2 ms·

> our existing widespread moral intuition that A hurting B results in a moral and potentially legal claim to redress from B towards A This would be the part wh

> our existing widespread moral intuition that A hurting B results in a moral and potentially legal claim to redress from B towards A This would be the part where differ. I understand the argument, but as you point out it would lead us to a dead end. IMHO someone being hurt doesn’t mean they need reparation. As an example, people mourning are deeply hurt, and they will also be extra sensible to specific words that are mundane but resonate differently to them. We can both recognize they’re hurt, some words hit them differently, and have no redressment to them outside of sympathy perhaps. That’s an extreme example, but I would see a lot of steps on the spectrum, including for instance my boss hurting my feelings by coldly and factually pointing out how bad of a job I did. I get to decide if I’m hurt or not, but that doesn’t automatically make me a victim entitled to reparations.

TeMPOraL 4y ago
> IMHO someone being hurt doesn’t mean they need reparation. There needs to be some kind of end, some kind of closure to hurt - otherwise we have a positive feedback loop that amplifies suffering and eventually turns violent. > As an example, people mourning are deeply hurt, and they will also be extra sensible to specific words that are mundane but resonate differently to them. In this and similar cases (bad breakup, loss of health or future prospects or sentimental property, etc.), other people are making a time-limited concession to let the grieving person process their experience. Beyond that time limit, one should not expect others to keep carefully controlling their language for one's sake. One should especially not count on making those concessions permanent. > That’s an extreme example, but I would see a lot of steps on the spectrum, including for instance my boss hurting my feelings by coldly and factually pointing out how bad of a job I did. Happened to me the other day, and while I did suffer internally, not for a second I thought they should've been prohibited from saying what they said, or from saying it the way they did. It's not the words that hurt me, but awareness that I'm seen as less reliable in the eyes of the other (coupled with anxiety/fear related to the prospects of my future employment).
- ryanbrunner 4y ago
  > There needs to be some kind of end, some kind of closure to hurt - otherwise we have a positive feedback loop that amplifies suffering and eventually turns violent. I don't see why the end can't be education on the part of the person saying those words. The reasonable response to someone saying they're impacted negatively by a phrase is to find a way to rephrase it, maybe this isn't always possible, but 90% of the time it is and doing so will result in a more positive outcome for both parties pretty much always.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    > I don't see why the end can't be education on the part of the person saying those words. In specific cases it can, and is, what happens. But in general case it cannot - for the reason '4bpp already phrased well upthread: > One of the two therefore has to go for society to function: either you don't get to make the call if you are hurt, or it's a priori morally neutral to hurt you. Or, put another way: you can't both 1) be able to unilaterally declare you're being hurt, and 2) expect any moral or practical response from others to you being hurt. It's either one or the other - because allowing someone to have both means giving them power to easily control and hurt others without consequence.

TeMPOraL 4y ago

> IMHO someone being hurt doesn’t mean they need reparation. There needs to be some kind of end, some kind of closure to hurt - otherwise we have a positive feedback loop that amplifies suffering and eventually turns violent. > As an example, people mourning are deeply hurt, and they will also be extra sensible to specific words that are mundane but resonate differently to them. In this and similar cases (bad breakup, loss of health or future prospects or sentimental property, etc.), other people are making a time-limited concession to let the grieving person process their experience. Beyond that time limit, one should not expect others to keep carefully controlling their language for one's sake. One should especially not count on making those concessions permanent. > That’s an extreme example, but I would see a lot of steps on the spectrum, including for instance my boss hurting my feelings by coldly and factually pointing out how bad of a job I did. Happened to me the other day, and while I did suffer internally, not for a second I thought they should've been prohibited from saying what they said, or from saying it the way they did. It's not the words that hurt me, but awareness that I'm seen as less reliable in the eyes of the other (coupled with anxiety/fear related to the prospects of my future employment).

ryanbrunner 4y ago
> There needs to be some kind of end, some kind of closure to hurt - otherwise we have a positive feedback loop that amplifies suffering and eventually turns violent. I don't see why the end can't be education on the part of the person saying those words. The reasonable response to someone saying they're impacted negatively by a phrase is to find a way to rephrase it, maybe this isn't always possible, but 90% of the time it is and doing so will result in a more positive outcome for both parties pretty much always.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  > I don't see why the end can't be education on the part of the person saying those words. In specific cases it can, and is, what happens. But in general case it cannot - for the reason '4bpp already phrased well upthread: > One of the two therefore has to go for society to function: either you don't get to make the call if you are hurt, or it's a priori morally neutral to hurt you. Or, put another way: you can't both 1) be able to unilaterally declare you're being hurt, and 2) expect any moral or practical response from others to you being hurt. It's either one or the other - because allowing someone to have both means giving them power to easily control and hurt others without consequence.