GoodLittleAtheist

Let me try to put it another way. Using harm as a measure seems to me to be no more helpful to the objective/subjective moral debate because you can only apply harm 'objectively' to the moral decisions in which we 'all agree' anyway. Perhaps because they are the only ones in which we all agree on what constitutes harm. So what in fact seems like objective harm is in fact a consensus of another kind.

fast

But I don't won't to cave in to the traditional mind set that certain lifestyles are harmful. With that logic, a homophobe for example could get away with saying that homosexuality is harmful and wrong, and it isn't--you guys and gals have taught me that. There just isn't any harm.

Uh, sorry I just didn't interpret properly.

Starting to get the picture now. Harm, however, is not always in the gray area, or is it? I mean, can I go around killing people and say that I'm not harming them--and actually be correct? Something just doesn't seem right with that.

This is a very good example!!!

Sometimes, I think, when we pit values against other values, we do seem to run into trouble. My thing is this--what's the actual quantifiable harm? To what degree are you hurting, and to what degree are you benefiting him? I'd like to think that we could weigh this more quantifiably, but it seems your example just through me into a brick wall. I'm going to have to think about this some more.

Personally, I value freedom a whole lot more myself, yet I wouldn't condemn you for your decision--not one bit. I would value a five-year-old child's health over his freedom to wrestle alligators any day.

The AntiChris

Probabaly because you appear to be mistakenly equating objectivity with consensus agreement.

You seem to be suggesting that when the majority agrees that harm is done, then it's reasonable to say morality is objective?

Does that mean that when there isn't majority agreement about the harm done, then morality isn't objective?

Chris

JamesBannon

These two situations are not comparable IMHO because of the issue of ability to judge. And I would argue that stealing the cigarrettes would be immoral. You, in the collective sense, have no right to do so or to determine how others ought to live beyond the affect their smoking has on you. You have a right to try and persuade but you do not have the right to apply force.

fast

The AntiChris,

I get it on one level, but then again, I become further confused on another. I would agree that it's fallacious to say that "if the majority say act x is harmful, then it is therefore harmful." Can't anything be factually harmful? Or, is harm nothing more than opinion and consensus without bases for fact?

I mean, a rock is a rock is a rock whether we agree or not. I'm talking about the physically existing referent--not the term. It's not a matter of opinion about the nature of the existing 'thing'. If I take that rock and smash someone with it, there is actual pain, whether they deny it or not. So, the rock is real and the pain is real.

However, I admit that I'm a little fuzzy now with the notion of harm. Pain and harm are not the same, but isn't there any example of something that is factually harmful? By those standards, nothing is harmful. Is it not objectively harmful in the slightest to act ... acts that most non IIDB members consider harmful?

When a kkk member kills his target, does this mean that no harm has been done? Why on earth do we think it then? I guess the real question is, "Is what's harmful no more than an opinion? If that's the case, then what room does it play within logic and reason? I mean, a homophone can say, "it's not harmful to deny homosexuals marriage rights", and actually be correct under this idea.

That's hard to accept but then again, maybe it's just hard to understand. It's like we'll continue to say things are harmful for the functional use but deep down we'll know it's not true.

fast

In regards to the underlined: Are you saying this from a morality is subjective stance or a morality is objective stance? If subjective, then it's an opinion with no factual basis for that conclusion. I guess. Well, you did say, "no right" but I'm assuming you don't mean "legal right".

I think there's a harm/benefit tradeoff with many things. You deprive (harm) someone when you steal the cigs, and you privilege (benefit) someone with the short term health consequence. So, there seems to be a simultaneous moral & immoral act in one. Like the police offer that kills the bad guy--both right and wrong, yet we call it right; Like your participation in determining how I live with voting and taxes--both right and wrong, yet we call it right. Like bla and bla, yet we call it wrong...

JamesBannon

Fast,

I suppose you would call me an "realist" in the sense that morality has meaning and that meanings can be universalised so in this sense morality is "objective". If, on the other hand, you mean that morals are the equivalent of real objects, then obviously not. Morality is a human construction (more broadly I would argue that they would be a construction of any sentient creature) that has evolved, and is continuing to do so, because it is a necessary part of our nature. (Note: I'm not a theist or deist so morality is not defined by some other external agent).

I would argue that stealing the cigarrettes 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. Smoking may well be irrational (and I smoke myself so I know that it is a form of cognitive dissonance) but that, in and of itself, does not justify the action of stealing the cigarrettes from the smoker. Arguing otherwise, in terms of the health benefit you perceive is tantamount to arguing that "ends justify means" and you don't want to go there I presume.

The AntiChris

If you mean "does harm exist?", then (depending of course on how you define harm) yes, of course.

But that's rather different to the claim that something might be objectively harmful (ie harmful regardless of anyone's opinion on the subject). I'm assuming this is the idea you're attempting to explore in this thread.

Chris

fast

I don't want this to be a semantic discussion, and it seems to me at least that how we commonly use a term can be objectively applied to situations. If we commonly call a certain act harmful, AND IF THE ACT IS HARMFUL, then the act ought to objectively be regarded as harmful. Killing the cashier and dubbing it as harmful ought not be challenged unless I'm simply wrong.

I'm not saying that if the majority says it's harmful, it therefore is; the only point to which I would say what-is-common matters would be in regards to semantics. In other words, if the majority of the people want to use the term 'banana' as a replacement for the concept underlying what 'harm' is, then I'm fine with that. The referent isn't being changed--only what we call it. I do not want to reference 'harm', however, as opinion; moreover, I only want to make a statement regarding harm if it's factually true--non opinionated. Opinions, as I understand them cannot be wrong.

Perhaps harm isn't as subjective as we think--maybe it just looks different depending on the lens through which we look--objectively the same for everyone juxtaposing we acknowledge which lens from which we are looking. Take the stealing cigarettes example, and imagine a microscope. If we all look at it from one perspective--from the perspective of the harm that comes from stealing, then it should not matter which individual looks, so long as whoever looks is looking at it from the same perspective. We should all come to the same conclusion that there is harm present through this particular lens. If however, we turn our perspective -- not necessarily an individuals perspective but an objective point of view and look at the harm from disregarding an individuals freedom, then again, it should not matter which person looks through the lens, for what we see should all be the same; furthermore, it takes the opinionation out of the equation and leaves us with an objective stance--a stance that will allow us to say that another is wrong when they say that harm is not present.

Notice the harmful/harmful sequence above. 1a) It's harmful to steal 1b) It's beneficial not to steal 2a) It's harmful to take freedom, and 2b) it's beneficial to not take freedom. Since harm and benefit is a component of each act, we can simplify and look only at harm, and harm after all that has the general reference when we speak of that which we regard as immoral.

So, it's harmful to steal, and it's harmful to deny a freedom. I usually run into trouble when trying to relay this concept because if we apply it emotionally charged subjects, people want to throw in the concept of change, which is different as described elsewhere. People tend to look at the overall picture and come to a single conclusion as to whether the entire act was right or wrong when in fact I think there's more components--like listing pro's and con's in a way. Example, homosexuality does harm tradition (in the microscopic sense to which I am referring to harm); however, tradition is harmful (more harmful I would say) in that it denies homosexuals rights.

The problem we should be looking at is not weighing the subjective opinions of others but rather weighing the different objective non-opinionated perspectives. Yes, there is a problem in weighing one harm over another (the value of freedom versus the value of security (from stealing), but approached from an objective perspective instead of pawning them off as subjective and forgetting about it doesn't seem to be in our best interest.

The AntiChris

What's the difference between "factually true" harm and "opinionated" harm?

In other words what "non opinionated" state of affairs would need to hold for it to be "factually true" that something was harmful?

Chris