tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post1246313130906998388..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: Coercively harming a minorityLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-26116146226189895062015-01-01T14:56:28.720-07:002015-01-01T14:56:28.720-07:00I think, Matthew, that you are very close to grasp...I think, Matthew, that you are very close to grasping dialectical reasoning. You might want to continue on to Hegel and Marx.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-15751205145197774392015-01-01T10:48:02.915-07:002015-01-01T10:48:02.915-07:00Thanks, by the way, for this stimulating discussio...Thanks, by the way, for this stimulating discussion. I've enjoyed your thought-provoking arguments enormously.<br /><br />In my failed attempt to argue that all harm is objective, I feel like I learned something that is important beyond the issue of "objective" vs "subjective". And that is this: if we think of harm (or benefit) merely in a general, nonspecific sense, that makes it too easy to stop thinking about it. If one asks, 'How should we choose between two choices that are coercively harmful?' then we've already limited ourselves to only two choices, and we've already begun thinking of "harm" in a general, nonspecific sense.<br /><br />The formulation of the statement, "[person/group A] is harmed by [X], while [person/group B] benefits from [X]" is too vague to properly evaluate (even if A, B, and X are specified), because the nature of both the harm and the benefit are obscured. When we focus on *who*, we think of harm or benefit as a net positive or net negative result for that person/group, which might be an acceptable conclusion of a moral evaluation, but should never be the starting point of a moral evaluation. When, on the other hand, we examine *what* [X] is harming (or benefitting) *which* [Y], and *how* (the mechanism by which [X] harms/benefits [Y]), the specific issues at hand become more clear. <br /><br />In a conflict situation, focusing on *what* and *how* helps to depersonalize the conflict, and ironically, by not focussing on *who* is harmed or benefited, it actually helps us to have a greater sense of empathy and understanding for those with whom we disagree. It also helps to present opportunities for recognizing common (subjective) values and identifying alternative solutions that might at least placate, if not completely satisfy, all parties involved.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034888963550966040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-24654097061259992822014-12-30T12:00:01.154-07:002014-12-30T12:00:01.154-07:00And Matthew, I will readily admit that truly objec...And Matthew, I will readily admit that truly objective elements are important in defining legal crimes and torts, which are directly related to morality and ethics; subjective elements — e.g. consent, intention, deliberation, malice, foreknowledge, — need to be consistently determinable on perceptual criteria in a similar manner to objective things. Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-79696267546955604122014-12-29T23:09:06.173-07:002014-12-29T23:09:06.173-07:00@Larry: I agree, there are some forms of harm whic...@Larry: I agree, there are some forms of harm which are purely subjective in the sense that they are psychological harms, as with racial or sexual epithets. They feel tremendously harmful, emotionally, psychologically, you can even have involuntary physical reactions, but finding an "objective" core that isn't rooted in subjective interpretation seems to be impossible. Harm is certainly intended by the people doing the harassment, and the victim's sense of dignity, contentment, well-being, and possibly even safety are impaired or impeded, but since that harm is purely psychological, it's very difficult to call it objective. And I also agree with you that the subjective aspect of harm is what really matters when we're talking about ethics.<br /><br />I'm thinking I overstated the case for objective harm. Nonetheless, I also think that it really helped me to analyze "harm" by not thinking of it as purely subjective, and by thinking in a more specific sense about what exactly is being harmed, and why.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034888963550966040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-42993971540184558922014-12-29T15:25:07.883-07:002014-12-29T15:25:07.883-07:00I'm suggesting that there will always be an as...<i>I'm suggesting that there will always be an assertion about the reality of impeded functionality at the heart of it.</i><br /><br />Being called certain racial or sexual epithets, for example, can be harmful without impeding functionality. Being refused service in a public accommodation is a harm, and you can sue for it. If you take a broad enough view, we objectively "impede" each other's "functionality" (for example by locking my front door) so often that "harm" becomes ubiquitous. We would be forced to redefine "harm" as "impeding functionality in subjectively objectionable ways." My point is that the "impeding functionality" part of the definition is irrelevant; the "subjectively objectionable ways" part is salient.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-3837415516919048992014-12-29T15:18:48.918-07:002014-12-29T15:18:48.918-07:00To that I would argue that it's also a redefin...<i>To that I would argue that it's also a redefinition of the term to require that it be necessarily subjective, but that the subjective version of "harm" is more discordant with the colloquial use of the term than the objective definition that I have proposed.</i><br /><br />That's what philosophers <i>do</i>: we redefine terms. We are not lexicographers.<br /><br />There definitely is an objective meaning of harm. If you back into my car at 2 mph, you will objectively not harm my car. If you crash into it at 50 mph, you will almost certainly objectively harm it. And if I pay you $100 to put my car in the crusher, you have still objectively harmed the car. However, the morally interest question is: have you harmed <i>me</i>?<br /><br />The problem is, the objective meaning doesn't relate directly to morality; we have to introduce extra premises to connect harm to right and wrong. Since miller's original question was about the moral status of harm, I was looking at the moral meaning of the term, which I argue <i>is</i> subjective. I do not believe we can create a definition of harm that both specifies objectively what does and does not constitute hamr <i>and</i> includes only that which is morally wrong or excludes only that which is morally right or neutral.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-64763392728044082922014-12-29T15:06:40.496-07:002014-12-29T15:06:40.496-07:00No need to apologize! I'm just trying to make ...No need to apologize! I'm just trying to make sure I can follow everything without getting lost. I actually strongly dislike multi-level threaded discussions.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-82051597166284248052014-12-29T14:16:10.894-07:002014-12-29T14:16:10.894-07:00I also apologize if I'm treating the comment r...I also apologize if I'm treating the comment responses wrong, although in my defense I wasn't trying to say anything substantive.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-45101044683446744292014-12-29T14:14:57.366-07:002014-12-29T14:14:57.366-07:00(Based on comments downthread, I seem to have a di...(Based on comments downthread, I seem to have a different notion of "objective" from Larry.)millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-91816006683135362772014-12-29T14:12:12.808-07:002014-12-29T14:12:12.808-07:00@Matthew,
Yeah, I take the point that people can b...@Matthew,<br />Yeah, I take the point that people can be wrong in their subjective beliefs that something is harmful. I could believe that A is harmful because A leads to B and B is harmful. But I could be wrong, if A does not in fact lead to B. Even if everyone felt the same way as me, we could all be wrong.<br /><br />I suppose when people have direct experiences of harm, the harm is subjective. But when people are predicting harm, it is possible for them to be objectively correct or incorrect about the prediction.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-16248489578357418742014-12-29T13:58:29.048-07:002014-12-29T13:58:29.048-07:00When you discuss "coercive harm", I thou...When you discuss "coercive harm", I thought you meant to imply they are different things. Otherwise, why not just talk about harm, or just about coercion? However, I may have been mistaken about your intended meaning--after all, I was the first one to use "coercively harming a minority", and you simply borrowed that in your response.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-14929431015185554292014-12-29T11:49:55.786-07:002014-12-29T11:49:55.786-07:00I'm sorry, yeah, that makes sense. I'm a ...I'm sorry, yeah, that makes sense. I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to blogs.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034888963550966040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-75525062172467772592014-12-29T11:47:02.094-07:002014-12-29T11:47:02.094-07:00You might argue that my above comments redefine th...You might argue that my above comments redefine the colloquial use of the term "harm" to force it to fit the idea that "harm" is necessarily objective. To that I would argue that it's also a redefinition of the term to require that it be necessarily subjective, but that the subjective version of "harm" is more discordant with the colloquial use of the term than the objective definition that I have proposed. But if we get into that, then we're just arguing about what is the best term for this concept... <br /><br />Even if you use a vague, colloquial definition of "harm", I'm suggesting that there will always be an assertion about the reality of impeded functionality at the heart of it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034888963550966040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-78584185785387103042014-12-29T11:35:12.123-07:002014-12-29T11:35:12.123-07:00Also, I don't know if you're aware of how ...Also, I don't know if you're aware of how I use "objective". In this sense, a proposition is objective if its truth or falsity does not depend on the state of any mind at any time, factually or counter-factually. For example, the proposition, "The mass of the earth is approximately 5.97219×10^24 kg" is true (at a certain level*) regardless of the state of anyone's mind. On the other hand, the proposition, "Larry likes Indian food," is true depending on the state of my mind. Objective statements are those <i>everyone</i> can be mistaken about; subjective statements are those that at least one person (with a mind) <i>cannot</i> be mistaken about.<br /><br /><i>*Ignoring for the purposes of this conversation that the symbols inside the quotation marks have meaning only in relation to minds that read English and use the metric system.</i><br /><br />Similarly, the proposition, "that specific car was crushed into a cube," is an objective statement. However, the proposition, "Larry was harmed by the crushing of the car into a cube," is true if and only if I subjectively felt (or would have felt) harmed. If my present car were crushed into a cube, I would feel harmed. My previous car <i>was</i> crushed into a cube, but because I didn't want it any more, I was not harmed. Now, as it happens, I didn't want it for specific objective reasons, but even if I had felt that I just didn't like that car any more," I still would not have felt harm.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-54515972304213147422014-12-29T11:18:18.803-07:002014-12-29T11:18:18.803-07:00Matthew: In general, the subjective harm of killin...Matthew: In general, the subjective harm of killing (or other consciousness/subjectivity-destroying actions) is just prior to the act: I feel harm by being killed because <i>before</i> I'm killed, I didn't subjectively want to be killed. And if I really do want to die, then I'm not harmed by being killed.<br /><br />Second, I think you are making a category error: if we are using "harm" in a morally neutral sense, then just like feeling harmed does not necessarily entail that a moral wrong has occurred, not feeling harmed does not necessarily entail that no moral wrong has occurred. <br /><br />But the class of actions that are morally wrong without anyone feeling harmed seems rather small. For example, destroying an archeological artifact that you have just discovered would probably be a moral wrong even though no one actually feels harm. However, we still have subjunctive, counterfactual harm: people would have felt harm had they known what you did.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-45543509320877260082014-12-29T11:10:33.078-07:002014-12-29T11:10:33.078-07:00Matthew: It's easier to follow the discussion ...Matthew: It's easier to follow the discussion if substantive comments are posted not as replies but to the top level of the thread. Use replies for adding minor details or clarifications to a substantive reply.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-73212909198880281042014-12-29T11:08:43.605-07:002014-12-29T11:08:43.605-07:00this is an example of the idea that some people ha...<i>this is an example of the idea that some people have that reality itself is subjective, because it depends upon our subjective interpretation of it</i><br /><br />You have to be careful here, because there are a lot of philosophical subtleties. However, since I already accept that objective reality exists, we don't have a controversy on that point.<br /><br />However, some things really are subjective, just existing inside the mind, and not referencing something in objective reality.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-47766762055110558072014-12-29T11:06:45.314-07:002014-12-29T11:06:45.314-07:00Hahaha, see, it takes practice, and even though I ...Hahaha, see, it takes practice, and even though I just screwed it up, once you identify the objective core concept of what is being harmed and how, and separate that from any judgement about whether that harm is good or bad in the balance of everything else, it brings a much greater clarity to the overall ethical discussion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034888963550966040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-61022635930014876722014-12-29T10:59:46.466-07:002014-12-29T10:59:46.466-07:00Hm. Let me try that again, lol. The objective st...Hm. Let me try that again, lol. The objective statement of harm here is to say that by not asking your consent about something that affects you, they harmed your self-determination. This eliminates the subjectivity, and thereby clarifies the issues at play.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034888963550966040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-26087365662776340282014-12-29T10:49:35.344-07:002014-12-29T10:49:35.344-07:00The objective statement of harm here is to say tha...The objective statement of harm here is to say that your feeling of control over [whatever they did without your consent] was harmed by the fact that they did not ask for your consent. Again, there is the objective and specific statement of harm, and the subjective judgement about that harm. The subjective side of this would have to balance the objective harm caused against the objective benefits of them not seeking your consent. Hence, your need to say "(sometimes)". Easy to think of a case where the benefits of not seeking consent outweigh the harm to your feelings of control (as in the case of an urgent life-saving medical procedure when a patient is unable to give consent).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034888963550966040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-16290495398029127122014-12-29T10:27:48.243-07:002014-12-29T10:27:48.243-07:00Let's take Larry's example of the religiou...Let's take Larry's example of the religious people who feel "harmed" by secular gay marriage: In what sense are they being "harmed"? Well, I'm doubtful that most of the people who hold this belief could articulate a clear answer to this, but I'll do my best to fairly represent this religious viewpoint as follows: when secular gay marriage is legal, it makes homosexuality "normal" and even "socially acceptable" in the larger society, thereby causing harm to (A) their religious views of homosexuality as an "abomination", (B) their definition of "marriage" as being between a man and a woman, and (C) to their families, because if any of their children have a tendency towards that "lifestyle", a society in which homosexuality is socially acceptable makes their own children more "vulnerable" to it. <br /><br />Now, these arguments employ at least a few ideas that I would consider contrary to reality (e.g., the idea that it's a "lifestyle", not an "orientation", and that their children could "choose" to become homosexual based on social acceptance). However, the disagreements I would have with this understanding of "harm done" would be disagreements about reality, which is objective, not value judgments based on my individual viewpoint or feelings, which are subjective. In other words, I would argue that when their families are broken apart because their children say they are homosexual, the harm was caused by the parent's attitudes, not by secular gay marriage. That doesn't mean that someone with different values than me couldn't argue against my assertion of reality. But that class of argument is an argument about reality, not an argument about values. <br /><br />The questions of "who, what, when, where, why, & how" are very different from "should" and "ought". Our values and subjective preconceptions may shape the way we each perceive reality, but reality is reality, no matter what we think of it.<br /><br />On the other hand, the letter (A) argument above, that secular gay marriage makes homosexuality more socially acceptable, thereby causing "harm" to their religious views, is something I can actually agree with. It *does* cause harm to their religious views. If you disagree with me on this, we would be having a disagreement about objective reality, not subjective values, but assuming we can agree on the reality of this particular "harm", let's explore the subjective side of this. <br /><br />It's my admittedly subjective viewpoint that the harm done to their religious views of homosexuality is a good thing. Causing harm to these homophobic religious viewpoints is morally a good thing not only for the lesbian and gay people who wish to get married, but also for the religious people themselves, for their children and families, and for society as a whole. I could support this assertion with numerous arguments, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034888963550966040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-5498800489715169052014-12-29T10:19:07.583-07:002014-12-29T10:19:07.583-07:00I think the problem here is a lack of clarity abou...I think the problem here is a lack of clarity about what is harming what. When you say that "harm" is a loaded term, implying a negative judgement, that implies saying that one thing harms another thing is the same as saying it is harmful in a more global sense. Which is not only imprecise, but it is impossible. This is why you both are mistakenly thinking that "harm" is necessarily subjective. It's the vague idea of global or universal harm that is not only subjective but also ridiculous. It's extremely helpful in all arguments about harm to be very specific about what is harming what.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034888963550966040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-11831054756333009962014-12-29T10:07:26.554-07:002014-12-29T10:07:26.554-07:00I was attempting to anticipate counter-arguments h...I was attempting to anticipate counter-arguments here. Basically, this is an example of the idea that some people have that reality itself is subjective, because it depends upon our subjective interpretation of it. Which is, of course, pure nonsense. Reality is reality, and the fact that our understanding of it is based on our own subjective filters doesn't change the fact that it exists outside of our minds and is not affected by our ideas of it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034888963550966040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-37914506274557655072014-12-29T09:56:54.197-07:002014-12-29T09:56:54.197-07:00I don't think killing is a special case, here....I don't think killing is a special case, here. The same argument would still apply if a doctor made a mistake during surgery that caused such profound brain damage that the patient was unaware of any harm done. Harm to a given life form, system tool, etc, is objective, that is to say, if you disagree about whether harm has been done, it's a disagreement about reality. Whether that harm is good or bad is whe argument that is subjective.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034888963550966040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-9965945257586109362014-12-29T09:51:41.228-07:002014-12-29T09:51:41.228-07:00I wasn't equivocating about windows, I was exp...I wasn't equivocating about windows, I was expressing what would happen under your understanding of subjective harm, vs my understanding of objective harm. Sorry that wasn't clear.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034888963550966040noreply@blogger.com