Thought Crime

[Laika]

I realise that some people would consider a thought, idea or an emotion 'sinful' particuarly sexual fantasies, or extreme or controversial ideas because they are unpopular. I think people who practice meditation may well have their own view on how ideas help or hinder a meditative state. Another example is the notion of political correctness, that racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, ideas are morally wrong. Many people would also use say that some ideas are 'un-natural' and 'unrealistic' as a put down, or attacking them because they do not correspond to religious or scientific beliefs.

So I'm wondering if you think Ideas have an intrinsic moral value, such as thinking they are good and evil. Does they have this value because or irrespective of them being true or useful?

Should we have the freedom to entertain bad or evil ideas, are some ideas so bad or evil that they have to be criminalised in some form (e.g. censorship) and are there some ideas so good that they have to be promoted widely through education/propaganda?

 

[BSM1]

I realise that some people would consider a thought, idea or an emotion 'sinful' particuarly sexual fantasies, or extreme or controversial ideas because they are unpopular. I think people who practice meditation may well have their own view on how ideas help or hinder a meditative state. Another example is the notion of political correctness, that racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, ideas are morally wrong. Many people would also use say that some ideas are 'un-natural' and 'unrealistic' as a put down, or attacking them because they do not correspond to religious or scientific beliefs.

So I'm wondering if you think Ideas have an intrinsic moral value, such as thinking they are good and evil. Does they have this value because or irrespective of them being true or useful?

Should we have the freedom to entertain bad or evil ideas, are some ideas so bad or evil that they have to be criminalised in some form (e.g. censorship) and are there some ideas so good that they have to be promoted widely through education/propaganda?

Good question. I'll have to think about it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So I'm wondering if you think Ideas have an intrinsic moral value, such as thinking they are good and evil. ...

Should we have the freedom to entertain bad or evil ideas, ...

• yes
• yes

 

[Laika]

• yes
• yes

Hypothetically, If an idea is objectively bad, isn't there a necessity to ban or censor it?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hypothetically, If an idea is objectively bad, isn't there a necessity to ban or censor it?

Why? How? (Or were you speaking of banning/censoring expressing the idea?)

 

[Windwalker]

I realise that some people would consider a thought, idea or an emotion 'sinful' particuarly sexual fantasies, or extreme or controversial ideas because they are unpopular. I think people who practice meditation may well have their own view on how ideas help or hinder a meditative state. Another example is the notion of political correctness, that racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, ideas are morally wrong. Many people would also use say that some ideas are 'un-natural' and 'unrealistic' as a put down, or attacking them because they do not correspond to religious or scientific beliefs.

So I'm wondering if you think Ideas have an intrinsic moral value, such as thinking they are good and evil. Does they have this value because or irrespective of them being true or useful?

Should we have the freedom to entertain bad or evil ideas, are some ideas so bad or evil that they have to be criminalised in some form (e.g. censorship) and are there some ideas so good that they have to be promoted widely through education/propaganda?

What comes to mind is this quote:

Your beliefs become your thoughts,
Your thoughts become your words,
Your words become your actions,
Your actions become your habits,
Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny.

― Mahatma Gandhi
​

The question really is is there anything that is inherently evil? You cite political correctness. If the good is a goal to allow diversity within a society, than anything which works against this is "not-good". To attack each other with words does not support a peaceable world. But what is the source of words, but thoughts, and further back beliefs. If someone decides it is good to respect others, then changing the habits of mind is good.

Can this be enforced on others to change their thinking? No, but we can enforce that the words and actions that bring about harm to others be censured. I liken it to someone smoking around those who don't. It's obnoxious and a violation of someone's right to breath clean air and not be exposed to a risk to themselves by the rights of others to smoke. The smoker is free to go stand away from society and smoke all he wishes and return when the smoke has cleared.

Hopefully this standard of society will lead the smoker to want to change his own thoughts about the value of smoking for himself, as he does make himself a bit of a social pariah, having to go stand in a corner to take his drug away from others. That leads to a decision in himself for himself to change his own habits of mind. It is not put upon him by others to be punished for his thoughts, but only the behaviors which affect others. Freedom still exists for him to believe smoking is good, to light the cigarette and derive temporary relief from the nicotine, etc. But the boundaries are balanced between his rights and the rights of others. No one is forcing him to change himself, only to respect others. To change or not to change is his choice.

For the most part I am a relativist and do not believe in any inherently good or bad in thoughts or ideas, but I would say generally anything that helps others is better than harming others. So whatever promotes that is good, and whatever harms that is bad.

 

[Laika]

Why? How? (Or were you speaking of banning/censoring expressing the idea?)

I'm not sure honestly, but I imagine through censorship in the press. I think legal proceedings are intiated against people who violate certian laws such as incitement to violence, religious and racial hatred, etc. I'm not sure what the punishments are or should be.

Can this be enforced on others to change their thinking? No, but we can enforce that the words and actions that bring about harm to others be censured. I liken it to someone smoking around those who don't. It's obnoxious and a violation of someone's right to breath clean air and not be exposed to a risk to themselves by the rights of others to smoke. The smoker is free to go stand away from society and smoke all he wishes and return when the smoke has cleared.

Hopefully this standard of society will lead the smoker to want to change his own thoughts about the value of smoking for himself, as he does make himself a bit of a social pariah, having to go stand in a corner to take his drug away from others. That leads to a decision in himself for himself to change his own habits of mind. It is not put upon him by others to be punished for his thoughts, but only the behaviors which affect others. Freedom still exists for him to believe smoking is good, to light the cigarette and derive temporary relief from the nicotine, etc. But the boundaries are balanced between his rights and the rights of others. No one is forcing him to change himself, only to respect others. To change or not to change is his choice.

Thanks for your thought-provoking reply as this does very much rely on cliaming something is objectively wrong rather than a preference. Whilst it is the right of an individual to chose smoking is good, is it the right for a tobacco company to promote smoking through advertising? They are selling a product which kills it's customers, so clearly the harm that is inflicted not simply by selling them the product, but the idea to convince them to buy it actually have to be regulated by censorship.

 

[Wirey]

There are no bad thoughts. There are bad actions.

 

[Willamena]

Does they have this value because or irrespective of them being true or useful?

Good and bad are always irrespective of true and useful.

Should we have the freedom to entertain bad or evil ideas, are some ideas so bad or evil that they have to be criminalised in some form (e.g. censorship) and are there some ideas so good that they have to be promoted widely through education/propaganda?

We have that freedom, whether we should or not. (That's why it's a freedom.) We've no social thought control, though we do have significant social thought influences that sway us daily.

Depending on the severity, I would institutionalize such people rather than criminalize their ideas. Criminalizing does little practical good. Institutionalization allows for at least some help and recovery.

If it's not a severe case, though, I allow a lot of leeway for "bad" ideas.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As long as you don't act out them, there is nothing wrong with a bad thought. As long as you don't go out hurting and killing people, there is nothing wrong in letting your mind indulge in even the most violent of phantasies.

 

[Windwalker]

As long as you don't act out them, there is nothing wrong with a bad thought. As long as you don't go out hurting and killing people, there is nothing wrong in letting your mind indulge in even the most violent of phantasies.

But doesn't indulging yourself in violent thoughts harm yourself, emotionally and psychologically, as well as potentially lead to negative consequences to others, if not in punching them in the face, certainly in making oneself a negative person in general which tends to poison others around them?

I would tend to argue that nothing that we do inside our minds lives in complete isolation. Even if the thought itself is not acted upon directly, it has an effect on us and then the world around us as a result. The opposite holds true as well. If we have positive beliefs, positive thoughts, we become positive people and that positivity affects others positively. Like it says in the Proverbs, "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he".

Again, we cannot make thoughts a crime that are enforced by others. But one could argue our thoughts have a moral component to them in that they do eventually affect others in one way or another. But that is a choice, of course.

 

[Popcorn]

When thoughts are crimes, then the freedom of conscience is lost. The only way to determine if thoughts are either good or bad is to have that freedom, if it's taken away there's no way for anyone to contemplate them. Then it's a matter of who gets to decide what thoughts everyone is permitted to have and what thoughts are forbidden, and the risk is that the most power hungry megalomaniacs get to be in charge.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But doesn't indulging yourself in violent thoughts harm yourself, emotionally and psychologically, as well as potentially lead to negative consequences to others, if not in punching them in the face, certainly in making oneself a negative person in general which tends to poison others around them?

No, it doesn't.

 

[Wirey]

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Take it from someone who is angry all the time.

 

[Windwalker]

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does. Care to explain why or how it does not affect you, and that that in turn impacts others around you?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes it does. Care to explain why or how it does not affect you, and that that in turn impacts others around you?

For starters, I've never punched anyone in the face. For another, I'm generally very easy to get along with, and I don't make an environment toxic to be around.
But at one job I did have thoughts of dunking my bosses face into the fryer grease. But, that was just a thought, and in reality there are very few instances in which I believe violence is acceptable.
I may not be able to make an environment pleasant and lively to be in, but I don't make them dire either.

 

[Revoltingest]

For starters, I've never punched anyone in the face. For another, I'm generally very easy to get along with, and I don't make an environment toxic to be around.
But at one job I did have thoughts of dunking my bosses face into the fryer grease. But, that was just a thought, and in reality there are very few instances in which I believe violence is acceptable.
I may not be able to make an environment pleasant and lively to be in, but I don't make them dire either.

Negative thoughts need exercise...but within the confines of one's own mind.
I find it healthy.
It's what makes me so lovable.

 

[Twilight Hue]

As long as you don't act out them, there is nothing wrong with a bad thought. As long as you don't go out hurting and killing people, there is nothing wrong in letting your mind indulge in even the most violent of phantasies.

In a manner of speaking it's likely a release by which a person can vent and act safely without harming others. Like letting out a healthy dose of steam through video games.

 

[Musty]

I realise that some people would consider a thought, idea or an emotion 'sinful' particuarly sexual fantasies, or extreme or controversial ideas because they are unpopular. I think people who practice meditation may well have their own view on how ideas help or hinder a meditative state. Another example is the notion of political correctness, that racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, ideas are morally wrong. Many people would also use say that some ideas are 'un-natural' and 'unrealistic' as a put down, or attacking them because they do not correspond to religious or scientific beliefs.

So I'm wondering if you think Ideas have an intrinsic moral value, such as thinking they are good and evil. Does they have this value because or irrespective of them being true or useful?

Should we have the freedom to entertain bad or evil ideas, are some ideas so bad or evil that they have to be criminalised in some form (e.g. censorship) and are there some ideas so good that they have to be promoted widely through education/propaganda?

I think that what we believe to be good or bad ideas are largely determined by cultural norms that, within a different context, may be characterised entirely differently. There is risk when condemning ideas that you close the door to perfectly good alternatives, which in instances is exactly why some people want these ideas banned. I'd rather people had the freedom to explore ideas except where there it's clear it will result in individuals suffering serious physical or emotional harm, for example a shift towards the idea that domestic violence is OK that is prevalent in some countries but not in others.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How would controlling thought even be enforceable?

Most people can't control their mouths, let alone their confused and chaotic thoughts.