The AntiChris

What sort of evidence would be sufficient to show that an act is harmful in every possible circumstance (assuming this is what you mean)?

No.

In my experience it's worthwhile pinning down what people actually mean when they suggest morality might be objective.

Chris

Reign_Cryogen

And that's why "harm" all by itself falls short.

To wit: If I were to slap my other half hard across the face, there is an objective harm done. There will be some degree of damage done to the tissues there which the body will correct. We can qualify the "harm" by the physical damage caused. We can quantify it by the amount of damage.

The thing is, it turns her on like it's nobody's business. She likes it that way. To her, there is no harm; at least, none that she cares about. I'm certain she'd be upset if I were to break a bone, but other than that? shrug

Now.. the law will, of course, see only one and not the other. Not the least of which is because we can quantify - objectively enough - the physical harm done to her. But it cannot really handle her side of things in such a clear-cut manner. The only thing the law has to go on is her feelings on the subject. All the law has is her word. There are other responses, of course, but I don't think they're admissable in court. And there are some who see such affinities as a sort of abomination or the result of psychological disorder. I suspect there's a very real possiblity that's the case, but I don't care. But I will concede that I agree with how the law responds to such conflicts; erring on he side of caution and safety.

To that end, there most certainly is an objective form of "harm" out there, but for anything outside of a strictly physical realm as in my example, it's simply too vague to be serviceable.

As far as objective goes, Chris, I would think the applicable version here is, per Merriam-Webster, "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers: having reality independent of the mind."

Reign_Cryogen

Nonono.. that was the example. The point was you had a desire: to end my life. My desire was to continue living. Your desire being fulfilled would impede my desire, therefor, you ought not fulfill it.

Reign_Cryogen

And on that note, should Frosty piss Quickie off enough to want to kill him, Frosty should buy Quickie a Miller beer.

GoodLittleAtheist

Aren't you just shifting the subjective decision from "Is this moral" to "Is this harmful"? Is stealing always objectively harmful? Have you harmed someone if you've taken something they don't need? What if you stole corn that was going to rot and fed it to a starving child? What if you stole cigarettes from your father so he couldn't smoke?

fast

I'm not trying to label all acts of a particular kind wrong at all. I'm not in search of a particular set of acts to make a judgment. I’m not looking for a golden rule.

Let's say we want to take a single act and look at it and determine if it's wrong for one particular incident. Let's say that I got fed up with the price of pepperoni’s, flipped my lid, and shot the cashier. I have just harmed a member of our society, and guess what, people are going to say that I was wrong for that. How so? What makes it wrong? Well, they are going to point out the harm I caused—either to society or the individual in this case. Interesting connection! If I harm someone (in that scenario), then my act (in that scenario) is deemed immoral.

Let's try another example. Let's say Bob got fed up with older chicks and wants to lick little girls. Let's say it's a deep dark secret. If he does not act on the impulse, then he has caused no harm. Most non-IIDB members would call him immoral if he shared the secret, but most IIDB members would not, for he has not actually inflicted harm on anyone. Similarly, it's okay to believe in God--just don't act on it by infringing on someone's doorstep with it, attitude.

I think reign's example of harm is an alternative meaning of harm than I wish to express. If I want to tear down an old dilapidated building and replace it with a newer more functional building, then yes, I have to 'harm' (legally vandalize) the old building, but the outcome of a new shiny building isn't considered harmful. In this sense, we would be harming tradition and fundamentalism by allowing homosexuality, but we all agree that the tearing down of tradition like that isn't 'harmful' just like we don't see the act on reign's significant other as harmful. The final results are a) a new building, b) a society tolerant of homosexuality, and c) a satisfied partner. So, the 'harm' to which I refer is different than the harm offered.

What is included and excluded in the harmful and immoral categories? To what degree do they overlap? If you pick a typical example of something that is definitely considered immoral, then underneath it all often times is a harm to which I refer. This harm can be objectively demonstrated without fallacious reasoning. Example, I shot the cashier, Bob licked the little girl and she grew up with severe depression and an inability to have a relationship.

Nonharmful examples: the police officer killed the would-be murderer. We indoctrinated fundamentalist's children with the idea that transexualism is okay. Our lover though bleeding from the whips is pleased.

Perhaps I'm redefining harm and not realizing it--maybe that's my mistake. But if I am, then homosexuality may then be harmful in at least one sense--in the sense that traditional thinking is being damaged--not to be confused with changed (as it encompasses both the tearing and the building)--Like the tearing down of the old building would then be harmful for the old and beneficial to the new--thus a beneficial change IF the new is better than the old. And I think the new is better than the old, and I think a tolerant understanding society accepting of differences is better than a fundamental traditional way of thinking. Imagine allowing a devoutly religious family to raise your children without the better reasoned atheistic view--you don't have to call it harmful to their developmental thinking if ya don't wanna, and we can call it change.

Back to the killing of the cashier, and back to my other meaning of harm. Notice the element of harm as our justification for it being immoral. The killing of the cashier is harmful and immoral—homosexuality is not harmful and not immoral. The objective evidence is before us. The killing in that precise scenario (hence, I’m not trying to pin the conclusion universally) is clearly harmful, and without fallaciousness, we profess it immoral. Of course it’s our view—it’s harmful! Of course we here at IIDB say that homosexuality is not immoral—it’s not harmful!

Try this. If morality is subjective, then a homophobe ought to be able to say that homosexuality is immoral and not be incorrect. If we find out that the reasoning behind the homophobic thoughts are fallacious which directly influenced the persons so-called subjective view of morality, then the person ought to change their moral take, eventually.

But seriously, what about the cashier. We don't just feel the killing is wrong...we see the harm and use that as our supposed subjective basis, yet it's repeatable and objective.

I don't know why I'm saying all of this...I believe morality is subjective. I hurt my head. It's just that if we base our view on the harm that's caused and the harm is clear as day, then the objective connection to morality is being denied why? I can't believe I just turned this into another objective versus subjective debate--damn me. I’d rather focus on the connection between objectively identifiable harm and our propensity to claim immorality when we see it. Likewise, we at IIDB tend to be darned tolerant and accepting because we realize the fallaciousness in the views of the remaining.

fast

Yes I am, and if it's improper, I want to know why and the implications.

You're adding the element of universalism which I do not want to do. If we are going to use an example, then it's ought to be a single example applicable to a single situation.

This can't keep happening. No matter how many examples we come up with, there's always an exception, but if we look at a single past event to which all data is known, then we ought to be able to make an after the fact determination if the act was harmful, and from that, I'd like to logically infer a moral take.

JamesBannon

Fast,
This is situationalism - what is right or wrong depends on the context of the act being judged (I am assuming we are only judging actions and not beliefs alone for the latter would be immoral IMHO). I don't see much wrong, and I would still retain "harm" rather an replace with it with the other alternative mentioned, "desire", but it still requires careful consideration. However, if we are to develop rules for a civic society then we still need to develop "prescriptive shorthands" because situations can quickly become overwhelmingly complex.

fast

On the prescriptive side, I guess what I could then propose is that instead of muddling through subjective personal views as a determination as to whether a future act is immoral or not, is to and instead gauge or otherwise objectively analyze the act for the presence of and extent of the harm or benefit that would result from the future act.

GoodLittleAtheist

The only improper part I see is that you are taking a subjective decision of "Is this moral" and trying to say that by switching to "Is this harm" then we can come up with an objective measure. I don't see how you can do that since it is always people determining what constitutes harm.

Be as specific as you like. What I was implying is that X may seem harmful to you, but not to me for the same X even in the specific case.

Not necessarily. Is it harmful to steal cigarettes from my father? To me it isn't, because it is more harmful to allow him to kill himself than it is to curb his freedom to smoke. To him it is, because he should be free to do as he likes. Depending on whether a person values freedom over health, they will judge which harm trumps the other.