zlacker

That's moral relativism. It can be used to argue that blood transfusions are evil, or that slavery isn't.

It would be better to ask whether someone, who is not a willing participant, is harmed by the activity. That's easier to establish.

>>Donald+(OP)
Yes, I agree. But still, there must be some entity that tests for non-aggression. And everything can be gamed. It's far safer to bake in privacy such that it can't be compromised.

>>Donald+(OP)
That test allows child porn as long as the participants don't get harmed in real life. It does make sense but I think most anti-child-porn proponents would say that causing harm isn't needed for it to be evil.

The fact is, our collective idea of good and evil is internally inconsistent. It's still skewed by our repulsion to sexual deviancy and our fear of being judged by our peers. We really can't distinguish right from wrong. We aren't even able to apply the simple test you proposed.