Is it immoral to go to the beach and take pictures of middle school and high school girls to masturbate to?

>Of course not, it's your right to photograph anybody in a public space, if they don't want to be seen they shouldn't be outside where people can see them.
There is no such moral right. If OP follows the "usual" version of morality then it would not be moral to do something that someone else wouldn't want to be done on them.
>Is it any more immoral than having a photographic memory and just fapping to the memories?
What is the difference between a photographic memory and a camera? The answer might surprise you.
>Of course not, if anything it's more moral due to being an equalizer.
How so? What kind of equalizer?

>The truth is that's just an excuse for you, the real problem is that photos let him have perfectly preserved images forever whereas memory doesn't
Who could have thought that photos preserve images better than the memory. That didn't even cross my mind. OP, asked about morals not efficiency, baka user desu.

At the end of the day it's just a matter of whether or not someone alerts authorities and gets you removed

>Morality formed to make us better liars
Lying is consciously going against what you intend. Morality is bred into people to follow unconsciously

it's only immoral if you don't post them here

This. Post a torrent, a Mega pack or something.

>pleb morality is relevant
even so according to the usual moralities it's fine if OP wouldn't mind it being done to himself, if he was a little girl which it's pretty safe to say he wouldn't since why the fuck would anybody care that some loser was fapping to them from the saftey of their mother's basment? It also brings more happiness than unhappiness into the world, especially if they don't know what he's doing, so that should keep utilitarians happy.
The difference is that you're born with one and have to buy the other.
It's an equalizer between those that have photgraphic memory and those that do not.

Doesn't matter if nobody saw you take the pics.

Does it matter if people saw him? Outside of mob justice obviously

>even so according to the usual moralities it's fine if OP wouldn't mind it being done to himself
>doubt.jpg
I know you are referring to the "gold rule" but that isn't a free ticket to do everything you want as long as you are fine with it yourself. It's rather meant as a mental help to remind a person that one should always consider the other side and that when others are harmed it hurts them as much as it does you. Usually it's something you tell your children because they often forget that others are not only means to a goal but actual humans.

>if he was a little girl which it's pretty safe to say he wouldn't since why the fuck would anybody care that some loser was fapping to them from the saftey of their mother's basment?
That may be possible. But so is the exact opposite of what you assumed.
"Why the fuck would anybody care if I use the toilet of a stranger who has just opened his front door? I wouldn't mind letting some poor guy on my toilet so there is no need to even ask."

>It also brings more happiness than unhappiness into the world, especially if they don't know what he's doing
I kind of agree but would also like to show you this situation from a different perspective. In itself it would do no actual harm if he got away with it and masturbated to the pictures at home. Everybody would be happy or at least unaware and up to here I agree with you. Now let's take a closer look though at what actually is happening. Often it's important to judge an action by what effect it has on us, other people and our society we live in. As it's only a single instance here it can be hard to notice any effect. So that's why we, just like a magnifying glass, increase the sample size to everyone. Now it's not only OP who takes the pictures but every person that wants to.

cont.

>As it's only a single instance here it can be hard to notice any effect. So that's why we, just like a magnifying glass, increase the sample size to everyone. Now it's not only OP who takes the pictures but every person that wants to.
cringe....

>"Why the fuck would anybody care if I use the toilet of a stranger who has just opened his front door? I wouldn't mind letting some poor guy on my toilet so there is no need to even ask."
Wait, are you saying you would have a problem if somebody who you let into your house used your toilet?

>Now it's not only OP who takes the pictures but every person that wants to.
that's not the topic of this thread. The question here is if it's moral for OP to take photos of girls on the beach.

I think most people would prefer you used the toilet than shit on their floor no matter how well aquainted you may be

But even when it's only OP who does it there exists always a small risk that something bad happens like getting caught. That would put all who are involved into a very uncomfortable position. When it's only OP the risk may be an unknown, but fixed, percentage of a bad end. When everyone can do it then no matter how small the initial percentage may be, the chance of something going wrong, sometime, somewhere for someone grows towards 100% (never reaching it of course). So from this point of view it would be impossible to photograph unsuspecting girls AND having it being a moral thing to do as the action itself is harmful to the overall happiness if it were moral. Which is of course a contradiction.

>The difference is that you're born with one and have to buy the other.
Yes, I would agree. One is forced on you while the other requires you to be active and willfully take a picture. I don't know what your stance is but in my opinion it's not possible for something to be immoral when one can't do anything about it. e.g. a driver constrained to the seat of his car that races towards a group of humans. Although the driver did kill them, he had no choice since he couldn't move.

>It's an equalizer between those that have photgraphic memory and those that do not.
That would implicate that when some people are born with advantages, that they have no influence on, it becomes immoral? Now that I think about it... what exactly becomes immoral? Is it a person or maybe nature itself? Maybe the definition of existence is immoral but would it then even make sense to label it as such?

user, it wouldn't matter if he's caught taking photos in a public space, it's not like he has to tell everyone he's taking them to fap over. Sure there's a risk of overzealous parents or chads but they are the ones in the wrong morally if they do anything violent.

>the man with photographic memory was forced to go to the beach and forced to memorize the images of the under aged girls in swimming costumes and then masturbate to them when he got home
user you're being silly. I'm not saying it's immoral to have a natural advantage I'm saying it's immoral to shame people for compensating for them. It's not immoral to have legs but it is immoral to not allow a person to use a wheelchair or prosthetics.

>Wait, are you saying you would have a problem if somebody who you let into your house used your toilet?
So you had no problem if a stranger walked into your house, without asking, and used the toilet because he assumed since it would be alright for him, then it MUST be alright for you, too.
You can take any example you want it doesn't even really matter. The point is that one can assume everything and by interpreting morality like you do, one could easily assume that those imprisoned in concentration camps actually enjoyed being genocided.

>that's not the topic of this thread. The question here is if it's moral for OP to take photos of girls on the beach.
Sorry, I have to disagree as it is relevant to this thread. Don't you agree that when someone says that an action is moral, it also should mean that any other person should also be able to do it? e.g. if we assume helping a person in need is moral then we should be able to prove that this moral action causes more good than harm if everyone participates.

I agree. Though don't you think it would be very rude and hostile to not even bother asking? Also even though that's a little bit pedantic of me but the thought experiment is about a stranger who is outside your house. The point is not to assume something and then act on it without further thought.

You always have to assume at least a little bit lol. If I ask to use someone's toilet I can never truly know if they're comfortable with me going there because I'm not them. It's reasonable to assume that no sensible person would mind somebody thinking about them as they masturbated, and it's reasonable to assume that most people are comfortable being seen on a beach in the clothes they chose to wear to the beach.

>Is it moral for me to pee in this bush
vs
>is it moral for everyone in the world to pee in this bush
these are entirely different questions user come on.

>user, it wouldn't matter if he's caught taking photos in a public space, it's not like he has to tell everyone he's taking them to fap over. Sure there's a risk of overzealous parents or chads but they are the ones in the wrong morally if they do anything violent.
I have to disagree. OP would actively endanger the happiness of those around him for his own purposes.

How can OP know that, even if the people around him don't know what the actual purpose of the pictures is, they would be alright with him photographing them? Honestly, I have no idea if it's legal or not but luckily that doesn't matter for this question which concerns morality. So if getting caught is a thing that can happen and there is a chance that people would get upset with him, then I can't say that the action itself is moral. In this case the chance of someone not wanting to be on his pictures is probably rather high.
The only solution would be to ask if he can take their pictures.

>user you're being silly. I'm not saying it's immoral to have a natural advantage I'm saying it's immoral to shame people for compensating for them. It's not immoral to have legs but it is immoral to not allow a person to use a wheelchair or prosthetics.
I'm not shaming OP for owning a camera. If I would shame him at all, and let's be honest I bet this is bait anyway, then for abusing the camera for immoral acts of photographing people against their will. You see, when I say that using a photographic memory to fap to girls you saw on the beach wouldn't be immoral, I don't mean that saving, no matter how, pictures of people without their consent is good and the person with a natural aptitude for it is simply lucky enough to have the chance. It isn't even really moral but a neutral action. Such a person literally can't forget what they see even if they tried so although the act itself is questionable one can't put blame on someone who did nothing wrong but being born,

>You always have to assume at least a little bit lol. If I ask to use someone's toilet I can never truly know if they're comfortable with me going there because I'm not them.
Yes, but you must agree that when you are not sure about something you would at least ask, right?
> It's reasonable to assume that no sensible person would mind somebody thinking about them as they masturbated, and it's reasonable to assume that most people are comfortable being seen on a beach in the clothes they chose to wear to the beach.
Alright, even though I might not think that it's entirely reasonable to assume that no one minds being masturbated to by a stranger, it isn't wrong to assume so. On the other hand it is wrong to assume something, even though there is a possibility of being sure. If OP doesn't ask the people he photographs it is also reasonable to assume that he will meet someone who does not like being photographed.
Also I'd like to point out that being seen on a beach and being saved on a photo while on the beach, are two different things, for some people at least.

>OP would actively endanger the happiness of those around him for his own purposes.
dude victim blaming isn't cool. Sure if he got into a situation where it looked like things could kick off he should move for his own safety but it's not a morality thing unless you think the parents and chads dont have enough agency to not act violently. So long as he is photographing in a public place it is no more immoral than taking any other photos of people. It doesn't matter if people want to be in his pictures or not, it might be impolite to take photographs of people that don't want it but it is not immoral. There are far more risks involved in driving a car but I'd like to hear you try and argue that it's immoral to drive to a leisure activity.

>such a person can't forget
so are you saying it's wrong for them to remember? That's ridiculous.

What on earth is this gibberish. You have a right to photograph anybody in a public space, if they don't want to be photographed they shouldn't be in a public space.

lol I hope you get caught faggot

Attached: oycp9vjg_400x400.jpg (396x396, 26K)

United States Edit
Local, state, and national laws govern still and motion photography. Laws vary between jurisdictions, and what is not illegal in one place may be illegal in another. Typical laws in the United States are as follows:

Public property Edit

Some museums do not allow photography.
It is legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property, within reasonable community standards.[40]
Photographing or videotaping a tourist attraction, whether publicly or privately owned, is generally considered legal, unless explicitly prohibited by a specific law or statute.

Now, even thought it is legal, since our topic is morality and not legality, I'll have to largely agree with 's posts.
Firtsly, it's always better to ask instead of assume (remember the phrase "assuming makes an ass out of u and me), as there is always a chance things are not like you expect i.e. I personally WOULD mind if you took pictures of me without asking, and even if you did, I would have asked you not to do that. Therefore, knowing how people in general, what you would call "normal people" or "normies", it is not improbable that they have a similar mindset to mine and not yours (OP and co) which, unless you ask them, you will not know of, making your action immoral.
Additionally, on the "most people are comfortable being seen on a beach in the clothes they chose to wear to the beach.",
"Also I'd like to point out that being seen on a beach and being saved on a photo while on the beach, are two different things, for some people at least." is a great answer.
Also keep in mind that while taking pictures is legal, trading them is not necessarily fine, and if there is danger of them being exposed and bought (i.e. OP loses them/they are found by someone else), it does become illegal.

>Is it moral for me to pee in this bush
>vs
>is it moral for everyone in the world to pee in this bush
>these are entirely different questions user come on.

Maybe we have a different understanding of morality. So I think it will help if I provide you with my understanding of the term. Morality is, often but of course not always, defined as a set of principles that should be followed. The original Axioms of human society in a way. The thing about Axioms, and rules in general to a degree, is that they are consistent. Unless exceptions are specified we can know that once something is prove, it is always true. One way how it works is that our understanding of morality doesn't depend on a specific person. It doesn't matter if Tom hits Jerry or Jerry hits Tom as the act of hitting someone is immoral. Of course our lives are not so simple and there are many exceptions to these rules. Maybe Tom is fighting for his life or Jerry gets Namflashbacks then it would need a closer look to determine the morality of each action. Now I don't know what special circumstance may justify OP in photographing people against their consent, but as the information is right now, there is nothing. So if actions concerning morality are not bound to specific persons then it's possible to expand this to all people.

Of course it makes a difference if it's only OP or the whole world who does it but only in a practical sense. From an ethical standpoint it doesn't matter.

If I was not able to convince you yet then I'm sorry but my English is too limited to go further into the details but try asking yourself this: If morality is relative to each and every individual, does it even make any sense to ask OPs question?

>If morality is relative to each and every individual, does it even make any sense to ask OPs question?
Yes why wouldn't it be? And there's a difference for something to be moral for a crowd to do and what is moral for each individual in that crowd to do. For instance take a walk in a protected flower field.

>dude victim blaming isn't cool.
I'm not sure in what way OP would be a victim? Maybe indirectly by being robbed of his freedom of photographing other people at will but I doubt you mean that.
>Sure if he got into a situation where it looked like things could kick off he should move for his own safety but it's not a morality thing unless you think the parents and chads dont have enough agency to not act violently.
Sorry, but could you rephrase that? I'm not sure what you mean. I mean, yeah, OP should care for his safety but I don't understand what it has to do with morality. Also while it may be a possibility I don't understand the relevance of the other people acting violently or not.
>So long as he is photographing in a public place it is no more immoral than taking any other photos of people.
Yes, but taking photos of people even in public places whom he is not sure if they want that is an asshole move and immoral. How would you feel if someone secretly tried to photograph you and you caught the person in the act.
>It doesn't matter if people want to be in his pictures or not, it might be impolite to take photographs of people that don't want it but it is not immoral.
It literally does matter. By photographing people without their consent he unnecessarily creates an uncomfortable and dangerous atmosphere. His actions can potentially lead to emotional harm and he is risking the mental well being of others for his own purpose of satisfying his sexual desire (not that this is the immoral part). There are no justifications for him doing that. He could always ask for permission but it doesn't seem like he would. Now please explain to me how harming other people for selfish reasons can be considered moral?
Also I hope you don't consider taking pictures of strangers as only "impolite". It's an dick move and not comparable with forgetting to say "thanks" or similar.

>don't walk around with a camera taking photographs of legitimate subjects if you don't want to get beaten up
It's victim blaming alright

>There are far more risks involved in driving a car but I'd like to hear you try and argue that it's immoral to drive to a leisure activity.
Society and most individuals agreed that the benefit of public roads and cars outweigh the risks. So everyone who enters the traffic is informed and on board.

If we want to stay with this car example then OP would be like the guy who dangerously cuts other drivers so he can get faster to his goal. The stakes are different but the principle is the same. Risking the safety and comfort of others for selfish means is an immoral act. If he'd follow the rules (follow traffic rules/ask before taking pictures) then there would be no problem.

>so are you saying it's wrong for them to remember? That's ridiculous.
You know what's ridiculous? Not knowing what difference intent makes in morality. Ok, to be exact I do claim that even someone with a photographic memory can act immoral when "saving" other people without their consent. How? By having an immoral intention. I didn't add it because we know OPs intentions and they are not moral nor immoral. So yeah, if the photographical memory guy would look at women with immoral intentions then even his inability to forget would not save him from being evil. And if he is a normal dude like most people then it's not his fault and he is not acting immoral.

Sorry, for my English there. I kind of lost my concentration. To summarize:
1. I don't think it's "reasonable" to assume that most people don't mind a stranger masturbating to them
1.1. I do agree though that there might be such people
2. Why would you assume such intimate and personal opinions and risk being wrong (here probably in most if not all cases) when you could simply ASK and make SURE you don't have any MISSINFORMATION.
3. When OP goes out into the world and photographs all kinds of different people without their permission then he will surely meet someone who doesn't appreciate being photographed. cont.

4. Being seen on the beach and having your photo taken are two different things. You might not mind but a big part of humanity does.

Action: Taking a walk in a protected flower field
How would we determine if it's moral, immoral or maybe nothing at all? Let's try it through an elimination process:

Is it desirable to walk through a protected flower field?
No, if we assume that the flower field is protected for a good/moral reason then walking through it would go against that reason. Alternatively if it's labeled "protected" for an bad/immoral reason then it would be the moral thing to do. For simplicity sake let's assume the protected flower field is protected for a good reason e.g. to safe the flowers from being trampled so everyone can enjoy them.

Is it undesirable to walk through the protected flower field?
Yes, since it's protected for a moral reason and doing the opposite of something moral is per definition immoral.

So as we can see walking through that flower field would be immoral. It doesn't matter how many people walk over it, as it would still be immortal. Maybe you meant that there would be difference in damage to the field and that is of course true. We could maybe say that two person walking through a field would be double immoral... but that doesn't make any sense does it? The answer is that morality does not apply to a group but only the individual. The individual can perform several immoral acts of varying degrees but you can't add up the "evil deeds" of multiple persons. Yes, the damage would add up but each and every immoral act is bound to the person who committed it. So if we want to determine what is immoral and what not it's not important how many people do it. It can be 1, 4, 5, 3248287 or all of humanity. The advantage of looking at larger groups is that it's easier to visualize the consequences of an action (as in type of action not a specific instance). Basically I wanted to make it a little bit more clear lol.

>legitimate subjects
We are still talking about morality here. If someone doesn't want a photo of him taken then either ask or don't do it. Everything else is being a dick for no reason and that's immoral.

>if you don't want to get beaten up
What has that to do with anything?

>It's victim blaming alright
Fine, whatever.

Immoral is relative, but you admited to fapping to candids of underaged girls which is, d
first of all, fucking stupid to do on FBIchan and, second, I believe you really don't need to ask this question. You are a pedo and, so, it all depends on whether you are fine with yourself being a pedo or not because the vast majority of people will consider you absolute scum of the earth. You already know what world we live in so you can't run away from it.

It's probably a crime.

Probably easier and more ethical to look at juniors swimsuits for sale online

>Is it immoral to go to the beach
Yes