NOS88

Harm is a cultural construct. That is, its meaning is highly dependent on the culture in which the term is used. For example, if you were to ask my father (an ex-military drill instructor) about the concept of harm, he would likely quote the saying, "If it doesn't kill you it will make you stronger." He would be coming from a strong military culture with his thinking. However, in the field of social work/ human services (a field with a very different culture) harm is generally related to the notion of quality of life. Quality of life, in this context, has at least two dimensions. The first is that for the general population - do people have housing, adequate food, health care, live near transportation, have adequate income, etc. The second is the highly personalized dimension for each individual. What constitutes quality of life for me might be very different than what constitutes quality of life for you. Harm, once again in the field of social work / human services would be a lowering of quality of life (possibly in both dimensions). Hence, the mandate in the field of social work/ human services is that my interactions with others in my professional role should not diminish quality of life for those with which I work. There is, however, a second construct that one can consider which incorporates Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Harm could be defined as damage to an individual which keeps them from moving through the hierarchy of needs or actions that lower ones position within the hierarchy. All of this is, as earlier stated, related to the specific field of human services/ social work. I strongly suspect that if you were to ask a lawyer to define harm you would get an answer consistent with that culture. Oh, perhaps I should define culture. I'm using the term as that which represents the norms, stated or unstated, that exist within groups defining how one ought to act. Hope that answers it for you, and that you simply aren't looking for an argument.

duckforcover

No, man, not looking for an argument....easy there.

But, I love your explanation.

NOS88

Yeah, sorry. My last sentence wasn't needed.

duckforcover

no problem, I really asked the question hoping to show that it is not easily defined.

You have done that, and very eloquently.

It is so dynamic by nature, one force pushing against the other.

If 10 cyclists stopped and took apples, is it less harmful or more harmful.?

My dad was a cop, so these things interest me... and he has helped me in my life with all of the stories and tales of human spirit, both good and bad.

maddmaxx 

My example was on a slightly different tack................by taking the apple, do you do harm to yourself.

Depends on your own personal ethics I guess.

ahsposo 

I think it comes down to need.

If the 10 cyclists had somehow become lost and spent hours trying to ride back to civilization and were hungry and thirsty and this fruit was the first and apparently only chance to get some fluid and nutrition that taking is less far less wrong than 10 cyclists who spying the fruit help themselves and, in fact, ultimately waste the majority of it throwing it at cars on a highway from an overpass.

We may get peeved at insects and animals that eat our crops. As irksome as that may be I can't imagine anyone arguing that they are being "unethical". In nature when the organism needs it takes as available. Concepts such as "personal property" are man made constructs and outside the order of nature.

nycphotography

Which is why "first do no harm" is meaningless. It presumes / requires knowledge that is often not available.

Perhaps, "first, assuming the most restrictive possible interpretation of harm and it's limitation on your actions, do no harm" would be more more appropriate.

nycphotography

So your premise is that since we are basically just a bunch of hairless baboons, we should adopt an animalistic standard for what defines right and wrong?

At no point in the original premise was impending starvation either stated nor even implied.

jr59

When I am riding and somebody drafts off of me, without asking, is it stealing?

DnvrFox

If it had been, would your response be different?

If it would be different, how much or how close to starvation would justify taking an apple?

nycphotography

I personally don't think it's ethical to hold an involuntarily starving man to ethical standards.

However, I also don't think the premise included starvation, so adding it as justification for an action smells of rationalization more so than mitigating circumstances.

Define starving? I think that may be a bit like defining pornography.

Here's a better one: define involuntarily starving.

DnvrFox

It's your term. You define it.

ahsposo 

There you go.

It comes down to "etiquette" not "ethics"

The Weak Link

This thread needs to be euthanized. Should it be purely voluntary or just kind of implicit or even better, by committee members who won't be swayed by silly emotions for the collective good of the People?

As a professional I am in a greatly superior position, by virtue of my elitist professional training and certification from peer-reviewed organizations, to make these decisions, even flying in the face of your emotional populist appeal to the unwashed masses.

This thread will be put to death before the end of the year, so any beneficiaries will not have to pay the 55% death tax.

I'm sure we'll be opposed by a bunch of sentimental fools, probably a bunch of religious nutters, clinging onto their guns and their bibles, and frightened of any ideas that come from strangers.

This thread is going down. Pull out the G-tube. Those aren't smiles, they're grimaces of pain, and we must hasten the end of this poor painful thread. Notice how the thread has never looked so angelic as it slips into a starvation-induced coma. Such a beautiful site. Our race is now free to evolve to it's highest level of perfection, now that the dead-wood has been cleared out.

Now if you'll excuse me, I must fly to DC so I can advise Barry. He's looking for ways to trim the budget I hear so that no one, and I mean no one, will have to pay an extra dime for health care.

Robert Foster

The problem is we are trying to excuse anti social behavior based on limited information. Normative ethics is just about the only form of ethics that doesn't have a political component. It was or is a study of roght or wrong based on an idea rather than a political need. Postmodern ethics is more of what some seem to be favoring in thins forum, is Marxist at its heart and not normally concerned with right or wrong.

As a society we have agreed that our property is our property and someone that takes that property without permission is a thief, or at the very least an accused thief.

We as a society have a right to determine what we will and will not allow by ageement and that agreement is called a law. There is little or no difference between someone taking apples from a person's tree without permission or from another persons fruit stand without permission. If caught the offending person should be prosecuted and judged to see if they had a reason suitable to avoid punishment.

Some would say we are putting people in a box by calling them a thief simply because they take what isn't thiers but we are lucky that our society has a name for that as well. Someone that feels they are above or have no regurads for the laws or moralities of society is called a sociopath. I like the first two bullets in the discription of a sociopath.


Glibness and Superficial Charm

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Call it ethics or not it is more than just being proper or etiquett. Taking what isn't yours is simply saying the person you are taking from is worth less than you are. It is the ultimate domination of the stronger over the weeker. Take what you have the power to take from those who do not have the power to stop you. That puts a person in the same catagory as one intimated earlier, nothing more than an animal that has no control over their actions. We should be above that.

Marx would disagree I am sure. Winchester has a solution to part of the problem.

You can't steal a draft, it is something the person in front is never aware of or can ever possess themselves. You can steal an apple.

nycphotography

Just because a religion doesn't have guns and bibles doesn't mean it's not a full blown kool-aid drinking kooky-scary religion in it's own right.

Garfield Cat

The right to any property is not an absolute right. For every kind of "right", there are responsibilities. Freedom is different, you are free to ignore your responsibilities. But there are consequences.

kr32

I wonder if the dude was just getting apples for the upcoming Pie Ride Day? If so would he be excused?

jr59

You say they can't teal my draft.

Why not? I created it!

ahsposo 

And it could have worse "real" consequences than a few stolen apples, if you think about it.

Say some self absorbed twit is riding along listening to some really jamming tunes with the earbuds in his auditory orifice and young hotshot makes his wheel. Young hotshot, having really made an effort here, relaxes and goes to wipe his eyes. The oblivious self absorbed twit, Karen Carpenter just rocking his world, spys an upcoming pothole and brakes and swerves totally unaware of the rider on his wheel (who is an up-and-coming Cat 5, BTW). Wheels get clipped and both riders go down and Billy Bob, who's draining the last of his tallboy and doesn't ever see the downed riders until much later rolls over them in his pick-up truck which just happens to be loaded with dead, legally harvested doves.

Was Billy Bob wrong to throw the empty tallboy out in the road? Or should he have saved it to recycle?