Inherent morality, and the golden rule, how does it apply to so called victimless crimes?

Question

It is a common question here to ask what keeps an atheist from committing crimesl. The usual answer is that because of the golden rule one would not want to rob or murder. I agree it works for those examples, but what about so called victim less crimes like , jaywalking, illegal drugs, prostitution, downloading songs for free on the Internet, etc. There seems to be much less consensus on if these things should be illegal or not, How would an atheist decide on those issues both personally and for an entire community?

Those were just examples that i listed, i did not mean for people to explain each one.

Answer 1

~~~swept ,,,, I know it sounds trite but,,, I just let my conscience be my guide. I try to weigh each situation. for instance I was very "lucky" in that 2 consecutive residences, in different states, my house was receiving Free Cable TV, No Movie Channels like HBO,etc, for many years. Since moving I pay now, for years, to an unregulated industry that has Wash DC on it's payroll and now I pay $50 per month for Basic. ~~ I don't care how much I get Overpaid at a Cash Register, I will always correct it on The Spot because I know the person is responsible for balancing the cash in The Drawer., etc, Ex: Whenever I jaywalk, I make sure that I don't hold up traffic, etc, If there is too much Gray Area to make a clear decision, I either ignore it all together or abide by the local laws.

Answer 2

so called victimless crimes are just that.. "so called".. those examples you mentioned do have still have crimes. For example prostitutes are usually the own victims in their own trade. Many aren't there out of choice. Some are there out of what they believe is choice but is actually a lack of any other opportunity. Illegal drugs if abused will downgrade society. Society becomes a victim. Furthurmore how illegal drugs are made or harvested has many victims.

Other things like jaywalking, downloading songs, etc. I don't think only atheists do these things; in fact, I think even people who claim to be religious don't break the law simply because it is breaking the law and there are consequences for it.

On how to decide on these issues. I don't know if it's just a matter of believing in a higher power, because I do think that all people have a sense of dignity or self worth. Some things we just don't do because it seems below what it means to be an useful member of society. Of course, what these things are differ, so even among atheists, they don't always agree.

Answer 3

It is absurd to think that because someone is religious that they would be less inclined to jaywalk. As for other legality issues, like drugs, prostitution and copyright theft, perhaps a deeply religious person would not engage in these things. At least I would certainly expect that they wouldn't. However, it begs the question whether prostitution, for example, *should* be legalized. The "moral" answer in this case is not necessarily the correct one. I also think the drugs example is unremarkable. Cultures in the Amazon rain forest, for example, or some American Indian tribes, consider drugs downright spiritual and most sacred. To make the argument that only non-religious people steal off the Internet assumes facts not in evidence.

Bottom line, I think that atheists are more moral than people steeped in self-righteous religious propaganda, when you look at the consequences on a large scale. It is almost cliche that more blood has been spilled in the name of god than any other cause. And atheists do not decide on "those issues both personally and for an entire community" -- those decisions are either left to a vote or are adjudicated by lawmakers. And I assure you, lawmakers tend to take a stern atheistic view of things no matter what their religious beliefs for the simple fact that "god told me to do it" does not, and should not, hold up as a defense in a court of law.

Answer 4

I don' think that you ' don't commit crimes' because you hold a particular faith. And can't agree that involvement in illegal drugs or prostitution is victimless. The fact that our legal system was formed around the Bible's doctrine does not make it any less valid. After all, the bible is such a well thought out philosophy for life and community, that I doubt that it could be bettered. The atheist could simply remove the improbable tales and view them as a code of conduct for the (then) unsophisticated and uneducated masses, and insert the wrath of the majority (with accompanying purgatory of incarceration), in place of the being denied access to 'heaven'. Rules are in place so that man may enjoy the good life. Rules are enshrined into the law - but this may be challenged to affect a more equitable balance of personal freedom for all.

Answer 5

The question is, is a so-called "victimless" crime indeed without a victim or not? Let's look at downloading songs - in fact, this is fraudulent, since there is a copyright owner who is defrauded of his due. So there is a victim (of course the actual damage is debatable, but doubtlessly there is a certain damage).
Drugs are a somewhat different matter, since the only victim normally is the drug abuser himself. Therefore most atheists will have a rather liberal view on drugs. Inflicting damage on yourself is part of your personal freedom, up to a point. On the other hand, you could argue that by abusing drugs you are becoming a danger to society. But this is a very indirect thing.
Same goes for prostitution. If it is the free will of someone to prostitute oneself (which in reality of course it is not, in most cases), there cannot be any moral objection.

Answer 6

It is a common misconception that the only source of morality is religion. Morality is alive and well in people who don't happen to believe in god or organized religion. Atheists love, sense right and wrong, care about others and society, and value their reputations as honest and honorable people. All the "victimless crimes" you mention are in fact trespasses against others - downloading music for free is theft, jaywalking is startling and dangerous to drivers and shows flagrant disregard for the rules of society, illegal drugs supports crime and also shows disregard for the laws of the society, which is a contemptuous gesture towards society. None of this is victimless, and above all, if is the law of the land, the "house rules", then we all owed it to the "house" to abide by the rules. Funny an atheist should have to give this lecture. I wonder where the morality really lies.

Answer 7

Most crimes are not victimless though (the notable exception being jaywalking). Illegal drug use and selling certainly is not victimless! Prostitutes themselves are often victims of their pimps. Downloading songs from the internet still hurts the band and label (even though they may be rich, they are still victims!) You could even make the case there are victims in jaywalking - what about the driver that has to slam on his/her brakes because someone decided to walk in the middle of the road?

Can you name a truely victimless crime?

Answer 8

well some of them are there for danger reasons like jaywalking your not only endangering your self but motorist as well d/ling songs is like stealing from companies and the bands but you probably already thought of that but to be more direct in an answer you would have to determined by risk/reward scale that being how much danger and or problems are created by this what are the benefits of allowing or disallowing such things to pass , can we control this once we have passed it and what type of control will be needed
so to sum it up for you it would be based on logic, not some
moral code taken from a book that was written over 2,000 years ago you have to understand that just because you atheist doesn't mean you have no morals your morals are derived from the social structure and communities that they are from just like any Christan or Jew or Muslim just as some Muslims believe it's OK to kill and maim in the name of their faith doesn't mean they all do why is this you ask it has more to do with the social structure they were brought up in rather than the religion it's self same could be said for the Christan's and Catholics with the whole burning of witches and Spanish Inquisition thing so in short an atheist would decide these things based on logic and the commonly understood "laws" of society as a whole and not be based on personal beliefs and or the beliefs of a religious or non religious group

Answer 9

Aside from possibly jaywalking, how are the others you list victimless?

Whether it's conspiracy to commit murder in the case of drugs, virtual slavery in the case of much of the prostitution, or outright theft in the case of downloading, where do you the idea that there are no victims?

This is the perfect example of the moral bankrupcy of atheism. If no one sees a victim, or the victim is filthy rich or all the parties appear to be acting of their own accord, there's no victim, no crime, no moral difficulty at all. It's sickening and it is essence of decadence.

Answer 10

I don't jaywalk because I could get run over.

I think some drugs, like pot, should be legal, from personal experience. Prostitution should be legal as well, so it can be regulated and made safer.

Downloading songs off the internet is stealing.

Simple, see?

An Agnostic