#harm principle

[tmarshconnors]

“I have learned to seek my happiness by limiting my desires, rather than in attempting to satisfy them.”

John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher, political economist, politician and civil servant. One of the most influential thinkers in the history of liberalism. (20 May 1806 – 7 May 1873.)

Proponent of Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill was a leading advocate of utilitarianism, a moral philosophy originally developed by Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that actions are right if they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Mill expanded on Bentham's ideas, emphasizing qualitative differences in pleasures.

Author of "On Liberty": Mill's seminal work "On Liberty" (1859) is a cornerstone of liberal political philosophy. In it, he argues for the importance of individual freedom and autonomy, asserting that society should only restrict individual actions if they harm others, encapsulating this idea in what is known as the Harm Principle.

Advocate for Women's Rights: Mill was an early and passionate advocate for gender equality. In his book "The Subjection of Women" (1869), he argued for the legal and social equality of women, making a strong case against the oppression and disenfranchisement of women in Victorian society.

Influence on Political Economy: As a political economist, Mill made significant contributions to economic theory. His "Principles of Political Economy" (1848) was a comprehensive survey of economic thought and policy, covering topics such as supply and demand, labour, and the role of government in the economy. It was a standard textbook for decades.

Early Education and Intellectual Development: Mill had an extraordinary early education, rigorously guided by his father, James Mill. By the age of three, he was reading Greek, and by eight, he was proficient in Latin. His intensive and broad education laid the groundwork for his later intellectual achievements, making him one of the most learned individuals of his time.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Limits of Tolerance

Tolerance is often celebrated as a cornerstone of democratic societies and a necessary virtue for peaceful coexistence in diverse communities. However, even this seemingly unassailable virtue has its limits. The challenge lies in determining where these limits should be drawn to balance the need for open-mindedness and the protection of societal values and safety. This exploration delves into the philosophical considerations and practical implications of setting limits on tolerance.

The Paradox of Tolerance

Philosopher Karl Popper famously articulated the "paradox of tolerance," which suggests that unlimited tolerance can lead to the demise of tolerance itself. If a society is endlessly tolerant, even of intolerant groups, those groups could ultimately undermine and destroy the very foundation of tolerance. Thus, Popper argued that to maintain a tolerant society, we must be intolerant of intolerance.

Criteria for Limiting Tolerance

Harm Principle: As proposed by John Stuart Mill, the harm principle can be a guiding criterion for setting limits on tolerance. According to this principle, the actions or beliefs of individuals or groups should only be restricted if they cause harm to others. This means that expressions or behaviors that incite violence, discrimination, or significant harm should not be tolerated.

Threat to Democratic Values: Tolerance should be limited when it comes to ideologies and actions that threaten the core democratic values of freedom, equality, and justice. For instance, hate speech, which undermines the dignity and rights of individuals, may be restricted to preserve these foundational values.

Respect for Human Rights: Any belief or practice that violates basic human rights should not be tolerated. This includes practices that perpetuate oppression, such as slavery, gender discrimination, or religious persecution. Tolerance should not extend to actions that dehumanize or marginalize others.

Social Cohesion and Order: Tolerance should be balanced with the need for social cohesion and order. Groups or ideologies that seek to disrupt societal harmony and promote division or conflict may need to be curtailed to ensure the stability and well-being of the community.

Challenges and Controversies

Defining Harm: One of the major challenges in limiting tolerance is defining what constitutes harm. Different societies and individuals have varying thresholds for what they consider harmful, leading to potential conflicts over what should be tolerated.

Freedom of Expression: Limiting tolerance, especially concerning freedom of speech, raises the issue of censorship. Determining where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech is contentious and can lead to accusations of suppressing dissent and stifling debate.

Cultural Relativism: In multicultural societies, the limits of tolerance can be particularly challenging to navigate. Practices that are intolerable in one culture may be acceptable in another. Balancing respect for cultural diversity with the protection of universal human rights is a complex task.

Setting the limits of tolerance is a delicate balancing act that requires careful consideration of the principles of harm, democratic values, human rights, and social cohesion. While tolerance is essential for a pluralistic and peaceful society, it must be bounded by the need to protect individuals and communities from harm and uphold fundamental values. By thoughtfully addressing these limits, societies can foster an environment that promotes both diversity and respect.

[luvsjimmyreed]

Jimmy Reed: Morals and Movements

Question: I'd like you to answer me this, Jimmy! I dare you to point to me specific examples of metal elitists petitioning, demonstrating, or in any way lobbying against Avenged Sevenfold. I bet you can't! Metal elitism isn't a movement, bro! Jimmy Reed: Uh, buddy, listen! I'll grant you that I never heard of, uh, specific cases of metal elitists doing those. Nonetheless, the fact remains that many of you do have this tendency to judge the character of other people by what bands they like. When you do that... you are, in fact, making a moral judgement. Anytime you believe that... a certain quality... is some form of a character flaw - then, yeah, it is a moral judgement. Otherwise, you would be content to simply 'agree to disagree'.

[claudesuggestions]

On Insults and Contempt: Part 4

My Query:

So, ultimately, invoking the "harm principle" would be a better approach than suggestion they redirect their contempt for "weirdos" towards murders instead - since the latter could technically fall under "whataboutism"? By using the former approach, you're making your point that there is no legitimate reason to insult "weirdos" a bit more clear?

~~~~~

Claude-3-Haiku's Response:

Yes, I think you make a good point. Invoking the harm principle is generally a stronger and more direct approach than suggesting they redirect their contempt towards murderers instead.

The "redirect their contempt" approach could potentially veer into whataboutism territory, as you noted. It risks distracting from the core issue of being unfairly insulted as a "weirdo" by trying to make a broader comparative point.

In contrast, appealing to the harm principle keeps the focus squarely on the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of using that particular insult against you. It challenges the person to justify how your "weirdness" is causing actual harm, which puts the onus on them to defend their position.

By framing it in terms of an established philosophical framework like Mill's harm principle, you're making a clearer, more principled argument. It's a direct rebuttal of the insult itself, rather than trying to counter it by pointing to other more severe forms of contempt.

So in summary, yes - the harm principle approach is generally more effective. It allows you to make your point about the lack of ethical justification for insulting someone as a "weirdo" without getting sidetracked. It's a more focused and rigorous way to address the core issue at hand.

[wellhealthhub]

Unveiling 10 Aspects of Undeniable Knowledge

List 10 things you know to be absolutely certain. Engage with this comprehensive exploration of ten spheres of knowledge which harbor absolute certainty. Traverse through scientific and mathematical realms to personal beliefs and self-growth, unveiling the doctrines that offer us unshakeable truths. Plunge into certainty’s depths and uncover the basic principles shaping our understanding of the…

[greencheekconure27]

American tankies and other useful idiots: "USA controls all world politics and is responsible for literally all the evil in the world"

Also American tankies: "Yeah it doesn't matter if we elect a mad fascist dictator with history of rape and selling state secrets or a normal competent person.This will have zero influence on global politics. Stick it to The Man, don't vote! That'll show them!"

[dwarveslikeshinythings]

I WANT CHARLES EDWARDS TO KNOW I LOVE HIM

I WANT ROB ARAMAYO TO KNOW I LOVE HIM

I WANT SAM HAZELDINE TO KNOW I LOVE HIM

I WANT MORFYDD CLARK TO KNOW I LOVE HER

I WANT CHARLIE VICKERS TO KNOW I WOULDN'T HESITATE TO THROW HIS ANNAT-ASS OFF AN ELEVEN-STORY BUILDING FOR WHAT HE DID TO CELEBRIMBOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lgbtlunaverse]

Life as a JGY stan is so hard because sometimes I want to make posts about the ways his very justified paranoia turns against him sometimes, rare moments where I think being more trusting or vulnerable would have helped but he felt like it couldnt, or talk about how his brutal survival instinct intersects with society's existing bigotries in a such a way that most of his violence is actually aimed at people lower on the ladder than him, with people like Jin Guangshan being the exception not the rule. Because he's a fascinating character and these parts of him are interesting!

But when I do that I have to live in perpetual fear of the moment that it escapes its target audience and someone takes it to go "Yeah he's a monster who fucked over everyone and is incapable of love! I wish he was killed earlier and his death was a thousand times more painful 🤪"

I mean, take my last example. Due to existing hierarchies it is, at any point, easier and safer for jgy to harm people less powerful than him instead of more powerful than him, even if the more powerful are the ones threatening his safety in the first place. Even knowing how it harms him and while working against it, Jin Guangyao is not immune to internalizing the mindset of the world he lives in. Even when killing Jin Guangshan- one man- it ends up costing the lives of 20 sex workers. You think I can bring up the sex workers in this fucking fandom? You think that will go over peacefully? The well has been so thoroughly poisoned here it feels like any conversation around morality automatically turns into a courtroom to determine a sentence for this fictional fucking character who's already dead.

[itspileofgoodthings]

my classes went SO well today I will cry

[soph-skies]

mianmian, who never had a positive relationship with wwx, PUBLICLY LEAVING HER CLAN because they refused to acknowledge that they are the villains for torturing innocent people and that wwx was only defending those same people and is not a murderous madman. finally someone with principles they actually believe in enough to do something about it!!!

[faaun]

WHAT DO I DOOO

[stheresya]

gentrified incest and castrated lesbianism being the most popular "pairing" choices for sansa.... I mean I'm not concerned or anything because grrm may be many things but he has taste when it comes to romance. but it is unfortunate to see what this fandom has become...

[luvsjimmyreed]

Jimmy Reed: On Attributes and Moral Judgement

Question: Since when are 'weak' and 'pathetic' qualities that makes someone an evil person? Jimmy Reed: Well, my lovely, that's a very good question. My simple answer to this is... Well, they don't! They should not be seen as character flaws on par with traits such as, say... violent, callous, manipulative, sadistic, or intolerant... and, thus, worthy of contempt. I do question the moral compass of those who think being 'weak' or 'pathetic' are good reasons to look down on someone. They aren't. They could be signs of someone who was broken down by abuse, so they don't need salt to be rubbed into the wound.

[claudesuggestions]

On Insults and Contempt: Part 3

My Query:

What about invoking John Stuart Mill's "harm principle" in response to being called a "weirdo" as an insult?

~~~~~

Claude-3-Haiku's Response:

Invoking John Stuart Mill's "harm principle" could be an interesting and thought-provoking response to being called a "weirdo" as an insult.

The harm principle essentially states that the only legitimate reason to restrict someone's freedom is to prevent harm to others. So the implication would be - how is your "weirdness" causing harm to the person insulting you? By that standard, their contempt and insult would be unjustified.

Some potential ways you could frame this response:

"According to the harm principle established by philosopher John Stuart Mill, the only legitimate reason to criticize someone's behavior is if it causes harm to others. How exactly is my 'weirdness' harming you or anyone else? Shouldn't we reserve contempt for acts that actually cause real harm, not just things you personally find unusual or unconventional?"

This challenges the person to justify their insult on the basis of preventing harm, rather than just personal preference or social norms. It shifts the burden of proof to them to explain the harm your "weirdness" is causing.

Invoking a respected philosophical principle like the harm principle also adds an intellectual framing to the discussion, rather than it just being an emotional back-and-forth.

The key would be to present it in a calm, reasoned manner - not as a confrontational argument, but as a sincere inquiry into the ethical basis for their judgment.

Done thoughtfully, this approach could lead to a more nuanced discussion about the limits of social conformity, the nature of harm, and the importance of respecting individual differences. It may cause the other person to re-examine the foundations of their insult.

[ettadunham]

sometimes i remember the hunger games and how nobody actually paid attention to what was in those books

[57sfinest]

okay as a Jean Enjoyer i feel like i need to say this because there are different genres of jean enjoyment (jeanres if you will). i am of the faction where i don’t really vibe with the whole “jeangst” thing (as it exists as a fandom phenomenon) and here’s why. so much of the stuff i see labeled “jeangst” is WAY too sympathetic to and forgiving of jean for my taste. like he’s woobified or there’s a lot of uncritical ‘poor jean harry is so mean to him and now harry’s amnesia ruined his life :(’ type stuff which is such a fundamental misunderstanding of him and his role in harry’s past & present and it skews how we view his dynamic with harry too. and i don’t mean this as “oh considering jean’s pov is bad!!1!1″ no i consider his pov all the time i am indescribably mentally ill about the torment that the jeanharry relationship puts both jean and harry through. but when we consider his point of view i really think that just ascribing him the simple role of ‘poor depressed punching bag’ strips him of all the interesting parts of his character & also contributes to a less nuanced and accurate understanding of harry as well (it makes it easy to villainize him for his addiction and mental illness, which in and of themselves aren’t moral failings-- harry was a bad person for his behavior, which is not the same as his addiction or his illnesses)

like, jean put himself in this situation. over and over again. yes he was likely forced into working with harry, but whatever’s going on between them is more than a workplace conflict. you look at luiga’s twitter and he’s said so much about jean and harry’s codependency and the other mentions of a very close and very unhealthy personal relationship. you see the way jean talks about his own role vs harry’s in the ending-- jean WANTS to be the poor victim, he wants everyone to see him as the helpless punching bag who is being such a saint by Putting Up With Harry And His Bullshit, look at me, i’m so much better than this stupid mentally ill addict! he’s like harry you are so unprofessional, and there is something wrong with you, and we are all so tired of putting up with you and your shitty behavior, but here he is sitting in a hotel lobby in a wig to harass harry while harry is actually doing his job!! like jean my love here you are reaming harry out about “doing his fucking job” sir what are you doing!! you are sitting in a hotel looking angry for 14 hours just in case your special little partner who you are definitely sooo mad at condescends to speak to you for a few minutes!! and you dragged poor judit out here too!! jean. girl. babe. it’s time to admit you are a massive hypocrite with an even bigger victim complex. you, a mentally ill addict, are losing your shit at harry for being a mentally ill addict. why don’t you meaningfully address the actual behaviors instead of just reminding harry that he’s an alcoholic every 2 minutes.

like i’m not saying jean should have infinite patience for harry after multiple years of mistreatment but damn dude the double standards are insane. jean is instigating a messy public breakup and being pretty abusive the whole time and then he’s like everyone feel bad for ME and not STUPID HARRY who is an ALCOHOLIC in case anyone forgot. he goes on and on about how much his life sucks and how much harry sucks and boohoo poor him he’s so depressed and beaten down by the shitkid etc but then in ANY sub-ideal ending you get there’s still something that tells you that he’s still taking harry back or at least considering it. in the cuno ending “he can’t leave you behind. he just can’t. one final time...” even in the worst ending “if you make it-- if you’re sober for 10 months-- tell us. i’ll work with you again.” jean babe if you hate him so much then stay the fuck away from him!! damn!! your codependency is showing!! your victim complex is showing!! just go get harry’s name tattooed on you at this point like at the very least it might get you some sympathy from people at the bar when they ask about what’s very clearly an Ex’s Name Tattoo