Theli

Are we as individuals morally required to care for the emotional wellbeing of others?
Most would agree that it is morally wrong to hit or personally critisize a person as both cause a sort of pain/discomfort to him/her.
But we would aslo agree that there are limits like in the following example: What if I said, truthfully that I felt emotioal discomfort by the fact that you (whoever is reading this) is posting on this board, then it would not be considered immoral for you to continue to post. Agree?
Those are two rather black and white examples, but here is a trickier one partially taken from a post written by XGuilt.
Is infidelity morally wrong for a person in a relationship where he/she is not satisfied? Lets assume for the sake of the argument that the person is incapable of an "official" breakup, either because of fear or lacking self-esteem.

Also...
Should a person who is more needy/sensitive be treated better by people than a person that is less? (children not included)
If needs and moral obligaions we put on someone cause discomfort for that person, would that not be equally immoral?


If someone were to shed some light on this I would appreciate it.

meritocrat

I don't think people should purposely seeking to emotionally harm others.

But what is emotional harm? Does offence classify? Since offence is very subjective how can it be possible to stop all forms of 'emotional harm'?

Theli

But you do know that there are situation where you take actions you know will cause harm or emotional discomfort for someone, but you do this for your own sake.
About stopping all emotional harm, ofcourse not. Failing to get a job that you really wanted because someone else beat you to it can be counted as emotional discomfort (you get sad), and it is caused by another person. If you however got the job that other person would feel loss.

My question was that, is who get's the biggest peice of the pie in a moral sense governed by wich person has the biggest needs, or by who has the best means to take it (survival of the fittest)?

Alonzo Fyfe

Your emotional discomfort would have to be weighed, but this weight is not fixed and is not necessarily strong. A lot of factors are relevant.

For example, is the type of activity that I am engaged in of relevance? You might not like hearing people say that your God does not exist. The way that I would weigh that is that I might refrain from making statements to the effect that God does not exist except when they are relevant to something else (e.g., a discussion on right or wrong where a particupant is using God-language).

A more serious and justified harm should weigh more heavily. If you recently lost a child in an automobile accident, I would be more careful. The pain is more severe, and is more firmly grounded (on our biological nature, in this case).

However, I do not believe that psychological effects is a ground for censorship. Some claim "you should not speak ill of the President or our commitment to the war because of the psychological effect on the soldiers." On this, I would say, 'tough'. Those soldiers should just get used to the fact that we have a RIGHT to discuss the merits and demerits of the war -- and if the points against outweigh the points in favor, to say so.


I see this as a different issue.

Marriage is a contract that binds the individuals to the terms of the contract. And, as is the case in all of contract law, the meaning of a contract can be determined by looking for "reasonable expectations". To violate a "reasonable expectation" is to violate a contract.


"Better?" To phrase it that way is to beg the question. Any wrongness of inflicting this type of suffering on others exists specifically because of the harm done. 0 suffering means 0 weight. Greater suffering means greater weight. So, activities that generate equal suffering for person A and person B deserve equal levels of concern.

This can be illustrated because it lies parallel to physical pain. Assume that you are taking medication that makes your skin particularly sensitive to touch -- just brushing against you causes excruciating pain. Should I treat you just like somebody else who is not under this medication? Of course not. It's the quantity of pain that YOU would feel as a result of my actions that is relevant.

xorbie

To flip the question, aren't people who are more sensitive and needy inherently less "moral" because they cause shame and guilt to those who do not give them this extra help.

Theli

That sounds reasonable, you should not affect someone willfully if there is nothing to gain from it. But let's say for a moment that it is, you can win an argument over this person but in order to do so you must either directly point out the non-existance of god or imply it. For your atheist friends, hearing about the nonexistence of god bares no emotional discomfort, does this mean that you have a bigger moral obligation towards the theist, as it also includes not mentioning of god's nonexistence?
So, we can also hold the moral weight of a action to what is norm. If we perform an action wich is commonly regarded as harmfull (wich we are obligation to avoid) to another person it is considered more wrong.

Another thought, is it possible that we are being taught, growing up how to react to certain actions? Making some people more sensitive than others.
If two people who were both spanked as children later on in life lived in different communities with different norms and morality. One of them was taught that spanking is a natural way of teaching children, while the other was taught that he had been abused as a child. Would the person being taught that spanking is abuse, feel more discomfort being reminded of his past, and also harbour greater resentment towards his parents?
By discomfort in this and any example I mean, sadness, anger, depression, pain and all conditions we humans naturally tries to avoid.
Another question regarding a topic by Scigrl. Most here would believe (and rightfully so methinks) that transexuality and gay marriages is not immoral. Yet, this does cause great discomfort for alot of people, in this case fundamentalist christians, are there no obligations held by the homo/transexuals here? Many would say that it would be immoral for me to hit a random person I meet on the street in an attempt to calm my anger. What is the factor in wich we weight obligations like these?
I see your point, however I'm abit perplexed over what "reasonable" mean in this case. Is it reasonable to promise or expect total fidelity if the risk is that big for the promise to be broken. Again, what factor decides that monogamy is the right norm?
Yes, but as person A has higher standards and demands regarding the way you treat him/her, "0 suffering" appears different for that person and requires a bigger sacrifice on your part.
Ofcourse, my question doesn't normally apply to physical pain as physical sensitivity often isn't selfinflicted in the same manner as emotional sensitivity can be.

Thank you for replying, you made some good points.