A Victimless Crime?

[Contingency Plan]

I've heard people attempt to justify their actions by suggesting that no one got hurt. A common example would be filesharing; one could argue that this serves as free advertisement for artists; the unpaid downloads offset by those who are exposed to otherwise unknown material and subsequently decide to buy it.

My question is this: is there such a thing as a victimless crime? If so, does that make it any less a crime? I suppose what I'm getting at is whether morality can be divorced from a relational framework: can something be called "wrong" if no-one (or indeed nothing, eg. the environment) suffers from it?

As a Christian, I don't think there is. Even if ostensibly there is no victim, my relationship with God still suffers when I do bad things, so you could say that there always is a victim - if not others, then myself/God. Obviously this doesn't mean much to atheists, so let me know what you guys think!

 

[rxcats]

Originally Posted by Contingency Plan

I've heard people attempt to justify their actions by suggesting that no one got hurt. A common example would be filesharing; one could argue that this serves as free advertisement for artists; the unpaid downloads offset by those who are exposed to otherwise unknown material and subsequently decide to buy it.

My question is this: is there such a thing as a victimless crime? If so, does that make it any less a crime? I suppose what I'm getting at is whether morality can be divorced from a relational framework: can something be called "wrong" if no-one (or indeed nothing, eg. the environment) suffers from it?

As a Christian, I don't think there is. Even if ostensibly there is no victim, my relationship with God still suffers when I do bad things, so you could say that there always is a victim - if not others, then myself/God. Obviously this doesn't mean much to atheists, so let me know what you guys think!

I'll respond even though I am an atheist.

I guess it would depend on how you define "crime". If you are a woman in Saudi Arabia and drive a car, you are committing a crime. If you are a white man and married to a black woman in 1950's Virginia......you betcha, a crime is committed. If you had helped a Jew escape from Nazi Germany or a slave escape bondage in the South, you would have been deemed a criminial.

I believe we are sometimes morally obligated to commit crimes, as in the contect above, but often the term "victimless crime" is misused to excuse selfish and bad behavior.

 

[MetroStyles]

I agree with rxcats to some extent. I think what you are truly getting at is morality, not crime, which opens up a whole separate can of worms, especially on this forum.

Crimes and laws are set by governments, which are separate from religion. Victimless crimes do exist - for example, smoking marijuana in your own house.

Morality is another issue altogether. I think what you are asking is: "Should I always do the 'right' thing as I was brought up to do / my current belief system instructs me to do"? If I am off-base let me know. But to answer your original literal question - yes many government-defined crimes are victimless and no, I do not feel guilty if I commit a crime that I deem victimless.

 

[mafoofan Jr.]

You have good moral standpoint and I agree with you, but given today's standards for morality, your conscience is usually right even if the world perceives the action differently. I wrestle with this everyday.

Originally Posted by Contingency Plan

I've heard people attempt to justify their actions by suggesting that no one got hurt. A common example would be filesharing; one could argue that this serves as free advertisement for artists; the unpaid downloads offset by those who are exposed to otherwise unknown material and subsequently decide to buy it.

My question is this: is there such a thing as a victimless crime? If so, does that make it any less a crime? I suppose what I'm getting at is whether morality can be divorced from a relational framework: can something be called "wrong" if no-one (or indeed nothing, eg. the environment) suffers from it?

As a Christian, I don't think there is. Even if ostensibly there is no victim, my relationship with God still suffers when I do bad things, so you could say that there always is a victim - if not others, then myself/God. Obviously this doesn't mean much to atheists, so let me know what you guys think!

 

[Tarmac]

prostitution

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Jaywalking.

 

[Nantucket Red]

Adultery with a neglected woman in a loveless marriage. People have told me I ought to be hung for this. I am.

 

[Eagle]

No such animal exists...there are always victims!

 

[Connemara]

Originally Posted by Nantucket Red

Adultery with a neglected woman in a loveless marriage. People have told me I ought to be hung for this. I am.

 

[rach2jlc]

Originally Posted by Nantucket Red

Adultery with a neglected woman in a loveless marriage. People have told me I ought to be hung for this. I am.
Red, you're a living, breathing Tanizaki novel. Subarashii!

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by Tarmac

prostitution


You would have to do your due diligence for it to be victimless. Some women are prostitutes by choice, but others are forced into it through the sex trade. I would be highly suspect of any agency that was full of eastern European women, for instance. I have no problem with people that engage in sexual activity with willing participants, but I would find it morally reprehensible for someone to do it with the second type. It's basically a facilitated **** and I wish men wouldn't turn a blind eye to it just because they have a hot body in front of them.

 

[scarphe]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

You would have to do your due diligence for it to be victimless. Some women are prostitutes by choice, but others are forced into it through the sex trade. I would be highly suspect of any agency that was full of eastern European women, for instance. I have no problem with people that engage in sexual activity with willing participants, but I would find it morally reprehensible for someone to do it with the second type. It's basically a facilitated **** and I wish men wouldn't turn a blind eye to it just because they have a hot body in front of them.
bad play here coersion, kidnapping and prostitution are different acts. prostitution does nto hurt anyone directly accept possibly the people in the act. the coersion, kidnapping and possibly **** yes are connected to the industry but they are separate from the moral act of prostitution.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by scarphe

bad play here coersion, kidnapping and prostitution are different acts. prostitution does nto hurt anyone directly accept possibly the people in the act. the coersion, kidnapping and possibly **** yes are connected to the industry but they are separate from the moral act of prostitution.

Fair enough.

 

[Arethusa]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

You would have to do your due diligence for it to be victimless. Some women are prostitutes by choice, but others are forced into it through the sex trade. I would be highly suspect of any agency that was full of eastern European women, for instance. I have no problem with people that engage in sexual activity with willing participants, but I would find it morally reprehensible for someone to do it with the second type. It's basically a facilitated **** and I wish men wouldn't turn a blind eye to it just because they have a hot body in front of them.
I don't know if you were the last person on this forum I would have expected to read this from, but if you weren't, you weren't far from it.

Originally Posted by scarphe

bad play here coersion, kidnapping and prostitution are different acts. prostitution does nto hurt anyone directly accept possibly the people in the act. the coersion, kidnapping and possibly **** yes are connected to the industry but they are separate from the moral act of prostitution.
Academically, maybe. In the real world (barring exceptions mostly confined to very expensive prostitutes), it's not an especially meaningful distinction.

 

[Milhouse]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

You would have to do your due diligence for it to be victimless. Some women are prostitutes by choice, but others are forced into it through the sex trade. I would be highly suspect of any agency that was full of eastern European women, for instance. I have no problem with people that engage in sexual activity with willing participants, but I would find it morally reprehensible for someone to do it with the second type. It's basically a facilitated **** and I wish men wouldn't turn a blind eye to it just because they have a hot body in front of them.

Great. Thanks for ruining xmas for me.