Charles David Henderson
I contend that while a number of moral codes may well condemn murder, hate, thievery, adultery, and "self-abuse," a code that is incapable of discerning differences between these acts is not just, simply judgmental.
Additionally, unless you are saying "self abuse" means "any use of intoxicants," there is a principle of "self-care" at work as a posited moral principle, and the measure of "abuse" is the trigger for a moral judgment "x is bad." Which makes it less black and white in the context of all the ways people have of "hurting their hearts" more than just "a little bit."
For example ever meet a dry drunk? Abstemious and self-abusing. A two-fer.
It's a conversation between legalism and obectivism then.
Legalism, hatred is not a jail- able offense. Moral-ism, hatred is the same as murder regardless of whether nor not you serve jail time. Social consequence hold no bound in objectivism.
Also,I distinguish between the condemnation of an act and the person committing it personally. Mistakes do not define a human for me personally.
Self Abuse does not equate the use of an intoxicant, it equals the abuse of an intoxicant. Abuse is the key word here. It is wrong and bad to abuse yourself. What ever the degree, self abuse should be unacceptable for a rational being, regardless of social consequence.