fast

Abstract goals are much different than clearly defined objectives. Upper management envisions or sets goals then outlines objectives in line with those goals for lower management to follow.

Similarly, I would offer that harm/benefit is to morality as objectives are to goals--at least in one sense. I'm saying that the key to determining the degree to which an act is moral/immoral could, in one sense, be tied to the degree to which harm/benefit is present.

Many acts or lifestyles that society at large consider wrong are indeed harmful (or at least that’s what we say), yet there are also a number of acts that society at large 'consider' to be wrong that are not "objectively" harmful. In the latter, those 'considerations' are generally regarded as being born (especially by IIDB goers) of fallacious reasoning.

I've been looking for that connection (and hopefully not looking for something that does not exist—like a ghost) that I've noticed (or at least think I’ve noticed) that draws a good many IIDB members together to congregate, other than the God issue. Yes, rationale, logic, and reason may be the backing or cornerstone that keeps us intellectually honest and focused, or perhaps a drawing card in its own right, but I feel that there's a deeper element in our midst, and I'm thinking that the secret or rather illusive component or connection that I strive and seek to understand somehow relates to the concept of harm.

But, not just any harm, but rather a harm of a very particular variety. Remember, as I’ve already mentioned, there’s a distinction between a harmful act and an act that’s considered harmful—and they don’t always mesh. In other words, there is actual harm and there is perceived harm. Moreover, sometimes perceived harm is actual harm and sometimes it’s not.

When I first came to IIDB, I was amazed by the shear number of people that would take-up for and side with others on a great number of non-god related issues. Obviously (to me at least), ‘typical’ members of society ordinarily wouldn’t, but that wasn’t the case here. You guys/gals for the most part were different. But, it seems after all, a common bond beyond the God and reasoning issue that distinguishes many IIDB members and the remaining is a propensity to acknowledge and accept people who act in non-harmful manners, yet differently than the remaining.

It’s also amazing to the degree to which I have allowed myself to change in my attitude in many respects. I used to be locked on the despise mode, but now I seem to have made my way to the admire mode.

To what degree does harm relate to morality/immorality? If we can objectively show that an act is harmful and regard that act as immoral, and likewise if we objectively show that an act lacks harm and regard that act as moral (disregarding the amoral references), then morality sure seems to take on an objective appearance when looking at morality through the lens or perspective of harm and how it relates to issues. But, if morality is subjective, then my question has to be, what difference does the harm of an act make in terms of morality and whether of course it’s wrong?

I’ve touched on a number of subjects, so this thread may be a little too broad and go in any number of directions, and I’m sure I’ve got some flaws in there, but it’s a new year, I feel more understanding than usual, so what the heck. Any comments.

A better 2006 fast,
<at least today :devil3: >,

fast

The AntiChris

What definition of "objective" are you using?

Chris

Reign_Cryogen

Y'know, I was on the wagon with the whole "cause no harm" thing, but it raised problems. Mostly surrounding the groovy "H word" you've mentioned. Someone recently pointed out a better version: impediment of desire. Do what you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else doing what they want. Granted, that requires some qualifiers of its own, but it's a lot more manageable than "harm prevention."

fast

Uh, um, I don't know. To demonstrate using tangible evidence. To be testable or lend itself to scientific inquiry maybe.

Example: If I steal or murder someone, then you can objectively demonstrate that I have harmed him or her.

Did I make a boo boo equivocation or something?

fast

Why would someone impede my desire to act towards another? Because it's wrong or because it's harmful or is there a distinction?

Dlx2

Are we talking about harm to individuals or harm to society? Sometimes, these two concepts are at odds with each other.

Reign_Cryogen

Look at it more 1v1 for evidence: I piss you off somehow, you wish to impede my desire to breathe.

Reign_Cryogen

Not that I can tell. I think Chris was mostly asking for clarification before equivocating himself on accident.

fast

How about members of our population for simplicity.

Otherwise, would you then find yourself having to argue that child education is harmful in that for everyday a child weeps the benefit of a days education, then so to does that child suffer the harm from their lack of one day's freedom. Actually, I think I messed that up. Maybe you’re saying that we have to hurt individual members (taxes, laws) in order to have a better society. Awe never mind. We’ll go with ‘individuals’ unless you won’t to expound on it more.

fast

Oh, I think I get it. The term was a drastic euphemism. In other words, don't harm anyone, but if someone harms you, take revenge in a permanent sort of way.

Either way, if someone harms you, do you not think it was wrong of that one to do so with the 'harm' as being the determinate as to whether it was wrong. Why take revenge unless you think you were wronged, hence, harmed?

Harm seems so observable whereas morality seems so distant, yet distinguishing between the two is like my take on goals and objectives--different yet the same.