If an action causes no harm then what basis is there for a judgment of immorality?

A thing is deemed immoral specifically when it causes harm. Morality regards things good and bad, or good and evil. Evil is definitively that which is malevolent or contrary to that which is good. Malevolence is an intention to cause harm. So, what can be inferred, though I don't think this is what you meant, is that even if an action fails in harming somebody, the intent of harm still makes it immoral. On the contrary, if an action harms someone, but the intention was not there, is not immoral, because it was then an accident. So to answer your question, the basis of immorality lies in the intent of the action. If there is truly no intent to harm, then it cannot justly be called immoral. SO GO AHEAD AND MASTURBATE, YOU SICK F**K, just not in front of anyone.

Causes Of Immorality

Whose morality? Are we talking about Society's collective sense of morality? Or are we talking about a specific religion's moral views? And what harm would any action cause?

If you murder, you don't effect just that individual you murdered. You've attacked all of that persons family, friends, coworkers, their bosses, and any other acquaintances they had. That could quickly add up to hundreds of people. The same goes when you rob them, rape them, or many other things you could do. But what if the things you do aren't criminal in nature?

It's not illegal to have sex. The Law states there are specific age requirements that must be observed but otherwise, sex is up to you and whomever you have sex with. Is it immoral? It could be as easily as not. Myself, I tend to not think well of those who sleep with everything they can get their hands on. But that's just me. It increases the chance of an STD coming into the picture and increases the likelihood of it spreading through you. Someone once told me "When you have sex, you have sex with every person that had her before you". If that statement is true, then whomever your partner has sex with after you will also have to deal with whatever you brought. So if you've slept around a lot and gotten a disease, then your partner now has it too likely and will spread it also.

So here we have something harmless that can cause harm. So then, is promiscuity immoral? To me it is for the reasons I've stated. But like almost everything, it's subjective.

social scientists have made sex surveys that show an appalling collapse of morals. The accuracy of the findings has been questioned by many. Nevertheless, the over-all picture of widespread immorality cannot be challenged, and it stands as a confirmation of Bible prophecy that in the last days men would be lovers of themselves and lovers of pleasures, without self-control and without love of goodness at a time when “wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.” Conditions now match those prior to the flood of Noah’s day, when “Jehovah saw that the badness of man had become great in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time.”—2 Tim. 3:1-5, 13; Gen. 6:5; Matt. 24:37, NW. God's war Armageddon will set matters straight and those who want to live in an immoral free world will soon be realized.

For more information on this subject and others, please go to the source below. Also for free downloads, publications or read online. You can read on line the Brochure "Good News from God"

I'll give you an example. Say a woman was undressing in private, and you peek at her, but she doesn't know you did hence there was no harm done.

You might think "well because she didn't see me perv on her it's fine", but you're wrong.

It's immoral to invade someone else's privacy and sense of modesty even if you're not caught and the person doesn't find out.

The point is the principle of practicing ethics, by betraying that principle regardless of whether it damaged anyone or not, you are technically immoral because a crime is a crime, irrespective of the aftermath.

God cannot watch each and every human being at the same time. That's why He had created the spirits to watch, guide and determine the destiny of the human beings from their daily activities, talks and thoughts too. Your past determines your present and your present determines your future. God has given freewill to all creatures including human beings. According to this, all human beings have all right to live a life as they wish. But if it happens to be bad and hurts someone, they have to face the consequences. These consequences are created by spirits. It's a natural system. After death no one lives in any form. Heaven and hell are only for spirits. Spirits are separate elements. A human being is not a single spirit. A human being during his/her life time is living with many spirits which have joined one by one since birth. They are knowledge, skills, feelings, emotions, interests and everything. Even thoughts are not your own. When you want to take a decision on a subject, one after another the spirits think and you just listen, choose or reject the ideas which they transmit to your mind through your brain in the form of thoughts. A human being is just a robot made of flesh, bones, tissues etc., and a toy of the spirits for their games.

People even deceive themselves. Rather than face unpleasant truths, they convince themselves that there is no harm in pursuing dangerous practices, such as smoking, drug abuse, or sexual immorality.

Then there is deception in religious matters. The religious leaders of Jesus’ day deceived the people. Of those deceivers, Jesus said: “Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14) Moreover, people deceive themselves in religious matters. Proverbs 14:12 states: “There exists a way that is upright before a man, but the ways of death are the end of it afterward.”

As in Jesus’ time, many today are deceived in religious matters and no wonder! The apostle Paul said that Satan “has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.”—2 Corinthians 4:4.

If we are deceived by a swindler, we lose money. If a politician deceives us, we may lose some of our freedom as a result. But if Satan deceives us so that we reject the truth about Jesus Christ, we lose out on everlasting life! So avoid being deceived. Open your mind and heart to the one indisputable source of religious truth, the Bible. There is too much at stake to do otherwise.—John 17:3.

The fine quality of the judging that will take place on Judgment Day is assured, for Jehovah’s “judgments are true and righteous.” (Re 19:1, 2) The kind of judging that he authorizes is also righteous and true. (Joh 5:30; 8:16; Re 1:1; 2:23) There will be no perverting of justice or hiding of the facts.

The judgement would be made on the effect it had on society. If enough think it deserves to be immoral then it becomes so, ie homosexuality. It had to become legal because the majority of those using their powers of persuasion are homosexual and therefore have the democratic right of legalizing it. Mothers and Fathers who care for their children's future will be against it as it is deemed immoral for the sake of procreation and self identity. Males being men and Females woman, we have to distinguish between the two to know what we are.

Just because it harms no one does not mean it is not immoral.

For example, letting the parking meter expire without putting the next quarter in to it hurts no one, not even yourself, yet, it is immoral, because the rule maker (the government) made a rule where you are to pay to park there, as long as your car is parked there, before the meter expires. You broke the rules, and breaking rules is immoral. It does not matter if it hurts anyone. If it is not supposed to happen, then it is immoral.

Why are you on Y/A asking thought provoking questions?

The intent or motivation that led to the action would be the basis for a judgement of morality. If I intended to commit murder, but the acts leading to the fulfillment of the crime were unsuccessful, am I not morally still wrong? In the eyes of the law, an incompetent criminal is only slightly less culpable than a competent one. I argue that morally they are both equally guilty.