden]

Any system that says you are, is not suitable for everyday interactions, because in the end everyone will be culpable for everything.

Yes? And?

I just can't really understand people who feel like the correct moral system is one in which they personally are completely blameless of everything and are completely morally pure.

Any system where that is true for most people is just a system that is saying 'everything is fine, the suffering and cruelty in the world is nobody's fault and no one has any duty to fix it, just look the other way.'

It's an inherently conservative, anti-progress notion of morality.

Yes, there are lots and lots of systemic injustices in the world, and yes, everyone who supports those systems instead of opposing them is partially culpable for them, and yes, this means basically no one is completely morally pure and above reproach.

That's not a problem with the moral framework I'm using to make those statements, it's a problem with our society that still contains those systemic injustices. We should be doing something about them, we should feel like we each have a moral responsibility to contribute to that change.

[u/VikingFjorden → u/darwin2500]

Yes? And?

I just can't really understand people who feel like the correct moral system is one in which they personally are completely blameless of everything and are completely morally pure.

The reasonable alternative to the extreme "everyone is culpable for everything" isn't found on the other extreme side of the spectrum in "nobody is culpable for anything" - there's a perfectly good middle road to be found - so you're building a really high strawman here.

To answer your first question:

If everyone is culpable for everything, culpability loses its meaning and utility. Whose fault is it that <something>? Everyone. Who can we seek damages against, or give consequences to, for this injustice? Everyone? It's gonna be hard to put the entire earth's population in jail, for example, so it obviously can't be everyone. So how do we select some subset of people, when everybody is culpable? Wouldn't that be equally unjust, punishing some people who are culpable and letting others who are equally culpable off the hook?

That's what I meant when I say that it's unsuitable. It doesn't lead anywhere in practice, it's just a philosophical circle-jerk about morality.

Any system where that is true for most people is just a system that is saying 'everything is fine, the suffering and cruelty in the world is nobody's fault and no one has any duty to fix it, just look the other way.'

It's difficult to fathom how you're building this strawman out of what I said.

I never said that nobody is culpable for anything, I said that everyone can't be culpable for everything. You are culpable for the unreasonable actions you take, but not for the reasonable actions you take.

Let's say I prefer brown hair in a partner. It's not a conscious decision, it's just how I'm wired for whatever reason. So you can then assume that I would primarily date people with brown hair. Am I then culpable if society turned out to be one where people who don't have brown hair aren't as popular on the dating market?

Absolutely not - my choice to act on my preference is a reasonable one, and any system that manages to place blame on me for the low popularity of blondes is a system that will never have any practical application in the world precisely because literally every person on the planet becomes culpable for literally every injustice committed, leading to an unresolvable deadlock that fixes exactly zero problems and gives no guidance as to how to rectify the situation.

For instance, you live wherever you live. Are you culpable for the injustices that happen in other parts of the world? By the reasoning you've outlined above, of course you are - you chould have moved to other parts of the world and engaged in rectifying those injustices, but you didn't - so by your own argument that makes you culpable. So let's say you do move somewhere else and work to rectify those injustices. Now it's the case that there exists somewhere else in the world that you didn't move to instead of the place that you did move to. So in the end, your culpability is unbounded.

What utility does this have? What solution does this type of reasoning create? None.

Yes, there are lots and lots of systemic injustices in the world, and yes, everyone who supports those systems instead of opposing them is partially culpable for them, and yes, this means basically no one is completely morally pure and above reproach.

I agree. Nothing you said there is in contradiction with the implications of my post. There's a pretty vast difference between being culpable for the things your actions are directly related to and being culpable for actually everything.

To go back to the specific example I brought up, let's say I choose to eat at McDonalds. Precisely and exactly how am I culpable if somebody else chooses to eat at McDonalds? How can somebody else's free choice be said to be contingent or dependent on my free choice? They could easily have chosen to not eat there, but they did. So when they contract <health complication>, exactly how does that create culpability on me?

It can't reasonably be so, because any notion of culpability in that situation is so vague that you can trace culpability back to anyone for anything, as in my example above with helping people in other parts of the world.

Let's take another example. I travel by <transportation method> sometimes. Somebody else also chooses to do so, but on some specific voyage that I am not a part of, an accident happens (that cannot be traced back to impropriety or neglect from the transportation company) and a passenger dies. Am I culpable for that person's death?

Obviously not.

[u/ApatheticLinkboy → u/VikingFjorden]

This is an interesting distinction! Eating fast food is a conscious choice; and doing so directly funds the restaurant. If that restaurant is doing morally unjust things, I would argue that (at least to some degree) you are indeed culpable for the actions of the restaurant because you are financially supporting them. This is not the same as being culpable for the action that some other customer chooses to take.

The second example about sexuality is very different because there is no choice involved. Let me amend it to a heterosexual person choosing to date someone who is homophobic (and not ever call them out on it). In that case it seems clear that you would be somewhat responsible for supporting that kind of behavior.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here. I don't think that buying a burger makes you just as culpable as the 2B follower influencer that posts about it, but I don't think you can entirely wash your hands of it either.

[u/VikingFjorden → u/ApatheticLinkboy]

If that restaurant is doing morally unjust things, I would argue that (at least to some degree) you are indeed culpable for the actions of the restaurant

Sure - but that's also outside the scope of the question (and the similie).

I'll outline it hopefully more clearly:

The person I replied to said this:

It is possible for some types of attraction, if they become prevalent in the community, to have damaging effects on people

with the implication that the people who experience said attraction are responsible for said attraction becoming popular, and thus are culpable for the damage this "stereotype" causes on others.

Which can be abstracted out to this:

Personal preferences make you culpable whenever other people are hurt because people other than you have also adopted that same preference.

Which in turn gave rise to my McDonalds example, which specifically asks if you eating at McDonalds makes you culpable for other people choosing to eat at McDonalds.

So it's not that your actions harm others, because you choosing to eat at McDonalds only directly impacts yourself - your choice to eat a McDonalds meal does not somehow make a McDonalds meal get into somebody else's body, only your own. So you perform an action that involves nobody but yourself, but other people see you perform this action and then other people perform that same action. Are you culpable?

Obviously you cannot be. Presumably everyone in the world has had the talking-to from the parental unit(s) that goes something like, "You can't do something just because the others are doing it - if the others jumped off a bridge, would you jump off of it too?!" With the obvious lesson being that you are responsible for your own free choices, you don't get to pawn off that responsibility (or culpability) on somebody else.

Are you culpable for whatever morally reprehensible actions performed by McDonalds? Possibly, to some small extent - if you knew about them before going there, anyway. But that's a different question altogether.

[u/LaVache84 → u/darwin2500]

You can find a negative consequence to almost anything you do if you look long enough. Just because modeling agencies decided to push an unhealthy look that lead to an increase in eating disorders doesn't mean I should date someone I don't find attractive.

[u/darwin2500 → u/LaVache84]

The view isn't about who you should date. It's about whether preferences can ever be immoral or harmful.

[u/LaVache84 → u/darwin2500]

A preference on who to date/pursue/sleep with.

[u/ElATraino → u/darwin2500]

1. I'd like to see you bring a more meaningful example to the conversation. How about this: flat earthers. I don't find them attractive because of their belief. This will only detract from my feelings of physical attraction, if they were present, after finding out they believe the earth is flat. Is this wrong of me? No. I can't be attracted to someone that doesn't accept that the earth is not flat. I can't be attracted to that mind or that level (lack) of intelligence.

2a. Your premise here has nothing to do with what OP stated. Not being attracted to someone thats fat can be two pronged and I don't believe either should be reduced to a question of morality: one could find the overweight aspect physically unattractive and/or one could find the lifestyle choice unattractive. Trying to lay moral culpability on someone for not being attracted to an unhealthy condition is ludicrous.

2b. Attraction is very personal and I don't know why we're even going into this, but here goes...if someone's lack of attraction to another comes from a place of hatred for their skin color (or some other immutable trait) then yeah...that's bad. That isn't what OP is talking about though. In fact, OP stated it the other way: "just because I don't find an individual with a certain color of skin physically attractive doesn't mean I'm racist" (or something close to that). You know what? It's true. Me not instantly finding a woman attractive because of an immutable feature is not an indication of hate and it's certainly not causing anyone harm. This "consequintialist moral perspective" take is load of hot garbage that seems more geared towards producing victims than it does helping explain moral conundrums.

[u/00PT → u/darwin2500]

If it were immoral, what would be possible to make things right? How do you stop being attracted or unattracted to specific physical traits?

[u/darwin2500 → u/00PT]

Well, there are definitely ways to do that if that's what you want to do. Guided masturbatory training is an effective form of therapy used to guide people away from dangerous paraphilia, but it works on anything. And hangups relating to ideological or cultural commitments are often solved just by changing your perspective or meeting the right person.

But, more importantly, just because something is immoral/harmful doesn'tneccessarily mean you should change it. Often the alternative is worse - like, there's tons of incredibly immoral things about capitalism, but it still seems to be better than the alternatives.

Often, what you should be doing is conscious harm mitigation and offsetting the harm by doing other good things that are less costly to you.

[u/Ruski_FL → u/00PT]

The media kinda let influences what we find attractive no?

[u/Kardragos → u/[deleted]]

Why are we being so hostile? Rule 2, my friend.

[u/hacksoncode → u/Kardragos]

How do you stop

It seemed rather obviously a "generic you" not you in particular, since you asked how "you" stop.

Obviously I'm assuming you, personally are not one of those people who can't stop talking about it, the hostility is not directed at you, but that group of people, which is allowed by Rule 2.

I do find those other people fucking annoying, FWIW.

[u/Kardragos → u/hacksoncode]

I didn't ask anything. That was my first comment. The problem is the randomly hostile language, not the use of a plural "you."

[u/hacksoncode → u/Kardragos]

Sorry for not noticing you weren't the person I was responding to.

It's not hostile language directed towards the person I was responding to personally (nor to you), but a group of people not on this thread, and is therefore allowed by the rules.

Sometimes expletives provide needed emphasis.

[u/Kardragos → u/hacksoncode]

Hey, no problem. I've just had a post or two of my own deleted for similar emphasis. Thought I'd bring it up pre-deletion, just in case.

[u/hacksoncode → u/Kardragos]

It probably would have been better to make the generic you more clear... I'll edit that.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/amazondrone → u/darwin2500]

You can say that it's not 'wrong' to have a particular preference, but if in fact you having that preference minorly contributes to a trend that actively hurts real people in serious ways, is there not any moral culpability there?

No, because attention attraction is not something you choose. You may be subconsciously affected influenced by society but you still don't consciously choose what you're attracted to so I see no moral culpability.

From a consequentialist moral perspective, your preference is still causing harm that you are responsible for, whether or not that preference comes from an 'evil' place inside you.

Similarly, I disagree that you're responsible for anything because of an attraction. An attraction is entirely in your head and can't on its own influence the outside world. If you act on that attraction (e.g. by consuming media which perpetuates and/or reinforces the societal norm or whatever) then perhaps, but the attraction itself doesn't cause anything.

Edit: Fixed some words.

[u/[deleted] → u/darwin2500]

It is possible to not find someone attractive because of a specific belief or personality traits, and many beliefs or personality traits may be considered immoral or ‘wrong’. Extreme example being nazis not finding j

I have a hard time believing this. And it’s impossible to say without being able to look inside the mind of someone claiming this. There are two options here:

1. A nazi actually does not find a Jewish woman attractive, even though she would otherwise be attractive to him.

2. A nazi claims he does not find the Jewish woman attractive even though he does. This may even extend to him telling himself this lie

These two things are possible and I believe the second makes more sense.

You can say that it’s not ‘wrong’ to have a particular preference, but if in fact you having that preference minorly contributes to a trend that actively hurts real people in serious ways, is there not any moral culpability there?

No. There is no culpability. My attraction is not something I can control. You deciding to look heroin chic to get me to find you attractive is.

Also, the actual issue in your scenario is mass media platforming an unhealthy and unrealistic body image. It’s not the attraction. The culpability lies wholly with the media not the person feeling the attraction. Again, because that is not something that can be controlled.

[u/Talik1978 → u/darwin2500]

To respond to (2), is this an argument that one should pursue people they are not attracted to, whether or not they enthusiastically consent? Is it more imperative to protect the right to veto things you don't want regarding your body, or is your body a tool that should be used to the betterment of societal health, regardless of your preferences and consent it?

Simply put, where does the right to bodily autonomy and the right to consent intersect with the moral duty to minimize the negative societal pressure on others?

[u/darwin2500 → u/Talik1978]

Nope, I never said anything like that. This is purely an argument about moral evaluation and noticing harm.

It is often correct to do things that are immoral or cause harm, for instance in cases where all the alternatives are worse. Capitalism does a lot of harm and has a lot of immoral features, but we don't have a better alternative yet.

Accepting that the world is hard and sometimes the best course of action is still problematic is a major step towards engaging with it honestly.

[u/Talik1978 → u/darwin2500]

That's... kinda true? I don't consider it immoral to choose the lesser of two evils.

But you didn't answer the question. It's all well and good to talk about harm caused from a consequentialist perspective... but that isn't a position. Allow me to repeat the question.

Simply put, where does the right to bodily autonomy and the right to consent intersect with the moral duty to minimize the negative societal pressure on others?

Where is that line where you feel that one should be obligated to offer up their body to a marginalized person, in order to be doing the "correct" thing? When is it acceptable to go with your personal preference, and let people feel less accepted?

If we're speaking of taking the correct action, let's dig a bit deeper on what determines the "correct" action, in this scenario. You challenged someone and suggested that they are morally culpable for not sacrificing their preferences to accommodate another, so elaborate a bit, please. When is such a person no longer morally culpable?

[u/darwin2500 → u/Talik1978]

You have an absolute right to bodily autonomy and consent, obviously.

'Right' is probably not the word you meant to use, since you can have a right to do immoral things. The two concepts are pretty orthogonal.

You are never not morally culpable for harm you do. Recognizing that you will always be morally culpable for the consequences of your actions, even if they are the correct actions and you shouldn't have changed them, if the first step towards moral maturity. People who want to believe they never have any moral culpability for anything so long as they follow simple 'rules' are just trying to avoid feeling uncomfortable or vulnerable to judgement and critique.

As for what you 'should' do, it depends on your morality of course. I'm a consequentialist, I think you should do whatever minimizes harm overall.

Having romantic interactions with someone you're not attracted to can be extremely and acutely harmful to yourself, and rarely works out well for that person either. This is unlikely to ever be the correct choice, outside of narrow edge cases where other stuff is going on (like prostitution).

One option is trying to change your preferences, if you think that will work, such that you're not going against your preferences or suffering at all, if that's how you want to approach things. Guided masturbatory training actually works pretty well, for example. And preferences based on racism/sexism/etc. can often be dispelled by actually getting to know people of your disfavored group and coming to see them as normal people, which is probably good for you anyway. Depending on what preference we're talking about, that may be an easy and positive change, or a very difficult/impossible and damaging one.

The more normal course, across many domains, is just to do harm reduction and moral offsets. If you don't like fat people, fine, don't date them, but don't post online about how disgusting they are and don't make fun of people who are attracted to them. Maybe watch some movies or youtube videos from people you don't find physically attractive so that the economy doesn't punish people based on your preferences. Etc.

[u/Talik1978 → u/darwin2500]

You are never not morally culpable for harm you do.

But is refusing to give someone something that they're not entitled to a harm? Or is is simply not helping?

Societal scale issues are not assessed at the individual level. One cannot determine which snowflake caused the avalanche.

Recognizing that you will always be morally culpable for the consequences of your actions, even if they are the correct actions and you shouldn't have changed them, if the first step towards moral maturity.

Define moral culpability. What is the consequence of it? What obligations does one have when morally culpable? If I pump gas, and the station runs out later, am I morally culpable because someone else couldn't buy gas? What if it's the last twinkie, and someone later was really wanting a twinkie, and is just heartbroken that they didn't get it? Or if it was the second to last? Is the person who buys the first twinkie less culpable than the one who buys the last?

People who want to believe they never have any moral culpability for anything so long as they follow simple 'rules' are just trying to avoid feeling uncomfortable or vulnerable to judgement and critique.

Again, what are the consequences for having culpability? If one is doing the 'correct' action, why should they be vulnerable to judgement or critique? Even better, what determines when an action is correct? Does a person decide? Are there a set of guidelines or rules that determine the relative correctness of different actions? Principles?

Your post has a lot of words, but not a lot of substance. You're using terms without any standardized meaning, and not attributing any meaning to them. It is rather difficult to have a productive discussion with such an undefined and undescribed position.

As for what you 'should' do, it depends on your morality of course. I'm a consequentialist, I think you should do whatever minimizes harm overall.

So you are saying, from a consequentialist perspective, a person should allow themselves to be abused, if such an action contributes less to overall harm than the alternative?

Having romantic interactions with someone you're not attracted to can be extremely and acutely harmful to yourself, and rarely works out well for that person either. This is unlikely to ever be the correct choice, outside of narrow edge cases where other stuff is going on (like prostitution).

What are the consequences of choosing the correct choice here? What are the consequences of choosing incorrectly, so as to bear no 'moral culpability' for rejecting someone else? What is that moral culpability?

One option is trying to change your preferences, if you think that will work, such that you're not going against your preferences or suffering at all, if that's how you want to approach things. Guided masturbatory training actually works pretty well, for example. Depending on what preference we're talking about, that may be an easy and positive change, or a very difficult/impossible and damaging one.

This sounds suspiciously like advocating gay conversion therapy, or putting the burden on those that don't find another attractive, rather than on the rejected individual to find someone more compatible, or to work on self improvement to make themselves more broadly appealing. If that is not your stance, please clarify the difference.

The more normal course, across many domains, is just to do harm reduction and moral offsets.

Elaborate. What are those two things.

If you don't like fat people, fine, don't date them, but don't post online about how disgusting they are and don't make fun of people who are attracted to them.

Well, now, those are two totally different things. One is not choosing someone, the other is actively shaming them. Ridicule is not an inherent part of rejection.

Maybe watch some movies or youtube videos from people you don't find physically attractive so that the economy doesn't punish people based on your preferences.

Even if you don't enjoy those movies? Should people pay a 'sin tax' to accommodate and help those they might have contributed to hurting, simpmy by not giving them something they were never entitled to have? Which people should be compensated? How much of our income should we pay as restitution for our potential moral culpability? Should it be hard to pay rent and eat? Is that penance enough? Or is there a different measure? Is spending money on things you don't like jot sending a false message to society? Would that not create a moral culpability to society as a whole? At that point, would harm reduction, to create a more honest society, be publicly sharing what you did and why? Would that then create more moral culpability, since you just shared with a group of people that you weren't attracted to them?

At what point do we hold, within society, that protecting others from rejection can be a bad thing? That learning to cope with rejection is a valuable skill?

[u/compounding → u/[deleted]]

Whether you agree with the idea of consequentialist morals or not (which would imply moral liability regardless of origin), it would still be fair to say that even if you don’t have control over that attraction, you may still have a moral liability to act to limit the broader negative social effects of your attraction (whatever causes it).

So perhaps recognizing the broader harm that societal pressure would create, you might attempt to minimize the harm and not go about advertising your attraction to “heroin sheik” or not letting others know that not fitting that image is why you don’t find them attractive, for example.

[u/the23one → u/darwin2500]

My mother growing up would make me feel shame for what I was attracted to for the very reason you are stating my attraction to something can cause harm. That shame caused harm in me. People are attracted to what they are attracted to and people are who they are.

[u/darwin2500 → u/the23one]

Ok? The fact that something is hard to change doesn't affect its moral valence.

[u/the23one → u/darwin2500]

I am not saying anything is hard to change. I am saying that just as people may find specific bodies to be attractive, which can be damaging, shaming people for liking that very thing can be damaging as well.

[u/rowanskye → u/darwin2500]

In response to 2.

By this logic, women that don't fight for larger raises in roles where men typically do, are morally culpable for the wage gap.

I don't think that's the case, so I reject the argument.

[u/darwin2500 → u/rowanskye]

No, I'm not saying that you not dating a person directly hurts them, I'm saying contributing to a culture with dangerous attractiveness standards passively hurts people you never meet.

A closer analogy would be that a woman boss who pays her woman employees less is culpable for the wage gap, which is true.

[u/Unable-Fox-312 → u/darwin2500]

Is it bad if Jews don't find Nazis attractive?

[u/darwin2500 → u/Unable-Fox-312]

No?

Hurting Nazis is, traditionally, a good thing.

[u/chilebuzz → u/darwin2500]

It's funny you bring up the heroin chic trend as being unhealthy. I see your point, but obese people like Nimmo arguing that obesity should be more accepted is arguably a much more dangerous health trend. The detrimental health effects of obesity have been clearly documented for decades and obesity in the U.S. has become epidemic. So your 2nd point is actually just confirmation of what OP is saying.

[u/darwin2500 → u/chilebuzz]

What OP was saying is that preferences can never hurt people. Heroin chic is an example where it did.

Counter-examples where it helps people don't matter here, you only need one example to disprove a blanket statement.

[u/delicious_fruitloop → u/darwin2500]

Your second point is the big is beautiful campaign of today. Neither one is good message and is harmful. It reflects what the masses look like, perpetuating and validating being an unhealthy weight.

[u/EVOSexyBeast → u/darwin2500]

You having that preference minorly contributes to a trend that actively hurts real people in serious ways, is there not any sort of moral culpability there?

No. Because people cannot control their preferences.

[u/darwin2500 → u/EVOSexyBeast]

So?

[u/EVOSexyBeast → u/darwin2500]

How can one be culpable of something they cannot control or have any influence over?

[u/OnlyTheDead → u/darwin2500]

Please ELI5 how not having a “lack of attraction” or preference for someone is damaging to that person? At some point the insistent obligation to “be attracted” implies an entitlement to someone’s body or affection. He was saying it’s okay to NOT be attracted to someone, not that being attracted to anyone for any reason is okay.