>Is it wrong to rape someone who is unconscious, who would never know what you did? Perhaps I was too hasty. Of course it's wrong, even if they didn't know. Bu

>Is it wrong to rape someone who is unconscious, who would never know what you did? Perhaps I was too hasty. Of course it's wrong, even if they didn't know. But in this case, the actual harm you're claiming exists (and I agree that it can exist) is knowledge itself. The knowledge is a side effect; if this side effect can be stopped from manifesting itself, then the harm is no longer done. i.e rape involves harm not through knowledge but by matter of fact, by its very definition. This is not the case with the crime of possessing child pornography. With regard to death, I'm not sure what your point is - your argument for harm caused by knowledge does not hold up when the victim of the harm is dead. Of course that dosen't mean that it's OK to kill the victim, but if that were to happen, it would eliminate the crime of harm by knowledge. >So if they go forward and view it without caring if harm was caused, isn't that wrong? Not if there was no harm caused. I'm becoming more skeptical of this argument. If knowledge that something is happening constitutes sufficient harm, then would it follow that somebody laughing at you in another coutry, which you know to be happening somehow (such as being told by a friend), can be considered as harm?