Are people evil for what they think even if they haven't committed evil yet? Or does one become evil chiefly by actions alone?For example, a man might develop intense pedophilic desires. He did not choose to have these desires, nor can he just try to get rid of it with a snap of the finger. However, not only does he know that acting upon it is massively barbaric, but does everything he can to prevent himself from doing so, including staying away from actual children irl or the Internet, immediately seeking intensive confidential mental therapy, and overall trying as much as he can to mitigate these desires. Is he still an evil or potentially evil person for thoughts alone and deserve the woodchipper, or does he deserve a chance to contribute to society? What if he consumes fictional lolicon material (ie. not real CSAM), is he an evil person by then or has a higher chance of being evil?Or psychopaths/sociopaths. Are they guarenteed to commit assault or murder from desires alone? Or are they still capable of not committing bad actions? Is it still too dangerous to let them into society?I understand if the priority here is too protect the public over any individual's feelings, and those who do actively harm definitely deserve punishment, but do you think providing mental support and assurance for potential offenders is one way to protect the public so it could help them not commit offenses? I'm talking about support from professionals and loved ones, not like "society must accept this clearly dangerous person or it's their fault if he becomes a serial rapist." Or is a bullet to the brain or automatic conviction really the only guarentee way to stop it, even to people who have done nothing wrong?
>>18345973The way I see it, I think bad desires should be destigmatized to an extent but not normalized. These people shouldn't feel completely down to the point that they must off themselves or surrender to authorities, but they shouldn't take pride of their desires either and still have some shame to prevent acting upon it (the last thing we want is another MAP/pedophilia is like homosexuality situation). I also believe committing evil acts is a complete personal choice that could be avoided regardless of desire or how much shame you receive, and even if you don't have desires right now, it's not certain you won't commit evil (for example, lots of heterosexual men abuse other men and boys, and many murderers aren't psychosociopaths or have other mental illnesses). Not one person is 0% or 100% likely to cause harm, just varying degrees in-between.
>>18345973Obviously the answer is no. All traditional morality suggests it is unjust to punish people for actions they have not committed.
>>18345975>evil actsdefine evil hint: you can't
>>18345973>Is he still an evil or potentially evil personAccording to who?
>>18346032according to society, the law, religion, professionals, whatever you think is considered evil, etc.
>>18346030i'd define evil as something that results in long-term or irreversable physical or mental damage to a living being
>>18346045i should also point out that it should be intentionally committed, in case of insanityanother reason why sex crimes are abhorrent is not just the harm, but it is 100% avoidable and unexcusable on the offender's part regardless their desires
>>18346002but if you try to ask for help online to get rid of sick desires, rather than giving you help, you'll have many commentators tell you that you still deserving of the woodchipper even if you haven't offendedbasically ending it all is the only way of ensuring you won't offendare they right, or are there more ethical alternatives?
>>18346338Why are you asking for help from randoms online rather than a professional? Do you go to YouTube comments for life advice also?
>>18345973>including staying away from actual children irl or the Internet, immediately seeking intensive confidential mental therapy, and overall trying as much as he can to mitigate these desires. Is he still an evil or potentially evil person for thoughts alone and deserve the woodchipper, or does he deserve a chance to contribute to societyNo he isn't evil and does not deserve the "woodchipper" and he can still contribute to society. >What if he consumes fictional lolicon material (ie. not real CSAM)Yes that is wrong. Doesn't matter if it is "just drawings" he is feeding his addiction that he knows is wrong.
"Society" is a bullshit, nebulous concept and no arbitor of morality. In any case, there is nothing wrong with loving lolis.
>>18346614wrong in the sense that it is irredeemable and deserves woodchipper?
>>18346854Wrong that he should immediately stop and keep getting help.
>>18346743different societies have different views on what is morally righteous, and i doubt anglo society is that righteous eitherthey falsely sided with johnny depp over amber heard
