No Victim No Crime- No Harm No Sin

                                                                            

Dennis Rünger posted the following piece on G+ and I think this is something to keep in mind when we say something is bad. As Dennis states below we need to find a victim and the harm that it does, otherwise how can it be bad? No victim no crime.

Social (Social Neuroscience, Organizational, EvPsych, etc.) -  

 

I find research on morality to be one of the most interesting areas in psychological science today. This NYT articles describes a series of studies showing that we possess a schema for immoral acts that includes not only the act itself but also 'slots' for the perpetrator and the victim. This means that we are motivated to look for, and find, victims of acts we consider immoral, even when there are none.

Here's an example from the text:
"In the 19th century ... masturbation was widely considered immoral — and harmful. According to Dr. Adam Clarke, a medical authority of the day, 'neither the plague, nor war, nor small-pox, nor similar diseases, have produced results so disastrous to humanity as the pernicious habit of Onanism.' But now that masturbation has lost its moral stigma, it no longer is seen to victimize anyone.”

Russ Abbott originally shared:

 

This piece claims that we tend to invent victims for acts we consider immoral.  As the piece points out, Even ostensibly “victimless” behaviors like necrophilia were seen to involve injured parties.

People understand immorality though a universal template — a dyad of perpetrator and victim. Most immoral acts have a “complete” dyad, such as murder (murderer and murdered), theft (thief and thieved) and abuse (abuser and abused). But with many morally controversial acts, such as those involving adult pornography, prostitution, drugs or homosexuality, the victims seem less obvious or absent altogether.

When we encounter such an “incomplete” dyad, we tend to slot in a victim. Such victims can be friends, family, future generations or the soul of the perpetrator. Very often they are children, because of their vulnerability and sensitivity to suffering. It is no accident that moralists of all kinds beseech others to “think of the children.” ...

Perceptually speaking, if you see something as wrong, you almost certainly see it as harmful.

So when you are about to argue against something, for example, eating genetically modified food, on the grounds that it will hurt someone, take a second look. The science is on the side of GMOs being harmless. Of course, when someone argues that gay marriage will destroy the fabric of our society, remember that he too may be inventing a victim for something they consider wrong.