3 ms·

The definition is not precise at all, because "harm" and "benefit" cannot be precisely defined and can in fact be very subjective.

• wvenable 4y ago
  Turtles all the way down? I don't think you need precise definitions of "harm" and "benefit" to understand the point. The subjectiveness of these terms don't not undermine the definition.
  • brazzy 4y ago
    I really think it does. Case in point: what about emotional benefits? A whole lot of things humans do has no material benefits yet come at considerable cost: vacations, concerts, hobbies. Are those "stupid"? Presumably not. But if you allow for such non-material benfit, then what if your "stupid" people who are causing harm to others are actually deriving emotional benefits from it? What it "stickin' it to the libs" makes them happy or feels to them like bringing a little bit of justice to the world? How about someone who quits his job (losing money) at just the right time to cause his shitty boss huge problems (and a lot more money loss)? Is that different? Do you really want to judge which emotional benefits are valid and which are not (and thus "stupid")? And call that a "precise definition"?
    • wvenable 4y ago
      > What it "stickin' it to the libs" makes them happy or feels to them like bringing a little bit of justice to the world? If that's entirely all of it then it's clearly a benefit. But conversely if "stickin' it to the libs" makes them lose their family, their job, or something else then the harm might outweigh the benefit and that would be stupid. Seems straight forward to me.