Homosexuality

Ah yes, that constant in the world of ethics, and sadly politics. I have to point out, here, though, that I post this blog in relation to being bad only for how other people see it. And not myself. This topic does hold resonance to me, not as I am gay, but I am well aware of the horrific actions that ave - and to this day - befall people for such a trivial matter. But anyway, enough sentiment. Why is it, exactly, that some people consider homosexuality, or anything other than heterosexuality I should say, 'being bad'? Yes, of course, most base this belief upon religious beliefs, by why is it that these beliefs themself postulate that it is bad... apart from the theology and so on? The most natural argument I've come across, is, literally one based on nature. They say, of course, that such actions are not natural. I do always love to point out that so too are the clothes they were, but I digress. There really isn't time here to systematically refute such arguments, except that to point out that as with frequent sex, prostitution and so on... none heterosexual sex doesn't harm anyone. It may be observed that this is an undercurrent measurement my thought employs. That that which does not harm anyone is not bad, or at least it meets one requirement to 'not be bad', as it were. But given that this act is one with consent, or I speak of such acts that are with consent, between adults of sound mind... how can this be 'being bad' anymore than one putting on clothes? I digress, I know very well the arguments that can be use against this, but frankly after objective consideration, none of them carry any credence at all.

Pornography

Here I speak of the use of pornography, and the people who take part if the formation of pornography. I think we do need to establish a difference between creators and consumers here, as they do what they do for different reasons. I confess, I have used pornography, as I'm sure the vast majority of people have. There is hardly a shortage of it. I do here 25% of the entire web is porn based, although the truth of that or not I do not know. What I do know however is that it is often seen, as creator or consumer, to be an act of 'being bad'. But why? Again, I feel that this act in either case is is not 'being bad', for the same reasons as say cannabis use. Whom do the creators and consumers harm? Of course I do not speak of people who are forced into porn, but of the mainstream industry. I can think of no one they harm. And in the case of the consumers, they do no more than that which nature, frankly, requires us to do. I personally consider chastity to be immoral, and masturbation not for that very reason. Given that creators of porn, and users of it, do not harm anyone... and that they do perform an act of nature in using it, how can this be seen as being immoral? Even if, probably, a little embarrassing.

Drug abuse

Here I concern myself with drug abuse. I speak of any drug, from what in the UK is classed as C upwards. Cannabis falls into this spectrum, as does cocaine, heroin and all others. I think there can be little doubt that the class A drugs are 'being bad', if only for the extremely bad health side effects they produce, often more quickly and severe than smoking. But what of cannabis, cough medicine, glue and all the others used to 'get high'? Are they 'being bad'? I must confess, that while I do not approve of such things, I object not on moral grounds but health ones. Quite often we see people who have gone insane, died, committed crimes and so on, a a result of such drugs. But we must keep in mind that while this happens, numerically such drug abuse leading to such affects is much less often than say heroin abuse. I do here divorce health from morality, as I do not consider health to be a foundation reference point to discover if an action is moral or not, but only an incidental one. And thus, much the same as frequent sex, I can't consider such drug abuse to be 'being bad'... at least not as long as those who use such drugs do so in moderation and while under the influence do not harm other people or commit crimes, which surely most people who use such drugs do not. For, after all, they do what they do wilfully, and in these circumstances do not hurt anyone. So why are they 'being bad'? Perhaps they are not being good either, but not bad as a result.

Frequent sex

Here I speak of those people, male, female or otherwise who have sex with many people wilfully, and who charge no fee for their services. Many people do this of course, and many of the same arguments for prostitution apply here; possible bad heath, for example. But can we, as a result, consider the 'sluts' (of any gender) to be immoral, that is, 'being bad'? Setting aside those who are, perhaps, addicted to sex, there are those who for whatever reason - perhaps nothing more than pleasure - who have sex often, much more often the average Joe. But here it is best to take a consequentialist approach. After all, do these people really hurt anyone? They may of course if they cheat on a partner, but for those who are single, and who have sex that often, lets face it, they don't hurt anyone. Bertrand Russell once said that it is the independence of will that is seen as as immoral. I agree with him on that, among other things, but appearances and reality may differ in more than an epistemological sense. I cannot see the 'sluts' of the world immoral for that very reason, that they do not hurt anyone. It is an accepted rule, thoughout most Western culture, that if one hurts someone they are bad. Of course, it does not follow that as frequent sexually active people are thus not immoral, as they could be breaking other general rules, but again the religious aside, they are wilful people not massively harming their health who derive pleasure from their antics. So how can they be 'being bad'? I don't know, although of course the cynics among us may just point out that I'm bound to this conclusion, I am male after all.

Prostitution

Now who among as has used the services of a lady (or man or otherwise, perhaps) of the night? I'm sure that we all know at least one person who has, if we know they have or not. Here I will focus more on the provider of such services, rather than the client. Are they 'being bad'? I must admit, Socratic nature here falls from me, as I think not. There are of course many different reasons why people rent their body out - some do it for fun, others wilfully for money, and others as lack of money necessitates - but the actual act itself, so far as we can judge away from causation, cannot really be all that bad. While yes, it can be unhealthy (although much of the health conditions that can arise from sex with many people can be somewhat reduced with protections, a key point of consideration), it is at least for most not an addiction. But, while it may to the common eye seem dishonourable, and is in the UK illegal, who are we really to deprive someone of sovereignty of their body? Of course this in itself would be an act of being bad, but it does not follow that prostitution is thus good.

There are many religious implications towards prostitution, it goes without saying, but in a secular age I think it is better to ignore these objections, especially as they inevitably rest upon highly debatable foundations. However, try as I might, I just cannot find what prostitutes do to be immoral, probably as I recall (against my maxim earlier) that they do what they do either from choice, or from necessity. In the former case, they do what they do to earn money. This is a marked difference from drinking or smoking, as after all... their profession may be illegal, but we all need money. In which case, they are only from choice accepting a means to the end (of making money) that is quite likley the best for their nature. As for those who do what they do against their will for necessity, they aren't so different from their wilful companions. I do not speak of those physically forced into the action, or children, as that can be seen as beyond the present scope of 'being bad'. But of those runaways, those without homes or hope, who try to earn just a little bit for food. At the end of the day, if wilful or not (although for those who with to do something else but who do still consent, with regret, consent is at least a form of will) they are doing so from compulsion, the need we all have... that for money. Perhaps then, if one does object that prostitution is immoral, they need consider the morality of money. But that is another matter.

Drinking

Now unlike smoking, I don't drink... well, very hardly ever. But is drinking something that is 'being bad'? I think, on reflection, many of the same arguments applicable to smoking are to drinking as well. It is expensive, although perhaps not as much as smoking; it is bad for one's health, at least in excess it is. And it can have bad effects on the people around you. But there are also other arguments to drinking, mostly as drinking and smoking are not the same. While smoking does effect one's health in many of the same ways that drinking does, smoking (most often) does not also effect an individual's mind as excessive drinking does. I should make it clear here that I am speaking only of excessive drinking, setting aside what level makes drinking excessive and not, I do not speak of drinking in moderation. This is another difference between smoking and drinking of course, that drinking in moderation is not addictive, or at least half as much so, as smoking. But excessive drinking, as we all know, can make someone so consumed with feeding their addiction that they will happily steal, isolate themselves, and commit illegal actions while drunk. These are of course some of the effects of the terrible affliction, but I think we can call drinking an act of being bad for the simple reason alone that it destroys one's life as an individual, as well as their health. Lost jobs; homes; families and friends are but some examples of how drinking can do this. Obviously, alcoholism is bad, there can be little argument against this. But what of the medium? That point between excessive drinking and moderate drinking? I avoid the cut of level earlier, but here I think is a question worth posing: what about those people who are not addicted to drinking as alcoholics, but who drunk far more often than they medically should. I must admit, since I started typing along this line of thought I conjured up an image of those young ladies and gents who go out every weekend - at least - and get 'hammered' in pubs and clubs. We've all seen them, spilling out onto street corners being sick, abusing passers by, getting into fights and generally commitng unlawful actions. But the arguments for alcoholism do not really apply to these people, unless they cross over from this into alcoholism, which sadly many do in later life. They do not alienate close ones, they do break laws, but normally only when drunk (as opposed to while being dunk and sober as many alcoholics do in order to get alcohol or money for it). As unhealthy as this may be, it cannot be as unhealthy as prolonged drinking. But, on reflection, perhaps there can be differing degrees of 'being bad' as there can be alcohol consumption. These people who frequent the red light districts of the town, and the more upmarket social meeting places perhaps a little too much may not be as bad as their alcoholic cousins, but are certainly far worse off than those who do not. Although, they do at least have two rectifying reasons for doing what they do; the pleasure it gives them and that most, if they tried, can stop doing what they do, much more easily than can a cocaine addict.

Smoking

So, smoking. Why is that an act of 'being bad'. I must admit at first sight it does seem a rather petty action to be considered being bad, but perhaps that's the idiotic smoker in me. I say idiotic of course because lets face it, everyone knows the detrimental health consequences of smoking, let alone the monetary ones as well. But to be fair, there is one thing - if only one attribute - to smoking in favour of it. Which is of course namely, that is produces pleasure, at least for the majority of people who smoke. I've always said to myself, and I stand by it, that I can stop smoking anytime I wish, I simply don't wish to though... because it gives me pleasure. It's a curious fact that mostly what is goof for one's health is bad for pleasure, and reversed; smoking, drinking; certain foods; drugs. I speak generally of course, for there are exceptions, and that is not true for all people (not all drugs addicts get pleasure from the drugs obviously). But smoking is one that we perhaps are on firme ground as classing as such. For no doubt that it is addictive, and that is why most people smok, but if only for the very pleasure of satisfying the addiction it gives pleasure. I suppose we must weigh up the benefit of pleasure to the bad affects of smoking to see if it is truly 'being bad'. This is an enormous task of course, too much so to be fully elobrate on here. Suffice is it to say that on balance this author does consider smoking to 'being bad', as after all, with few exceptions - and even for those smoking is not the most opportune method to their aim - the near inevitable death or horrendous side effects of smoking in the end outweigh any trivial pleasure that can be derived from the act. By and large people don't want to die, and certainly not have to pay how many thousands or tens of thousands they pay to do so with smoking. Although here we must establish a maxim generally true; we value current pleasures over future effects, which is to say the present over the future, at least most often. But at the heart of 'being' bad is exactly such side effects as become from smoking; loss of health; loss of money; harm to other people. There can be little doubt that all of these crimes are commited by smoking, and thus smokers, so there can be little agument, really, that smoking is 'being bad', even if it is perhaps a lesser crime on balance than say, heroin abuse.