Would I ever be aware of the gang rape? If I'm never aware and I never have any ill-effects of it, how can I evaluate whether or not harm was actually done? It takes knowledge of something to do that.LuckyR wrote: ↑February 26th, 2018, 4:59 amJust a spin on the tree falling in the forest. Let me ask you, would you consider it harm if you got slipped a "Mickey" and were gang raped prison style? I thought so.Jack18 wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2018, 3:01 pm OK, so let's take some specific examples to help clarify.
1) Bob creates a virus that steals .004 cents (4/10 of 1 penny) from every bank account in the world. Because this is merely 4/10 of 1 penny, no one knows it is even taken. This is called "penny shaving" and is the scam seen in the movie Office Space. In this scenario, no one becomes aware.
2) Bob creates a business that asks people for donations to help the homeless. 100% of all donations go to Bob so he can have fun traveling the world and live an extravagant lifestyle he's always wanted. In this scenario, no one becomes aware.
3) Bob slips a "Mickey" to a woman he meets at a bar. This drug puts her to sleep. Bob is able to take her back to her home. While she is unconscious, Bob has sex with the woman. There is no STD transmission, the woman won't get pregnant. She wakes up safely. In this scenario, no one becomes aware.
4) Bob inappropriately (sexually) touches a sleeping 4-year-old child. The child never awakes while Bob is touching. In this scenario, no one becomes aware.
So in any of the 4 scenarios above, is any harm done to any entity (Bob, victim(s), society, etc.), in any sense of the word? Is awareness required for harm to occur?
The issue of "harm"
- Jack18
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13
- Joined: February 22nd, 2018, 10:31 pm
Re: The issue of "harm"
- Jack18
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13
- Joined: February 22nd, 2018, 10:31 pm
Re: The issue of "harm"
So a child being screamed at, threatened, insulted told they are worthless and will never accomplish anything and on a daily basis, does no harm to the child? No "real" harm? I don't see how that can be true.Present awareness wrote: ↑February 26th, 2018, 10:22 am Physical harm, is the only REAL harm you may do to a person, all other forms of harm take place in the mind and are conceptual. For example, loss of money is a mental concept as are all possessions, for ownership is simply a mental attachment to things. That’s not to say that mental and emotional harm aren’t real, only they are different in nature, and one may be unaware of them. One is seldom unaware of physical harm unless unconscious.
And what is the difference between "real harm" and "harm"? Your distinction seems instead to just be "physical harm" vs "mental/psychological harm."
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: The issue of "harm"
Jack18 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2018, 4:31 pmSo a child being screamed at, threatened, insulted told they are worthless and will never accomplish anything and on a daily basis, does no harm to the child? No "real" harm? I don't see how that can be true.Present awareness wrote: ↑February 26th, 2018, 10:22 am Physical harm, is the only REAL harm you may do to a person, all other forms of harm take place in the mind and are conceptual. For example, loss of money is a mental concept as are all possessions, for ownership is simply a mental attachment to things. That’s not to say that mental and emotional harm aren’t real, only they are different in nature, and one may be unaware of them. One is seldom unaware of physical harm unless unconscious.
And what is the difference between "real harm" and "harm"? Your distinction seems instead to just be "physical harm" vs "mental/psychological harm."
Yes, mental and emotional harm are both real, and in some cases, even worse then physical harm. That’s why I said “it’s NOT to say that mental and emotion harm aren’t real. If someone breaks your finger, you will have to physically heal until the bone is repaired. If someone calls you a name, a sound has been directed at you. You may choose to ignore it or react to it. If you ignore it, then no “real harm” has been done, compared to physical harm.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7934
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: The issue of "harm"
Well, it is 2018 after all. Let's say that the video of it surfaces on social media, but for various reasons you have no physical signs of it.
- Jack18
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13
- Joined: February 22nd, 2018, 10:31 pm
Re: The issue of "harm"
But that's contradictory. Either psychological harm IS real or it isn't.Present awareness wrote: ↑February 26th, 2018, 10:22 am Physical harm, is the only REAL harm you may do to a person, all other forms of harm take place in the mind and are conceptual. . . . . That’s not to say that mental and emotional harm aren’t real, only they are different in nature, and one may be unaware of them.
For example, is a young child harmed by a parent who constantly yells at the child, insults them, tells them they are worthless, tells them that they should just die, tells the child that they aren't loved and instead are hated, tells them they will never amount to anything and that the child is stupid, etc.?
Is the child harmed or not?
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: The issue of "harm"
I see no record of your response having already been submitted but not approved.For some reason, my response didn't get approved by a moderator. so I'll try again.
- Jack18
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13
- Joined: February 22nd, 2018, 10:31 pm
Re: The issue of "harm"
Right, but I was pointing out the contradiction there. You said that only physical harm is real while at the same time saying mental harm isn't real. That's contradictory, so I was trying to get you to clarify the position or rectify the error.Present awareness wrote: ↑February 26th, 2018, 9:31 pm Yes, mental and emotional harm are both real, and in some cases, even worse then physical harm. That’s why I said “it’s NOT to say that mental and emotion harm aren’t real.
What is "real harm"? And how is that not yet again, contradictory?If someone breaks your finger, you will have to physically heal until the bone is repaired. If someone calls you a name, a sound has been directed at you. You may choose to ignore it or react to it. If you ignore it, then no “real harm” has been done, compared to physical harm.
- Jack18
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13
- Joined: February 22nd, 2018, 10:31 pm
Re: The issue of "harm"
You are right, just user error.
When will my posts no longer need to be moderated? It's causing quite the inconvenient delay in discussing topics with other posters.
- Jack18
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13
- Joined: February 22nd, 2018, 10:31 pm
Re: The issue of "harm"
That's violating the universe of discourse though. It's saying "Let's change your scenario of no awareness so there is some awareness, just not by the victim."
The issue is whether or not there is actual harm done if there is no awareness of harm. One of the arguments that could be made, might be that harm can be done if the person is reduced to nothing more than an object by the perpetrator. It takes away the victim's humanity in a sense, rendering them to be sub-human.
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: The issue of "harm"
'Harm' is a matter of Perspective!
Anything that can be considered 'harmful' can also be considered 'beneficial'!
It 'harms' the flesh to poke a steel pointy thing through it.
'Harm'?
And by doing so, the needle dispenses a life saving medicine!
'Beneficial'!
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"- First Law of Soul Dynamics
Ignorance truly is Bliss!But does that mean then, as long as the party is ignorant of the act then no harm is done?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7934
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: The issue of "harm"
Well your post brings up two relevant points that depending, would either invalidate or at least marginalize your thread/question.Jack18 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 7:28 pmThat's violating the universe of discourse though. It's saying "Let's change your scenario of no awareness so there is some awareness, just not by the victim."
The issue is whether or not there is actual harm done if there is no awareness of harm. One of the arguments that could be made, might be that harm can be done if the person is reduced to nothing more than an object by the perpetrator. It takes away the victim's humanity in a sense, rendering them to be sub-human.
The first is: is the victim the best or only arbiter of the presence of harm? What about the abuse victim's family? What if strangers find out about a rape, for example and treat the victim worse (even if the victim is unaware of the inferior treatment)? Most would call that measurable harm.
The second is an extension of the butterfly effect: is anyone enough of an island that an objective harm (unfelt by the victim at time zero), can pass through time and continue over that time to have NO effect whatsoever?
- Jack18
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13
- Joined: February 22nd, 2018, 10:31 pm
Re: The issue of "harm"
LuckyR wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 8:01 pmWell your post brings up two relevant points that depending, would either invalidate or at least marginalize your thread/question.Jack18 wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 7:28 pm
That's violating the universe of discourse though. It's saying "Let's change your scenario of no awareness so there is some awareness, just not by the victim."
The issue is whether or not there is actual harm done if there is no awareness of harm. One of the arguments that could be made, might be that harm can be done if the person is reduced to nothing more than an object by the perpetrator. It takes away the victim's humanity in a sense, rendering them to be sub-human.
The first is: is the victim the best or only arbiter of the presence of harm? What about the abuse victim's family? What if strangers find out about a rape, for example and treat the victim worse (even if the victim is unaware of the inferior treatment)? Most would call that measurable harm.
But that again, requires "awareness."
So it seems to be saying is "Harm exists when there is awareness, but not when there is no awareness."
Your scenario there doesn't change my previous assertion of what your change is, which is "Let's change your scenario of no awareness so there is some awareness, just not by the victim."
Is there any reason to believe that to be the case in the given scenario?The second is an extension of the butterfly effect: is anyone enough of an island that an objective harm (unfelt by the victim at time zero), can pass through time and continue over that time to have NO effect whatsoever?
- Jack18
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13
- Joined: February 22nd, 2018, 10:31 pm
Re: The issue of "harm"
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7934
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: The issue of "harm"
Your answers accomplish exactly what I predicted, it marginalizes your thread/question. That is: it is a Special Case subset of the harms that FOREVER are unknown by ANYONE (except the perp). This would likely include about zero percent of what are called "crimes" since by definition crimes are crimes because the authorities decide that they violate the law. As to noncrimes, they would include way, way less than one percent since social and business transgressions (the denominator) happen much, much more frequently than crimes and probably have a similar "secretness" (the numerator).Jack18 wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2018, 2:06 pm
Well your post brings up two relevant points that depending, would either invalidate or at least marginalize your thread/question.
The first is: is the victim the best or only arbiter of the presence of harm? What about the abuse victim's family? What if strangers find out about a rape, for example and treat the victim worse (even if the victim is unaware of the inferior treatment)? Most would call that measurable harm.
But that again, requires "awareness."
So it seems to be saying is "Harm exists when there is awareness, but not when there is no awareness."
Your scenario there doesn't change my previous assertion of what your change is, which is "Let's change your scenario of no awareness so there is some awareness, just not by the victim."
Is there any reason to believe that to be the case in the given scenario?
So in conclusion you may very well be correct for this Special Case that basically lies outside of common experience. Bravo to you.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023