Re: A definition of morality
fishin' wrote:Well now you have a real problem. If you choose to use harm as a noun then you might want to look at an actual dictionary definition.
harm (P) Pronunciation Key (härm)
n.
1. Physical or psychological injury or damage.
2. Wrong; evil.
So now you are back to your circular argument since harm is defined as wong and/or evil.
(definition courtesy of dictionary.com)
Now this is a wee bit silly. Clearly, in this context (as I have already defined) it is meaning 1 of harm ('physical or psychological injury or damage') that is relevant, not meaning 2. The fact that the four letters h-a-r-m have another meaning, which, were it relevant, would make the argument circular, means nothing. It's like me saying 'bats can fly' and you saying, 'no they can't, look at these definitions of 'bat' '...
In any case, I've already conceded that the definition is not objective, because it presupposes a consequentialist position (that is, it is a definition of
a morality rather than of
morality, so is not circular, or objective). However, I do think it's a defensible position, so I'll defend it for the time being.
Ray wrote:Also, what about a person stealing your items for no good reason? They are certainly not doing any observable "harm", but we can see that the action is wrong morally.
Have you never been robbed? It certainly causes psychological injury.
ebrown_p wrote:I don't think that "minimize harm" as a defintion of morality means anything... at least when applied to any of the real world ethical problems we face.
Deporting Illegal immigrants certainly is not a way to minimize harm as most immigrants will have a much worse life out of the US. Immigrants breaking the law to enter do so to provide a way out of poverty for their families which is certainly a form of "minimizing harm".
A complex situation, could be a whole new thread (note: something being complex does not make it meaningless...). Perhaps a way to limit harm might be to change the law? It depends on the harm that allowing immigrants into the US would do to other people. If the harm is less than the harm that would be suffered by immigrants being deported, then deporting would increase harm, rather than limiting it. Perhaps fairer trade rules between the immigrants country of origin and the US might help...
ebrown_p wrote:The opponents of homosexual marriage are claiming that it "harms" society. The people who want to enter same-sex marriages claims the ban harms them. Does your ethical standard help resolve this impasse?
Yes. A 'society', 'country', table or belief system does not experience (at least, to the best of our knowledge), therefore cannot be 'harmed' in the way harmed is meant in this context. Making a couple unhappy by not allowing them to marry
is harming them. Opponents of same-sex marriage would have to show that allowing same-sex marriages would harm individuals for their position to have any weight by this moral system. If they claimed that the thought of same-sex couples distressed them, we would have to research and see if same-sex couples were inherently distressing, in some way. If not, then education might be a way to limit the distress, or introduction to a happy, stable same-sex couple.
Note that an argument such as 'same-sex marriage harms the soul' carries no weight, because there is no evidence for it. While it is, I suppose, possible, it is equally possible that 'lack of same-sex marriage harms the soul', so the two positions cancel each other out, and neither should be assumed to have any weight, unless evidence comes to light to suggest one or the other is true.
ebrown_p wrote:Would you say that capital punishment is unethical? It is certainly causing harm to the individual involved, but does it minimize harm to greater society?
From what I know, capital punishment alleviates little harm on society. As far as I know, research shows it does not act as a deterrent, any more the life imprisonment does (although one might put forward the argument that life imprisonment is
more harmful than death, but that's another point).
ebrown_p wrote:Can you give an example of a real world problem to which the "minimizing harm" provides any direction or insight.
Yes. On balance, donating blood minimizes harm by contributing to the preservation of someone's life.
If someone asks you a favour, and it really puts you out, but doing it would get them out of a bigger problem, it would minimize harm to do the favour.
If you have more food than you need, and someone else is starving, it minimizes harm to give them some food.
spendius wrote:What is your view then on voluntary harm such as athletes taking drugs which will harm them.I am in favour of letting them take anything they wish but we have erected a whole system on the basis that the potential harm they will do to themselves and others who follow their example is morally wrong.
A tough one. I suspect that the best way to minimise harm would be to persuade them not to take the drugs. Perhaps an examination of
why they want to take the drugs would help. Perhaps the intensity of competition is itself harmful, and the drug acts to minimise this harm. In that case, perhaps looking for a way to make the situation less competitive would help, though this might have other harmful consequences. Hey, I never said it was simple...
spendius wrote:You might clue me in on your position on the different life expectancy rates by class and occupation and,indeed,nationality.I am disposed to think that you both view a class system involving such discrepancies as morally "wrong".
Well, I would agree that an imbalance in possession of material goods that affect life expectancy is harmful. To minimise harm, we should look for a way to remove this harm, without causing more. Perhaps starting by looking for ways to produce more of the material goods which raise life expectancy, and distributing them effectively, would help.
