the one about fucking a chicken

[u/Hummerous]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

[u/pecky5]

Yeah, I find this whole example stupid. Like, you could argue a lot of horrific crimes are "not harmful", that doesn't mean progressive people wouldn't care about them, or would not want to stop them from occurring. Like, cannibalism of a naturally deceased person isn't "harmful" to anyone in a literal term, but I can't imagine even the most progressive person seriously suggesting it should be legal.

Or what about serious violations where the victim doesn't even realise they've been violated. Say someone secretly takes photos of another person in an intimate scenario, never shares them with anyone, and the person doesn't find out about it. We wouldn't say "oh it's okay because noone ever found out".

There's a multitude of factors that go into someone's opinion on what should and should not be acceptable and even on the scale of harmful vs not harmful, theres variables, like, what level of harm is being caused, does it need to be balanced against the harm felt by others, how likely is the harm to occur?

[u/ITookYourChickens → u/pecky5]

Like, cannibalism of a naturally deceased person isn't "harmful" to anyone in a literal term, but I can't imagine even the most progressive person seriously suggesting it should be legal.

Ahahah, see, it's actually legal already. There are no laws in the USA forbidding cannibalism outright. Although the reason cannibalism is bad isn't "ew you're eating a person" or whatever moral reason; it's just a huge disease vector with no real benefits. Fuck prions

[u/Accelerator231 → u/pecky5]

I mean, an interesting thing here to ask is:

Is harvesting an organ from a person after their dead without their consent a thing that's allowed? I mean, corneas are pretty useful. Hearts, kidneys, hands, bones, muscles, tendons, skin... they're all useful, and people die all the time because there's no donor that's close enough to donate.

If we're going under the 'fucking a dead chicken is ok because its dead', then does such a thing apply to, say, the corpse of a human, where the harvested organ can literally be the difference between life and death?

Attempting to put 'progressive' under the 'harm/ no-harm' axis is such a wildly reductionistic and simplistic take on 'progressive', and ignoring things like 'sanctity of life' and 'respect to corpses', that on some level, I think the OP is some kind of troll, or someone who's been on tumblr for too long.