This is going to be difficult to communicate, being the subjective nature of the argument; but can a person be held morally culpable for their beliefs, and nothing else?

I'll use Nazis as an example to try and appeal to as wide a moral system as I can. Say a person believes that all non-"Aryans" everywhere should be killed, or at least mistreated, and endorses this action intellectually though doesn't communicate it; yet this person is good in all other moral tests (good parent, constructive member of community etc). Would it be just to in any way to judge, or otherwise hold this person accountable, merely for his beliefs?

Also the original title used evil instead of immoral, but that's such a negative word that I decided against using it, but for intents and purposes when I say immoral I do mean evil.

I personally don't think so, however, I think you're describing a state of being that simply doesn't exist. In your example, say I'm a nazi who thinks non-Aryans should be mistreated. If I truly believe that, why would I not act on it?

Maybe it's the law or other fear of punishment. It's effective: take a look at all the places where there's little chance of negative consequences (traffic violations, pirating/copyright infringement, shoplifting, not reporting all your taxable income, etc.) and instances of misbehaviour go through the roof.

- Some people want to do immoral ****.
- We use the law to keep them from doing it.


If we had the ability to peek into everyone's brains and punish them for the desire alone to do the immoral, I'd suggest we'd all be doing time. I'm not saying everyone is a nazi, but I think anyone who tells you they've never considered doing something immoral is a liar.

Its an interesting idea because you base what is right / wrong on your ... ethical foundation. Then you can just look and see if what you did was right or wrong but what if your foundation is flawed. Good idea for OP ... But...

Yes! Imo xD. Although not for ethical reasons but for practical reasons. I think it is the order of needs or whatever but we have to first be safe, then get food, then we can have relishes. What I mean is we cannot tolerate someone with a ethical foundation of "x people are bad and have to be killed." Not because of justness or ethics but because of our needs. We need to be safe and not hungry before we discuss ethics, and this guy with that belief is making us unsafe. I could go on and on about my opinion on the subject but I will leave it there for now.

My personal opinion is that there is nothing that is immoral in an absolute sense, all morality is a societal construct, so whatever a particular society says about "mental immorality" determines the answer to your question within that society.

Of course not. A person's morality can only be judged if accompanied by overt acts. Anything else is madness.

Morality by definition solely consists of ones effects or likely effects on other beings. It stops where there is no effect on another being. If I cause myself pain and suffering, no one would call that immoral if it affects only me. If I cause another person pain and suffering, most would call it immoral unless there was need, and a greater good.

Plenty of people have lovely beliefs and do evil by accident because they're morons; plenty have bad beliefs and yet do nothing but good. Calling the first moral and the second immoral is pretty weird. Morality is 100% based around responsibility for actions and their effects; a vicious will is merely a corroborating bit of evidence related to an act.

So you believe that morality lacks any objective elements whatsoever?

If you don't think that beliefs can make you immoral, what would your impression be of a person that told you of his immoral beliefs. Say you are talking with a person at a bar, getting along well, and then this person said all non-whites should be mistreated, or something along those lines. What would your impression of that person be, if not immoral?

Im not sure "objective" is the right word. I dont believe there is an absolute, universal moral code.

How strongly does this person believe this?

Lets suppose that this is a strong moral belief that this person holds, yet he does not act on it. Well then it would be easy to assume that if this same person believes people should not be tortured for no reason, yet witnesses a person being tortured for no reason. Will he act?

Inaction of beliefs is the same as a lack of beliefs. So I would say this person either doesn't believe in nazism strong enough to render an action and in that sense render him immoral. Or in general this person doesn't stand behind his beliefs, so to speak, and therefore doesn't have any, and IMO, for that he should be held culpable.

Ignorant

Yes.

I'd reserve the word "immoral" for actions: the sort of thing that can actually harm someone/violate someone's rights/decrease happiness etc. People are immoral to the extent that they do immoral things.

This. I guess its just easier to see if were using the word moral.

For example if OP's question was would a person be moral if intellectually they thought _____(insert something good?) but has yet to act on this belief.

Would this be a moral person?

Not in my opinion.

But some people's morality might declare that it is just. If you can allow that different groups might have a different view of morality (e.g. killing all Aryans is not immoral), then why can't you have a group who believes that thinking about "wrong" acts is also immoral?

In other words, of course it can be immoral, because the person judging the thoughts/actions of others can have literally any view of morality you can imagine--including one that judges thoughts as equal to action.

So depressing that people keep pointing out that just about any answer is right on questions of morality, because we're all just making **** up. Probably true tho.