Justification for harming others
Can harming other humans ever be justified. (Other than in self defence)
Does allowing harm to others create a situation where it would be hypocritical to condemn someone else for harming another person?
In the case of self defence I would argue for reasonable force where you aim not to harm the person beyond using necessary force.
Can you justify causing harm to a child by procreating?
Does allowing harm to others create a situation where it would be hypocritical to condemn someone else for harming another person?
In the case of self defence I would argue for reasonable force where you aim not to harm the person beyond using necessary force.
Can you justify causing harm to a child by procreating?
Comments (35)
In practice (and facts on the ground can be quite compelling) proactively harming others is routine and customary policy. I wasn't thinking of any particular recent bombing raids. We've been bashing each other's brains out for a very long time.
As for procreation, soldiers will be needed to continue the policy of proactively harming others, so it's OK. Offspring are needed to keep the system going -- as drudges in factories, as drudges buying stuff in stores, and/or as drudges on the battle field. There is a lot of drudgery to be done, and somebody has to do it. It might as well be your children.
"Your failing to procreate just makes more procreative work for other people. Do your share, you lazy bastards!" he said with irony.
So, for example, I think it's completely justifiable to smile and say "Hello" to someone as you pass by them on the street, even though that person might be psychologically upset that you did that, because they have a neurosis about it.
The Aztecs considered human sacrifice to be an essential to human existence and welfare. Getting one's still-beating heart ripped from one's body certainly qualifies as "harming"...the perceived necessity for propitiating gods by ripping a still-beating heart qualifies as "justified."
The Aztecs were not alone in thinking and acting this way.
.
Maybe I should have put the word "deliberately" in my question.
What you are talking about is accidental harm. I think accidental harm is a serious problem and we should try and avoid it.
I don't know how much harm exactly is intentional. But accidental harm can be minimized. I think one problem of life is the exploitation of others and the environment necessary for life. (Insentient robots to some extent might lessen this)
If someone had a neurosis about being approached in the street then they would probably spend a lot of time in doors. If someone looked nervous then approaching them would not seem a good idea.
Intentionally, I think it can be justifiable to push people to do things they don't want to do, to nag at them, etc. That can produce change in a way that just letting them be doesn't. It depends on the situation, the people involved, etc.
Should we choose culture over reason? I am thinking more of a reason based assessment.
Utilitarian has an issue here. A utilitarian could justify killing one totally innocent healthy person to save a thousand lives. But would you want to be that person? On the other hand if you do accept the death of one person like this what logical grounds do you then have for condemning arbitrary violence.
You might contrast this with a boxing match however where there is consensual harm. Someone might accept harm and allow themselves to commit it. But I see that as an endorsement of harm per se.
Wouldn't the difference be whether you're saving thousands of lives?
But this seems to be because you want to help rather than harm them.
I think harming someone to help them is a tricky issue. A surgeon might do this, but even so patients usually have to consent to a health intervention.
I can accept that it might be necessary to harm someone for some reason but I would not therefore see that as a good thing. For example I think a heart transplant has many negative features. Such as the patients health problems before the transplant, the death of the heart donor and the long term disability and healthcare need that can occur after the surgery.
I think it probably should be primarily down to the individual how much they want to be harmed to be helped.
Maybe WE shouldn't...but the Aztecs might differ. And your question was: "Can harming other humans ever be justified. (Other than in self defence)"
The answer, as I see it...is YES.
Okay...but keep in mind that an Aztec chief or shaman might consider "being essential to human existence and welfare" to be a very reason-based assessment.
Not if I could help it...but people sacrifice their lives for all sorts of reason. So there may be some who would answer YES.
I just do not want to see it happen...so I condemn it. But that does not mean I cannot answer your question the way I did.
Some people get off on being hurt. Masochists do...and derive sexual pleasure from it.
I don't think that was where you were going with your question, though.
But I think you have logically invalidated the value of life by killing one person without his or her consent. Why does the innocent person you are killing's life have no value?
Also I think even if you felt you had to kill one to save a thousand lives it could still be deemed immoral. I think the problem with utilitarianism is the lack of value it allows for individual lives.
I think self sacrifice is a problem also. Even if someone consented to die for a thousand others.
Because if this is the only lifetime we have then I can't see a rational or desirable reason to end it other than unbearable suffering.
I can imagine throwing myself in front of a bus to save a child or friend/ relative but that would be "extra-rational" and emotive and spontaneous.
There have been many discussions of antinatalism here on the forum. @schopenhauer1 is one of it's prime proponents. I'm sure he'll have thoughts.
My older brother has had multiple sclerosis for over 20 years which has left him paralyzed for around ten years.
I find it problematic, that creating children who end up with profound illnesses and disabilities can be justified especially if we usually condemn inflicting harm on others.
It seems to me we should definitely minimize any possible harm offspring might face. I would put the onus squarely on a parent to minimize their offspring suffering.
My overall stance is that suffering is almost always bad and undesirable and unjustifiable. I think pointless and unjustifiable suffering is probably the worst kind.
Consent mitigates this situation somewhat. You could argue that desired pain is actually pleasure.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
I think it should be based upon why you feel you need to harm someone, rather than if harming someone altogether is wrong. Most times people harm others for revenge or avenging someone else. If harm came to my sibling, I might feel the need to inflict harm upon the attacker. If harm came to myself, I would feel the need to defend myself. If you want something someone else has, usually as adults we ask and receive with our manners. But taking into consideration toddlers, they often will hit, bite scratch, etc. to get the toy they want. Is that wrong? Probably, but to the covetous toddler it seemed fine. However, we usually create wars this way. Someone wants land, they attack the owner of said land and claim it as their own. Then the family of the previous owner(now dead or dying) wants revenge, so they attack and kill the other guy. I'm not sure if this was helpful, but over all I think it has to do with reasons rather than if it's supposedly 'wrong' to cause harm. In the case of the toddler, one thought they were right about hitting and the other(the one who was harmed) thought them wrong.
As we've discussed in many recent threads, both about morality and aesthetics, I don't believe that value/valuing is anything other than how an individual feels about something. I don't think it's possible to "logically invalidate" that, and "logical invalidation" suggests that we're dealing with something that has a truth value (validity is an idea that has to do with truth value; logic in general deals with truth value via implication etc.), but moral and aesthetic (e)valuations have no truth value.
Yup...you are right on the button here, Andrew.
BUT...harming others IS harming others...and that is what you asked about.
And the people doing the hurting are saying it is justified.
So are you.
I think feelings and beliefs can be contradictory and actions. I think you can accuse people of being irrational/unreasonable or contradictory on this basis.
This is like the positions of wrong to kill vs abortion vs death penalty or the case that criminals do not like criminal offences committed against them. Cases of cognitive dissonance you could say.
I am saying consensual harm is mitigated which is by no means the same as justified.
If you come from the position that harm is unacceptable then that would undermine any justification for harm.
I think once you have reasoned that some harm is acceptable then you undermine the grounds for saying any harm is unacceptable.
I think a lot of superstitions are not evidence based anyway. If someone was sacrificed to The Rain God to create rain and that did not create rain that would undermine the justification for the killing
In a lot of those sorts of cases people simply are not articulating their actual stances very well. The stances are going to be more detailed, nuanced, qualified than what they may have stated.
Please ignore this question if it's too personal - What does your brother think?
I don't have much patience with the antinatalist's ideas or justifications. I'll let others speak for their positions.
Okay...then I'd better not come from that position...which I do not.
I'd prefer it not happen...but I am not of the opinion that it is unacceptable.
Thank you for sharing what you think on this issue. I'll stick with what I think, though.
Okay. But so what?
Requiring "evidence based" was not a part of your question.
If one hopes to win a lottery...and one does not win...does that undermine the hope?
You are being WAY too black and white on this issue, Andrew.
There are justifications. You may not agree with them...but that does not make them non-justifications.
If harm includes sending someone to jail in order to keep him from committing other crimes, then yes.Quoting Andrew4Handel
These antinatilism posts continue to pollute this forum.
My brother does not have children and said he would not have children if there was a risk of them getting MS.
I don't know what his opinion is on antinatalism.
It is easier to make contradictory statements and hold contradictory beliefs when you do not have profound beliefs.
Another scenario is someone who hates Clark Kent but Loves Superman. You can have contradictory feelings because you are unaware that the objects of a belief are the same thing.
Do you think there are justifications for having sex with children?
I think there might be a conflation of excuse and justification here.
However my overall point would be once you justify some harm it does undermine claims such as that we shouldn't harm others or that lives are valuable.
Take another look at the question to which I am responding. (I notice there is no question mark...but it obviously is a question...and it is THE question to which I have been responding.)
YES, Andrew, there are times harming other humans can be justified...and it does not have to be a self-defense situation.
You may not agree with the justification...BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION.
Several posters here have offered reasonable scenarios of the position I have taken...and you are rejecting them because you seem determined to come up with "There NEVER is a justification for harming others."
If you had written, "It is my opinion that harming others is NEVER justified"...that would have been fine. You certainly are entitled to that position.
But you did not...you went further and asked for what you are getting...and then rejecting it.
For the record, my opinion is that it is possible for one human to harm another (non-defense harm)...and for it to be justified.
Well my position is that justifying any harm justifies all harm or leads to moral inconsistency and incoherence.
If someone endorses causing me harm I see that as endorsement of harm per se. I couldn't take seriously further claims they made prohibiting harm or telling me not to cause harm.
As I said...you seem to have a black or white position on this.
I think you are way off base on the issue...but you've got to live with your take on it.
That is because I find suffering completely unacceptable.
It's easy to justify harming others. I don't understand OP, you're asking if there's any "what" justification? Reasonable? Sustainable? I think we live in a blessed society where there are very few long-term sensible reasons for harming others but that's only because there are punishments for it. If you harmed someone else and gained something of substantial value from it and there were no repercussions, isn't your condemnation rather meaningless?
In a society with the proper protections, hurting others is the same as hurting yourself or at least taking a big risk. I'm against hurting yourself or taking huge risks like that, I can't accept that as a rational way to behave. Revenge, for the ego, jealousy and so on, fleeting and if you could just deal with it some other way, then you and your family/friends would be so much better off.
If it were 100% certain you could kill someone for 1-10x your annual salary with 0% chance of any kind of repercussions, external or internal consequences. Curtailing yourself for your ideals has an appeal to some people but for specifically that person, a choice to harm seems pragmatic.
Some other things I'm willing to argue about
- If you're raised to harm others
- If you live in a place where harming others is rewarding (Joining a violent group in a poor country or a violent political party like Nazi Germany/Soviet Union)
- Dealing with bullies/offensive remarks/actions (I wouldn't but I think their argument is better than "no harm irrespective of circumstances"
- Use of necessary force to reclaim stolen property
- Retaliation (sticking up for yourself despite non-violent solutions existing)
- I'd include a bunch of political/military reasons for violence but I assume we're leaving those out
I could probably come up with more, significantly I'm not saying the aforementioned justifications for violence are necessarily the best options. Most of the time, there's a better way of handling things but in so far as would they have justification for doing what violence in those situations, I'd say they did. Not really advocating violence, I can't think of any non-self defence reason for me to hurt someone but I think reasonable justifications exist (if that was what you're asking for, you didn't say).
I think that if something is not the best option then it is less reasonable.
I think harm leads to more harm. For example bombing Germany and Japan in world war two was a response to harm. There would be no justification for the second harm if the first harm hadn't happened.
I think we need to start from the first cases of harm because I think if there was no harm in the begin there would be less harm after. Things like social inequality and poverty can cause further chronic harms.
I don't know exactly the most appropriate way to define "Justification" there are various definitions but I am looking at it in a more morality and reasoning sense.
I think if you killed someone and made a million dollars on the surface that seems to give a reason for killing them. But very few people believe that is acceptable. But also if you turned that into a moral rule, that you could kill someone for profit then it would create a war of all against all. I think reasoning would lead to cooperation and harm minimization.
Another thing is that when I talk about justification I am not just looking at the person committing the harm for whatever reason but at the victim, can you justify to the victim what you have done to them.
It is less reasonable but they're nonetheless more or less culturally accepted examples where causing harm has justifications that many people are sympathetic to. You have decided that the victim also needs to agree and realistically, in some of the cases I provided, they might. If you insult someone too viciously, you may be expecting violence and feeling you yourself might respond violently, it is possible.
It is just you who decided that the victim needs to agree though, I don't accept that as a pre-requisite to a fair justification. I think we also have different estimations of how much violence morality prevents, I lean more towards people being scared, logical, lacking motive and desire, empathy and many other things before moral obligation or rules.
I am a pragmatist, violence is generally not helpful because it has many negative consequences. Your argument relies on some lofty premises, why should I play by the victim's rules? I'm the one who has to justify my actions to myself, the law is already set against violence, convincing myself and my friends, that's all that's within my power to attempt to do.