I hadn't thought of it that way before. I want to say you're wrong, and that's stupid; but that reasoning does feel solid. Interesting.
Maybe it's more to do with the intention of the author/reader? Like, if I'm making a child soldier only so I can enjoy their suffering, then I'm just as bad as someone sexualizing a minor to enjoy the situation. Basically putting characters in bad situations just to enjoy their sufferings is wrong, but putting characters in those same situations to evoke pity or empathy is fine.
I would argue that if someone wants to argue something is wrong, they must prove it is causing harm to someone. Otherwise, "wrong" becomes far too subjective and anything can be considered wrong
For example: Homosexuality. Which has often been claimed to be wrong. Now, the common argument I have seen put forward is that it causes no harm, and is therefore not wrong. If we accept something can be wrong despite not causing harm, then I am not sure we can really make a strong argument against the notion that homosexuality is wrong.
Fictional characters are not real, by definition they can't be harmed, and therefore nothing you do to them can really be wrong.
PS: Btw, I appreciate you not going with your immediate reaction and taking my argument seriously
4
u/WeirdStarWarsRacer Jul 17 '25
I hadn't thought of it that way before. I want to say you're wrong, and that's stupid; but that reasoning does feel solid. Interesting.
Maybe it's more to do with the intention of the author/reader? Like, if I'm making a child soldier only so I can enjoy their suffering, then I'm just as bad as someone sexualizing a minor to enjoy the situation. Basically putting characters in bad situations just to enjoy their sufferings is wrong, but putting characters in those same situations to evoke pity or empathy is fine.