2007-07-05 04:14:22 · 13 answers · asked by lala 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Yes, if it has the potential to victimize someone.... whether there has been a victimization or not would merely determine whether the wrong has been efficient and effective or not. The witness part is relevant only for public knowledge of the wrong and the corresponding justice.
2007-07-05 04:22:05 · answer #1 · answered by small 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean your terms absolutely; that there is no victim and never will be including the actor - the 'wrong-doer' and I will leave aside the fact the this 'wrong-doer' must be a 'witness' for the moment...
"Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or "concept-stealing"; it does not permit the separation of "value" from "purpose," of the good from beneficiaries, and of man's actions from reason."
Your question is merely reversing these terms; you are talking about a dis-value... Of dis-value to whom?
Without a 'victim' an action cannot be deemed 'wrong' whether or not there are any witnesses... If an action causes nobody any harm, if it violates no rights, it must be ok...
Do I understand you correctly? Maybe an example would help?
2007-07-05 05:21:13 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Wizard 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Something can only be wrong if there is a morality imposed on it. So assuming the perpetrator has no morality or is not the focus of the question, as he / she certainly would have witnessed his / her own acts. Then there can be no wrong doing as there is no one to impose a morality.
However if you take the problem a step out and are talking in a wider viewpoint. Since the consequences of an action can be observed and in doing so a morality can be imposed on the out come (consequences) this makes the unseen action wrong or right depending on the morality of the viewer (of said consequences).
2007-07-05 06:44:22 · answer #3 · answered by hoegaarden_drinker 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dear Jasmine, it is always good when there is no victim.
Only bad doing has a victim and then, it is good to have a witness.
2007-07-07 04:56:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Something is 'wrong' only if one considers it wrong.
Kill a few people, you're a murderer, an animal...slaughter millions in the name of some widely accepted cause, you're a hero, a demigod.
'Wrong' is only in the label one chooses to use.
Perhaps a more interesting take on the question is..How many wrongs have been so widely honored as being right?...Who's label of 'wrong' is the 'right' one? Who are we to decide the question?
2007-07-05 04:35:54 · answer #5 · answered by Chance M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, because the action might be in "stopped mode" which means that nothing has actually happened ... but that is still wrong.... an evil thought is an evil thought ...our minds must be pure and our hearts full of love ... otherwise, there is not a hope in sight ...is there? no...
2007-07-05 08:46:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. And the victim can be you too - self-harm for instance.
2007-07-05 04:49:34 · answer #7 · answered by politicsguy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just because no one heard the tree fall in the forest doesn't mean that it didn't fall. Wrong is wrong, whether anyone knows about it or not doesn't mean it didn't happen.
2007-07-05 04:26:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ubi non iudex, ibi non causa - Justinian.
Means:
Where there's no judge, there's no case to answer - or:
Where there's no camera, there's no speed limit.
Who are we to argue with the Roman Law?
2007-07-05 04:40:33 · answer #9 · answered by Michael B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
God sees all, and evil always creates victims.
2007-07-07 10:51:43 · answer #10 · answered by Lucy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋