4 ms·
I don't think the moral intuition of "you should let people do what they want, unless they're hurting other people" is real in the first place. I often see peop
by SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
I don't think the moral intuition of "you should let people do what they want, unless they're hurting other people" is real in the first place. I often see people try and make the claim work, but in even the most basic scenarios, it requires transparently motivated reasoning to dismiss some kinds of hurt as fabricated or illegitimate. "My mother says it genuinely pains her that I've gotten a tattoo, but that can't be true, since I have a right to get a tattoo if I want."
- gweinberg 2y agowell, if you count emotional harm as harm, and anyone can be emotionally harmed by anything, then the rule becomes meaningless.
- marcosdumay 2y agoAnd if you don't count emotional harm as harm, you'll let insistent stalking, threatening, and all kinds of moral abuses pass. So yeah, the definition is completely useless.
- Duwensatzaj 2y agoI don't think you need to treat emotional harm as harm when you can criminalize credible threats or harassment (repeated unwanted personal contact after being told to stop). There is the tort of outrage or "Intentional infliction of emotional distress" which does treat emotional harm as harm that can be recovered against in a civil case, but it's controversial, hard to prove and limited in scope.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoI don't understand the distinction you're drawing. What kind of harm do credible threats or harassment cause if not emotional harm?
- Duwensatzaj 2y agoRational fear of a crime being committed? I'd struggle to call that emotional harm. I might not be upset about a threat, but still respond to it by changing my behavior or actions, and for various reasons society wants to discourage people from using the threat of initiated force in most situations.