&gt; &gt; altering yourself in a way that invites a communicable disease to take hold, optionally mutate, and begin infecting others.<p>&gt; Again, this isn&#x27;t something we consider morally wrong<p>&quot;we&quot; <i>who</i>? I suspect that it something quite a lot of people who consider to be morally wrong (whether they would consider it the kind of moral wrong that it would be desirable to formally sanction, as through legal prohibition on doing it or legal restriction on public interaction if you do it, is a separate consideration, but consider the issue of mandatory vaccination which involves legal restrictions if you fail to take <i>active</i> steps, involving treatment of your own body, to protect yourself and, through herd immunity, others from communicable disease -- its not implausible that many would consider <i>active</i> steps, even involving modifying your own body, that increase the risk of communicable disease sufficiently to not only be abstractly morally wrong, but the kind of moral wrong for which legal sanction is appropriate.)<p>&gt; We generally consider an action&#x27;s morality based on the intent. If your intent is to spread disease, it&#x27;s wrong. If you had a different intent, but didn&#x27;t realize the consequences you&#x27;re not considered to be wrong.<p>In morality, as in law, while intent is usually important, actions taken without intent to cause harm <i>but</i> in which known risks of harms to others exist and are ignored, or even cases where risks of harm exist which would have been discovered with due care and are unknown to the actor due to their lack of concern, are often <i>also</i> considered wrong despite the absence of specific ill intent.