[guest commentary by Paladin]
In many of the discussions on this blog, the moral debates have (on the liberal/secular side) very often regressed to a sort of "battle cry" which can be roughly translated:
"Whom is it hurting?"
That touches on a key point, I think: what does it mean to "harm" someone? Isn't it rather important to have a definition of "harm" (at least, in the sense meant by the people above--which I suspect is really meant to be "unnecesary/unjustifiable harm"), before we start talking too much about that? I mean, if someone refuses to recognize an involuntary and mecically unnecessary amputation of both arms to be "harm", there's not much hope for a meaningful discussion on the topic, is there?
Here's some grist for the mill:
1) Some people consider so-called "homosexual marriage" to be harmful.
2) Some people consider the existence of orthodox Catholic teaching to be harmful.
3) Some people consider artificial contraception to be harmful.
4) Some people consider theism to be harmful.
[etc.]
Some questions:
1) What is "harm", in the sense of that which can/should be restricted by law?
2) What/who is being harmed, and how?
3) Why is such "harm" unjustified?
Pick an example (e.g. abortion, "homosexual marriage", artificial contraception, Christian evangelism, etc.), and tell me about it. I'm especiall interested in those things which liberals are wont to call "victimless crimes". (It's a sloppy definition of "victim"--the word "person(s) harmed unjustly" woudl fit better--but I'll let that pass, for now.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)































3 comments:
Our legal system more or less requires that harm be tangible. For example, if you file a lawsuit against someone, the jury could find the defendant at fault, but award you $1 because they believed you were not harmed despite the defendant having been technically wrong. Most likely you would think you'd lost the lawsuit, since lawsuits are filed for damages.
Our criminal justice system takes into account tangible harm but also fear and uncertainty because those things cause harm as well. Fraud causes harm because it destroys trust, besides harming the individual victim(s). The wider effect on society is calculated. Selling drugs and prostitution contribute to social problems including financial problems, disease, loss of work productivity, etc. They may not have clear individual "victims" but their negative effect on society is a justification for making them illegal.
I cannot think of how either an individual, or society at large, is harmed by homosexual marriage.
“We godless lack that certainty, and we know the world is a complex place that requires compromise and is not ruled by a moral force — virtue is subject to negotiation, and is found in working together with others to find mutually satisfactory solutions. Good is not absolute, it is an emergent property that arises from successful networks of individuals. It is also something that is measured by evidence: we look at the good that people do, not the promises that they make and never keep, or the lies that dovetail nicely into dogma. Competence is a virtue. Intent is meaningless without action.”
– PZ Myers
Elizabeth, I'll try to write back to your thoughtful comment when I have a spare moment; thanks for the patience! (A plethora of chores have kidnapped me!)
Anonymous: in the interest of time, I can only say that the quote in question is almost completely devoid of logical coherence. "We look at the good that people do" is rather meaningless without an objective definition of "good", is it not? (Would you find it "virtuous" for the SS to torture Jews to death, if only the powers-that-be look upon those actions as "good that is being done"?) And as for "mutually satisfactory", would you consider it "virtuous" (a term which has an actual definition, by the way) for a father to shoot his 5-year-old son to death, provided that the son agreed (perhaps out of a misguided desire to please his father)? Mere consent, while perhaps necessary for morally right behaviour in some instances, is hardly sufficient, in general.
Post a Comment