GoodLittleAtheist

That only works if in fact there is an objective perspective and that you have somehow elucidated the correct one. What if there is not? I would say it is in our best interest to work within a mutable framework than a fixed one in that case.

p.s. Of course there is a problem with weighing one harm over the other. That's where you've shifted the subjective decision this time...

fast

Yes, I'm fine with this.

Well, I for one, absolutely hate freedom infringement--so it's hard to argue against the spirit behind what you're saying, but I need to play devils advocate and show that it's not just immoral but moral as well. If there are 9000 blue marbles and 1 red marbel in a box, then the box is not composed of only blue marbles. If 9000 aspects of an act make an act wrong and 1 makes it right, then the act is not completely wrong. We'll say, verbalize, or otherwise communicate that it is, but components are still components.

Acting in this irrational manner is harmful (damn I need to quit smoking too).

Before we jump into justification and make sense of all that's composed in an act, notice that what I said is holding true. You said, "I would argue that stealing the cigarettes would be immoral because it is a decision imposed without regard to the other being judged and their needs; i.e., because it is one-sided. " The element of harm is present, and it's that which eventually led you to your conclusion of immorality. This holds true for many people. If I argue that stealing the cigarettes would be moral because it is a decision that prevents harm, then I too would be making a harm/morality connection. Before I start declaring prescriptivity, I just want to know if the connection to which I think I see is actually there. I don't necessarily want to argue objective versus subjective; Sure, morality is likely still going to be subjective in the end, but I want to find a better way to objectively analyze moral situations, and harm seems to me to be a connection that often times holds true. It's the secret connection if ya will.

This harm to which I speak also tends to be a factor connecting many of us here at IIDB. The tolerance levels which seems to be much higher than the remainder seems to be tied to this underlying theme. We see the harm in religion, we see the harm in homophobic attitudes, we see the harm in fascism, we see the harm ... yet many of the remaining do not.

GoodLittleAtheist

I'd agree with that.

fast

An acknowledgement that most every act contains some element of harm, as in there is no give without take. I cannot put a dollar in your hand without being without that dollar. I cannot give a child another days worth of education without taking a days worth of freedom from that child. I cannot let you benefit from my energy without exerting it--I cannot save you from the car without harming my use of time.

Many laws which are meant to protect us, in and of themselves harm us. We don't call many of them harm because we only look at the overall benefit, but when reduced to a give and take dichotomy, and look not at the overall picture, and instead look at the elements within, it's then that we see that the police officer who shoots the bad guy is harming.

fast

cool.

Sidenote:
Oh, btw, yesterday, I was formulating another response but couldn't send it--I had to call the fire department because where I work caught on fire.

I called the fire department and no answer—got an answering machine. I called 911 and they literally said, “what do you want us to do?�? I said, oh, I just called because I thought it was the right thing to do; I called the fire department but they didn’t answer; anyhow, I just figured someone might wanna know.�? Unbelievable!

A light fixture had overheated and smelled up the place a bit – not all that dramatic.

JamesBannon

Fast,

I don't disagree, at least in principle. In essence morality is about the harm we do to ourselves and to others and whether or not such harm can be said to be justified. However, I don't necessarily agree that all freely conducted exchanges are necessarily harmful, provided they are freely conducted.

fast

I'm actually starting to get confused now, not by what you said, but rather by the concept that harm is nothing more than an opinion. I've been operating under the premise that a version of harm is factual. If I steal money, then I've harmed financially. If I break one's heart by cheating, then I've betrayed one's trust and harmed her emotionally. If I break someone's finger (say out of malice), then I've harmed someone physically (with malice).

More complicated version: If I break someone's finger (say with no malice) (and say because it leads to removing one from under a car that's about to burn), then I've harmed someone physically (nevertheless) -- I've still broken a finger, but the benefit for example outweighs the alternative (subjectively), so I have benefited another (factually)--we can see the talking breathing life that I have saved. Again, it may be subjective in that one may say it's not worth the saving of a life over the act of breaking the finger, but this subjective argument doesn't seem to have a bearing on the factual basis of the actual harm AND benefit of the act itself. It's like I'm talking literally about the act and not the opinionated subjective INTERPRETATION of the act.

GoodLittleAtheist

But acts themselves are not moral or immoral. If lightening strikes me I will be harmed, but there was no choice made (no subjective opinion) to harm. Well, unless you think that God struck me down. If I run over a child accidentally, is that immoral? It is only when a choice was made to harm for a benefit (or avoid a 'worse' harm) that there is any moral dimension to an act. When we judge a moral act, aren't we really judging the choice that is made?

fast

A mindless act devoid of intent or awareness, sure--'tis not immoral, but let's look at your examples:

Notice the actual, non-opinionated, factually based harm! This is one of the types of harm I'm trying to get at. It's not subjective at all, or is it? It shouldn't matter what a person thinks in personal bias as to the conclusion of what actually happened, or does it?

Notice the harm again. It seems as unintentional harm does not equate to immorality. I'm not sure about negligent harm yet. But, intentional harm seems to hold as having immoral potential.

A police officer intentionally harms the bad guy that is intentionally trying to run a child over. The police offer intentionally harms, so there is a factual objective basis to work with. Yes, whether that justifies the act or not is going to take on a little more work, but I want to show that there is both objective harm (bad guy gets hurt) and objective benefit (child gets saved) within the same very act (running over bad guy to protect child) despite the subjective weighing we go through to determine whether the overall act was moral--or immoral for those few that feel that the act was not justified.

I'll go with that, so does this now mean that harm and benefit is no longer an opinion but rather a fact? I shot the bad guy and I saved the girl. I harmed one and benefited another. Was the officer’s act harmful? I'd say yes. So should everyone else. Was the officer’s act beneficial? I'd say yes. So should everyone else. It seems to lack subjectivity.

Now, this situation is not unlike the smoking example. I want everyone to realize that I haven't made the moral leap yet to call either overall act moral or not. I haven't moved in on the point to where I have made a subjective call yet. Killing a fetus is harmful; denying a free choice is harmful. Yet, when people typically get into these type discussions, there is massive denial. Notice that I still have not said that abortion is wrong, nor have I said the opposite, so why ought calling an act 'harmful' be considered a moral judgment? Yet, there must be a tie (connection), for it's the very objective harm that is the underlying basis for the subjective call.

JamesBannon

Fast,
I don't believe that harm is subjective either. Interpretation of what constitutes harm certainly has a subjective component, how could it not when all sentient creatures are to some extent subjectives, but that does not deny the objective existence of harm.