meritocrat

Is it right for people to feel that harming others is wrong, when the notion of harm is subjective?

Let's say that I am harmed if my favourite soccer team loses a game. Should they never lose? If a person is a prude yet lives near a sex store, should the sex store be closed down as the prude is 'harmed' by its presence?

paul30

This is a good question, and not an easy one.

The law generally follows the principle that harm must be observable. The most clearcut harm is physical or economic. Other kinds of harm, like hurting one's feelings, are harder to substantiate.

Alonzo Fyfe

I wish to refer you to the book, "Harm To Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law," by Joel Feinberg (Oxford University Press, 1984), which is perhaps the most widely read book on the subject.

Feinberg, in his book, distinguishes "Harm" from "Hurt."

"Harm" consists of the thwarting of strong and stable desires -- such as one's desire not to be in pain.

Within the category of Harm, Feinberg includes the destruction of certain "welfare goods". These are things that are useful (instrumentally valuable) for almost anything else that one may want to have -- life, health, money. To damage these, damages an individual's capacity to fulfill their strong and stable desires, so it also counts as 'harm'.

The twarting of lesser desires count as 'hurt'. According to Feinberg, the tool of criminal law is far too unwieldy to be used efficiently in dealing with matters of hurt.

I think it would be very difficult to argue that you could be harmed as a result of your favorite soccer team losing a game. And if you do have a real stake in the game (by being the owner or by betting on the game) these are risks that you took voluntarily so that nobody else can be held morally responsible for the thwarting.

If, on the other hand, you own a house, and a sex shop shows up nearby, then one can argue that there is a genuine reduction in security, property values, and concern for the well being of one's children, that this really would count as harm.

[I do not believe any of these arguments hold in fact, but it does point out the distinction between harm and hurt and the moral relevance of each.]

meritocrat

I'm not solely outlining criminal law but general or conventional morality.

In the context of the ethics of society, most would state that it is wrong to harm others. My point is that harm per se is subject to personal feeling.

In my examples, I detail instances in which a person can be emotionally harmed. Now it would not be wholly feasible for a soccer team to never lose. The sex shop may not damage the community or infringe on the person's rights in any way. Yet harm is experienced and perceived in both instances.

Epizoicism

Why bother with this sort of reasoning when all that matters to the individual is harm to himself. It's not "wrong" for me to harm others, just "unwise", if the pro's (profit, enjoyment, and so on) outweigh the con's (A guilty conscience, and the unwanted consequences of the action caused by the harmed, or any third parties).

meritocrat

And what is harm to oneself?

I don't think harm to 'oneself' is immoral at all.

PTT

I am an atheist, but the principle of "do unto others" serves pretty well.

Alonzo Fyfe

Harm is not wrong if the person harmed freely agreed to the risk. And, in the case of harming oneself, consent is a fairly safe assumption.

Wiploc

Note that the examples are equivocal because the other team's fans are harmed when your team wins, and because the owners and customers of the store are harmed if it is shut down.

Note also that all harms are subjective. The only thing wrong with theft and violence is that they make people unhappy.

crc

MattS

The whole notion of the wrongness of causing harm has a lot of potholes in it. It many examples people assume that the first one on the scene has priority over all future events. (An old lady lives in a neighborhood, THEN a porn shop opens up). This ignores the bigger picture of humanity. Humans have very varied tastes and attitudes. I can almost guarantee that in any given neighborhood there are things taking place that not all residents are happy with. That's just life - deal with it.

Let's take the American Indians. Some people feel that we "stole" the land from them. But in the big scheme of things it was inevitable that humans would reproduce to the extent that we would need to populate great portions of this wondefully rich and fertile land. I don't think there was any "good" way to transfer the land from the Indians to the colonists, but it was inevitable.

It is impossible for there to be no harm in the world. We all feel that we have the right to this or that, but these rights often conflict. Even intentional harm is OK if the harm is slight to moderate, and the results to the "harmer" don't far outweigh the effects to the "harmee". Murdering is a serious harm and should not happen. Killing in a war may be justified if the overall cause is just. Opening up a porn shop to satisfy the demands/desires of a large number of customers may be OK if only a few residents are harmed moderately (if porn shops are considered legal, then they have to go somewhere). Weighing the net effect of any action (harmer vs. harmee) is verysubjective.