How Far is "Too Far?"

[CatParty]

i think this has evolved into something being worthy for the "deep thoughts" forum

 

[Holdek]

Dude, the government requires that the car I buy has a fuel efficiency standard set by the EPA. The EPA requires me to buy gasoline with certain percentage of ethanol blended in. The city that I live in will fine me if I don't recycle my plastic beverage bottles (which are made from petroleum). These things are done so that I don't use as much oil as I otherwise would. If I violate these laws, I get punished.

I agree; you follow the rules and don't bother anyone, and under my philosophy, you're golden. Since your philosophy states that your tangental relationship with these companies makes you responsible for all of their misdeeds to some degree, however, it seems like these rules are a pretty cozy punishment

So, to answer your question, yes, I do contribute to environmental destruction and wars because I use petroleum products. The role of society and its components is to determine 1. Is that a problem? 2. If it is, what should be my punishment? And a lot of complicated considerations get factored into that, including both objective facts and subjective values.

Under your notion of ethics, a lot of considerations sure do go into it, and you'd have a lot of defending to do. Of course, I'd say that you're not at fault because you caused no trouble, and don't significantly contribute to it, but apparently that ethical judgement isn't based on anything objective. Still, I do have to commend you for being so calm despite your somehow being partially responsible for so many atrocities

Like I've said before along the same lines, you have no idea what my philosophy or notion of ethics is, or even if I've articulated one for myself.

i think this has evolved into something being worthy for the "deep thoughts" forum

I asked him to do that three pages ago.

(https://www.cwckiforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1361&start=120#p49385, second post)

 

[Cwckifan]

Now… I think female circumcision is a deplorable act. But in some regions? It’s culturally accepted and not viewed as an unethical act. It is not punished. Just like a lot of people are fine with males being circumcised , yet in some regions it is viewed as mutilation and it’s illegal. Again, it just depends on what people agree is right or wrong, and again this is based on otheir values. We’re going back to what people have been repeating over and over in this thread.

So because some people think that mutilation is okay, it suddenly becomes so? What about the issues of consent? What about causing harm, or the will of the being? Seriously, when did those stop becoming a valid basis for determining right and wrong? Why is nobody here acknowledging that the effects of an action on a person ultimately determine how ethical it is? Seriously, is the message that hard to accept?

You keep referring to your own system of ethics any time you attempt to tackle anyone else’s arguments. But, I think the main idea that people keep trying to get across to you is that in the end it’s your ethical view point. Some people might agree with it, but in the end ethics and morality are not universally objective. In the end your views apply only to you, and whoever else might share your view point.

Err, if you're talking about somebody being hurt by someone else's actions, then no, the issue of whether or not a loss occured is not debatable, just like the issue of who's responsible. Really, if someone gets drunk and smashes into your car, is their role in the accident just an opinion? Should your compensation be based on whether or not the relevant authorities feel like you were inconvenienced, regardless of what happened to you, or any collateral damage? Something tells me that you don't subscribe to such ideas, so why defend them?

While it's tempting to label some issues as being cleary "ethical" or "unethical", it becomes incredibly difficult to assert if something is ethical or not once you start bringing in all the different ethical viewpoints that exist. Once you start delving into the complexities of an issue and how it begins to interconnect with different systems…. You’d be surprised how hard it can be to clearly answer questions like “Is this ethical?”.

This is why it's good to have an ethical system which makes judgements based on consequences (the only meaning actions that exist, after all), so that you don't have to listen to noise which doesn't accept the reality of the effects of ones actions on others. With that in place, it becomes quite easy to settle ethical problems

 

[CWCissey]

When did this become a debate on ethics?

 

[Holdek]

When did this become a debate on ethics?

Ethics in general? It's never really been a "debate," but we started talking about it here: https://www.cwckiforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1361&start=60 (8 pages ago )

 

[Cwckifan]

The thing with "not harming people except for good reason" is that what counts as a good reason ultimately depends on what your expectation of the future is if you choose to do that harm, versus if you choose not to. And last time I checked no one can 100% predict the future. Being humans with limited information, we can't even 100% agree on what the situation in the present is. So there's never going to be universal agreement on ethics.

So nobody can agree that there's an ethical difference between attacking someone who's not acting on you, versus attacking someone who is acting on you? Well that would explain why my points aren't sinking in

Example: when we sentence a man to a year in jail, that's essentially making a prediction that society will be better off in the next year with that guy in jail than free (factoring in the harm done to the man himself by jailing him). Similarly for other punishments. Can we ever have certainty on that?

We sure can't, and that's why it's a damn good thing that the only things which were considered were if they caused harm, and if the punishment is justified (since they did, it's yes). After all, what else matters?

And really, let's say that we magically did come up with universal objective ethics. What are you going to do with the people (or entire societies) who can't or won't listen to reason? How would it be different from how we deal with ethical differences today in a non-universal framework?

Quite simply, it just means that any harm of suppression of will which is justified by culture, would no longer be allowed. And if people didn't want to listen, then if they cause any harm, they can be punished for it; no magic, no tricks, just truth

 

[Holdek]

Later.

 

[Venusaur]

Later.

Yep, I think I'm done as well.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

At any rate, this discussion had been a dead horse for pages, since you are all trying to convince one person his personal beliefs are not absolute for the universe, and he doesn't seem to understand what you mean.

Funny, the more stubborn among us have tried to do the same with Chris for years.

 

[brooklynbailiff]

i think this has evolved into something being worthy for the "deep thoughts" forum

Indeed.

 

[Cwckifan]

i think this has evolved into something being worthy for the "deep thoughts" forum

Indeed.

Thanks for moving it!

At any rate, this discussion had been a dead horse for pages, since you are all trying to convince one person his personal beliefs are not absolute for the universe, and he doesn't seem to understand what you mean.

Funny, the more stubborn among us have tried to do the same with Chris for years.

For what it's worth, I'd like to think I'm a *little* more open than Chris

 

[QI 541]

So laws that I perceive as unjust really just go against my values? So tell me, are laws which allow female circumcision unjust because they allow for the legalization of a process which hurts and permanently damages hundreds of thousands of women each year, or is that just because of my values? What about laws that allow child abuse, racism, or environmental destruction? Does the lack of justice of those have anything to do with beings and property being harmed, or is it all in my head? That's what I mean, raymond;because they aren't following an objective basis of ethics, there is literally no solid means by which you can say that they're wrong , even though they clearly are.

It's just your values. Not everyone values sparing women from the damage that female circumcision causes. There's plenty of animal rights activists who can't fathom how people such as yourself have no problem with the slaughter of millions of animals when you could live off of a vegetarian diet.

My personal morals and ethics are solid enough for me. Your personal morals and ethics are solid enough for you as well, even if you don't realize it. They may change over time, and I would likely have a different set of ethics if I was born in a different environment, but we will act on whatever morals and ethics we currently believe in.

Hell, suppose all the men in a region really value female circumcision? I guess those women are just SOL, and the men are totally in the right. Really, it's not a problem which could be solved by implementing an ethical system which determines how just an action is by looking at whether or not it's consensual, or if the recipients of that action are injured by it; after all, such an objective basis just doesn't exist!

If all the men really value female circumcision, and women don't have power, then they will likely continue the practice. If the people value human rights and consent, then they will stop the practice. They don't, so it continues. They won't implement your ethical system, no matter how objective it is, if they don't want to.

People can justify stealing cars and murder, too, but our solid legal base ensures that those who do it are still in the wrong, liable for punishment, and that you're entitled to compensation. Really, good thing the objective facts that someone else did something to you without your consent that caused you a loss, were used as the basis for those laws! Could you imagine the authorities telling you that there's nothing they can do, because there's no way they can solidly say that the aggressor is in the wrong?

My ethics system is based on maximizing grand theft auto. My court finds the defendant innocent on the objective fact that not stealing cars would cause a decline in car theft.

Funny enough, the same 'simple "True/False" answer' can also be applied to questions like, 'did you consent to this action?', 'did you suffer a loss because of them?', and 'did you initiate or meaningfully contribute to a bad situation?'. Strange how it's not possible to form an objective ethical basis, based on them

You realize these questions only matter to people because they already have their own morals and ethics.

You're right; after all, a system of ethics based on simple questions and undeniable observations which seek to determine if one acted on another in a way that caused them a loss and violated their consent, and give punishment on the basis of the (equally objective) meaningful involvement an individual (or group) had in an activity which caused harm or loss to another? How could that ever help complex legal battles, or be applied universally?

A system of ethics based on divine right can also punish, help in complex legal battles, and can be applied universally. It's as solid of a basis as yours.

However, it probably is possible to objectively determine which set of rules are best for fulfilling your principles, but there's no guarantee that others will share your principles.

It's actions I care about, mostly. Really, whether a person doesn't stab me in the face because it'd hamper my ability to live/enjoy my life, or because they'll go to jail, so long as there is a solid basis for why they mustn't (and why their punishment is justified if they do), I'll take it

That wasn't the point. If people don't share your principles, they won't agree with you on which ethics to follow, and they'll do things like female circumcision because they don't share your principles.

 

[Cwckifan]

It's just your values. Not everyone values sparing women from the damage that female circumcision causes. There's plenty of animal rights activists who can't fathom how people such as yourself have no problem with the slaughter of millions of animals when you could live off of a vegetarian diet.

raymond, did you miss the part of that discussion where I mentioned issues like harm and consent? If something objectively causes harm\pain\whatever to another person, that is not a subjective value! Ditto for consent, or meaningful involvement in harmful actions. Really, 'it doesn't matter because they don't care' is meaningless, as it doesn't address the very real fact that harm is being caused, consent is being violated, and that is not a good thing for the victims. My philosophy readily addresses and acknowledges this, however, and isn't reliant upon subjective impressions

My personal morals and ethics are solid enough for me. Your personal morals and ethics are solid enough for you as well, even if you don't realize it. They may change over time, and I would likely have a different set of ethics if I was born in a different environment, but we will act on whatever morals and ethics we currently believe in.

Fair enough...

If all the men really value female circumcision, and women don't have power, then they will likely continue the practice. If the people value human rights and consent, then they will stop the practice. They don't, so it continues. They won't implement your ethical system, no matter how objective it is, if they don't want to.

Again, it's about finding an objective basis by which they are wrong to do so, which my philosophy readily does. People will do what they do, so it's good to have a solid way of showing why they're in the wrong or right, and providing just punishments accordingly

My ethics system is based on maximizing grand theft auto. My court finds the defendant innocent on the objective fact that not stealing cars would cause a decline in car theft.

And on what objective basis can you assert that maximizing grand theft auto is something that is good for the people (all of them, not just a few), and that not doing so is therefore harmful to others, and deserving of punishment?

You realize these questions only matter to people because they already have their own morals and ethics.

And for that reason, it's good that they're so objective

A system of ethics based on divine right can also punish, help in complex legal battles, and can be applied universally. It's as solid of a basis as yours.

As is evidenced by how theocracies always respect Human rights, are based solidly on objective fact, are remarkably stable, and never differ, fall, or see revolts of any kind. Yes, nothing says solid quite like a Theocracy

That wasn't the point. If people don't share your principles, they won't agree with you on which ethics to follow, and they'll do things like female circumcision because they don't share your principles.

Oh, but that is my point. I can't control the behaviors of others, and so they'll always do what they will. Ultimately though, my philosophy provides a (there's that word again) solid basis by which you can say that someone is objectively right or wrong for doing what they do, and an airtight basis for creating a punishment that is objectively fair. Really, what's wrong with that?

 

[QI 541]

raymond, did you miss the part of that discussion where I mentioned issues like harm and consent? If something objectively causes harm\pain\whatever to another person, that is not a subjective value! Ditto for consent, or meaningful involvement in harmful actions. Really, 'it doesn't matter because they don't care' is meaningless, as it doesn't address the very real fact that harm is being caused, consent is being violated, and that is not a good thing for the victims. My philosophy readily addresses and acknowledges this, however, and isn't reliant upon subjective impressions

My philosophy is based on stealing cars. If someone doesn't steal a car, then it objectively decreases the number of car thefts. This is an objective fact. It doesn't matter that you don't care about increasing car thefts; it's a very real fact that the number of car thefts decrease when you don't steal cars. And that is not a good thing for people trying to increase the number of car thefts.

Your philosophy only matters if people care about the values that it seeks to maintain. My philosophy is useless because no one cares about increasing car thefts. Your philosophy doesn't work in places that practice female circumcision because they don't care about the harm and consent thing. Other people's philosophy about things like "all life is sacred" doesn't matter to you because you don't value the life of animals as much as your own comfort. It's all about what you value.

Again, it's about finding an objective basis by which they are wrong to do so, which my philosophy readily does. People will do what they do, so it's good to have a solid way of showing why they're in the wrong or right, and providing just punishments accordingly

So what? Their philosophy finds a basis by which they aren't wrong to do so.
Remind me how an objective ethics system is supposed to solve anything if people just do what they do. You can condemn them using a non-objective ethics system (Hint: You're using one of those right now) and it would have the exact same result. If they want to, they'll follow it. If they don't, then they won't.

And on what objective basis can you assert that maximizing grand theft auto is something that is good for the people (all of them, not just a few), and that not doing so is therefore harmful to others, and deserving of punishment?

On what objective basis can you assert that we should maximize what's good for all people? Why not include animals in there?

As is evidenced by how theocracies always respect Human rights, are based solidly on objective fact, are remarkably stable, and never differ, fall, or see revolts of any kind. Yes, nothing says solid quite like a Theocracy

I wasn't aware that any of this was necessary for an ethics system based on a solid basis.

Oh, but that is my point. I can't control the behaviors of others, and so they'll always do what they will. Ultimately though, my philosophy provides a (there's that word again) solid basis by which you can say that someone is objectively right or wrong for doing what they do, and an airtight basis for creating a punishment that is objectively fair. Really, what's wrong with that?

Plenty of philosophies have their ideas of what's right or wrong. Most of them think they're objective too.

Are you aware that "right" and "wrong" are essentially just really strong opinions? "Objectively right or wrong" is as meaningless as "objectively pretty" or "objectively tasty". "Objective basis" makes about as much sense as "objectively ethical", and as I've said earlier, that makes about as much sense as saying "The rules of basketball are objectively correct". The term doesn't logically make sense.

 

[Cwckifan]

My philosophy is based on stealing cars. If someone doesn't steal a car, then it objectively decreases the number of car thefts. This is an objective fact. It doesn't matter that you don't care about increasing car thefts; it's a very real fact that the number of car thefts decrease when you don't steal cars. And that is not a good thing for people trying to increase the number of car thefts.

Is it a good thing for people who aren't criminals? After all, they've done nothing to deserve their treatment, so that's all that really matters

Your philosophy only matters if people care about the values that it seeks to maintain. My philosophy is useless because no one cares about increasing car thefts. Your philosophy doesn't work in places that practice female circumcision because they don't care about the harm and consent thing. Other people's philosophy about things like "all life is sacred" doesn't matter to you because you don't value the life of animals as much as your own comfort. It's all about what you value.

While I disagree with your assertion that 'I don't value the life of animals as much as [my] own comfort' (I do), I do agree that my ideals are meaningless to someone who doesn't care about them, in very much the same way that research which supports the assertion that age of the earth is several billions of years old 'doesn't matter' to a young-earth creationist. The point is that there's an objective way of determining that someone who acts on such beliefs is absolutely wrong for doing so

So what? Their philosophy finds a basis by which they aren't wrong to do so.
Remind me how an objective ethics system is supposed to solve anything if people just do what they do. You can condemn them using a non-objective ethics system (Hint: You're using one of those right now) and it would have the exact same result. If they want to, they'll follow it. If they don't, then they won't.

And--as I've said many, many, many times before--it doesn't matter what they think, because there's a strong basis for determining that their actions are definitely right or wrong, and providing fair punishments accordingly. That doesn't exist with a non-objective system, even in this one. Unless, of course, you think that it's fair that a person with unpaid parking tickets should get more prison time than someone with multiple assault charges

On what objective basis can you assert that we should maximize what's good for all people? Why not include animals in there?

1) We all want and\or need to live
2) We'd all like to do so in a way that we find pleasing
3) For this reason, nobody can ethically act on another in a way that initiates the suppression of their ability to pursue this want, or meaningfully contributes to it
4) Accordingly, If someone does so, then they are in the wrong, and punishment (in the form of suppression/obligatory compensation) is necessary

Solid, objective, consistent, and is true for everything (Human or not) that meets conditions 1 and 2

I wasn't aware that any of this was necessary for an ethics system based on a solid basis.

I figured just as much

Oh, but that is my point. I can't control the behaviors of others, and so they'll always do what they will. Ultimately though, my philosophy provides a (there's that word again) solid basis by which you can say that someone is objectively right or wrong for doing what they do, and an airtight basis for creating a punishment that is objectively fair. Really, what's wrong with that?

Plenty of philosophies have their ideas of what's right or wrong. Most of them think they're objective too.

In much the same way that anti-vaccine people are convinced that some medicines are poison, or how young-earthers are certain that all evidence to the contrary is planted by the devil. It's a good thing that we have solid rules and outside verification for just this reason

Are you aware that "right" and "wrong" are essentially just really strong opinions?

So if somebody stabs you and steals your money, it's just your opinion that they caused you a loss of property, and physical & mental health (pretty wrong things, I'd say)? Well, since it's just your opinion that they did that, there's no meaningful way that they can be punished or stopped, or that you can justify compensation. You must live a very interesting life

"Objectively right or wrong" is as meaningless as "objectively pretty" or "objectively tasty". "Objective basis" makes about as much sense as "objectively ethical", and as I've said earlier, that makes about as much sense as saying "The rules of basketball are objectively correct". The term doesn't logically make sense.

See, now you're conflating matters of personal judgement (which is entirely dependent on subjective impression), with matters of cause-and-effect, which is not. That is to say, whereas something can't be objectively tasty or pretty since that differs with one's unique mechanisms to process such information, that is not the case for right and wrong, since everything with a will is harmed (wronged) when their ability to pursue a life they want to, in the way they'd like to, is suppressed. The nature of the harm varies, as does the duration and intensity, but it's still there, at all times, undeniably. Of course, if you don't have a will, then my philosophy applies to you no more than evolution applies to an abiogenically created organism which doesn't reproduce, and it's not supposed to. For everything else though, that is an undeniable fact, so I don't know why you're still railing against it.
raymond, I have to ask (with total sincerity) do you mean 'personal moral judgement' when you say 'ethics', because that's the only way I see your arguments. Like I said, personal judgements of any kind are purely subjective, so I have no real interest in debating those. I'm talking strictly about assessments of cause-and-effect, with a focus on determining if someone acts on another in a way that is responsible for the initiation or meaningful maintenance of an inability of the acted-upon individual to live how they'd like to. Accordingly, creating a system of laws which justify fair surrender of resources (compensation), or suppression of action on this basis is a goal as well. I'm not interested in how moral or immoral others personally judge their actions to be, and it's not what I seek to explore. Is that where we differ?

 

[teheviltwin]

1) We all want and\or need to live The vast majority of people want to live but none of them need to. In fact all species create major problems for the environment and their own evolution when they reach plague population levels.

2) We'd all like to do so in a way that we find pleasing The vast majority of people want to live in a way they find pleasing. Some deprive themselves for reasons of personal philosphy/religion. A lot of people have anti-social traits and what they find pleasing is unpleasant for others. As the global population rises the instances of anti-social behaviour increases.

3) For this reason, nobody can ethically act on another in a way that initiates the suppression of their ability to pursue this want, or meaningfully contributes to it I don't want people to tell me what to do. I want all of the perks of living in a society without any social responsibity.

4) Accordingly, If someone does so, then they are in the wrong, and punishment (in the form of suppression/obligatory compensation) is necessary

Solid fluid, objective subjective, consistent variable, and is true for everything (Human or not) that meets conditions 1 and 2 only applicable to some people.

Fixed.

 

[Cwckifan]

1) We all want and\or need to live The vast majority of people want to live but none of them need to. In fact all species create major problems for the environment and their own evolution when they reach plague population levels.

Oh yes, nobodyneeds to live, in the same way that you don't need 2 kidneys, 4 limbs, or a functioning neocortex to survive. I'll concede that point, sure. So let's just focus on wants, especially as they relate to their effects on others

2) We'd all like to do so in a way that we find pleasing The vast majority of people want to live in a way they find pleasing. Some deprive themselves for reasons of personal philosphy/religion. A lot of people have anti-social traits and what they find pleasing is unpleasant for others. As the global population rises the instances of anti-social behaviour increases.

If somebody deprives themselves because they want to, then if it's not hurting anyone
, it's fine. Also, they're still living in a way that they find pleasing (on some level), so yeah. Accordingly, It's precisely the reason why others mustn't act on others on a way that hurts them, and are justifiably punished when they do

3) For this reason, nobody can ethically act on another in a way that initiates the suppression of their ability to pursue this want, or meaningfully contributes to it I don't want people to tell me what to do. I want all of the perks of living in a society without any social responsibity.

And if you don't hurt others, then there's no reason by which you can be denied the protection and ability to pursue your goals, which everyone would like to have. If you hurt others though, then you're entitled to punishment, and forced compensation

4) Accordingly, If someone does so, then they are in the wrong, and punishment (in the form of suppression/obligatory compensation) is necessary

Solid fluid, objective subjective, consistent variable, and is true for everything (Human or not) that meets conditions 1 and 2 only applicable to some people.

Yeah, it sure is easy to critique an idea when you only half-understand it, and ignore the rest. As such, I guess I'll go disprove the existence of gravity now

 

[teheviltwin]

Oh yes, nobodyneeds to live, in the same way that you don't need 2 kidneys, 4 limbs, or a functioning neocortex to survive. I'll concede that point, sure. So let's just focus on wants, especially as they relate to their effects on others.

Your desire to exist and persistence in continuing to exist impact everything around you. With us topping 7 billion pretty much every part of that impact is negative. You contributing financially to businesses that have poor practices, whether it is animal cruelty, child labour or anything else does make a difference. Why so you think they put so much money into marketing? You wanting McNuggets is fine but you are contributing to a company that a large group of people consider corrupt and cruel. You don't want to feel bad about this so you have decided arbitrarily that you do not make a difference.

If somebody deprives themselves because they want to, then if it's not hurting anyone
, it's fine. Accordingly, It's precisely the reason why others mustn't act on others on a way that hurts them, and are justifiably punished when they do

They might hurt people. They might have family or friends who are seriously worried or even deprived of material things.

And if you don't hurt others, then there's no reason by which you can be denied the protection and ability to pursue your goals, which everyone would like to have. If you hurt others though, then you're entitled to punishment, and forced compensation.

Define "hurt". Pain is subjective. Psychological pain is very subjective in particular. And some physical pain is necessary. Is childbirth a bad thing because it hurts? Some people need to learn things but the lessons themselves might cause emotional or physical pain. CAN NOT BE OBJECTIVE!

Yeah, it sure is easy to critique an idea when you only half-understand it, and ignore the rest. As such, I guess I'll go disprove the existence of gravity now

What did I fail to understand?

Like trying to explain to Chris why he needs to exercise.

 

[Cwckifan]

Your desire to exist and persistence in continuing to exist impact everything around you. With us topping 7 billion pretty much every part of that impact is negative. You contributing financially to businesses that have poor practices, whether it is animal cruelty, child labour or anything else does make a difference. Why so you think they put so much money into marketing? You wanting McNuggets is fine but you are contributing to a company that a large group of people consider corrupt and cruel. You don't want to feel bad about this so you have decided arbitrarily that you do not make a difference.

And there you go again, stretching the notion of responsibility and contribution out so far that it becomes effectively meaningless in its all-encompassing nature. If I've said it before, I'll say it 1,000 more times, I'm not initiating anything that is keeping people from pursuing a life they want or like to live, and I'm not contributing meaningfully to anything/anyone that does. Really, even if I contribute $10,000,000 dollars to bad things in my entire life, that's literally (at best) a hundredth of a percent of total profits, if I'm lucky. If you consider such contributions meaningful, then we're all guilty of horrible atrocities, and should be in jail, or on death row

Define "hurt". Pain is subjective. Psychological pain is very subjective in particular. And some physical pain is necessary. Is childbirth a bad thing because it hurts? Some people need to learn things but the lessons themselves might cause emotional or physical pain. CAN NOT BE OBJECTIVE!

Hurt, in this case, is the pain--of any kind--that one feels when their ability to live the life they want or would like to is suppressed, and harm is what one causes when they act on another (directly or indirectly), which causes it. It varies in duration, intensity, and type, but when the said condition is met, it is always felt, and there's no denying that. Childbirth is harmful only if It's not what the mother wants

What did I fail to understand?

See above

Like trying to explain to Chris why he needs to exercise.

Heh, who says he needs to?

 

[teheviltwin]

And there you go again, stretching the notion of responsibility and contribution out so far that it becomes effectively meaningless in its all-encompassing nature. If I've said it before, I'll say it 1,000 more times, I'm not initiating anything that is keeping people from pursuing a life they want or like to live, and I'm not contributing meaningfully to anything/anyone that does. Really, even if I contribute $10,000,000 dollars to bad things in my entire life, that's literally (at best) a hundredth of a percent of total profits, if I'm lucky. If you consider such contributions meaningful, then we're all guilty of horrible atrocities, and should be in jail, or on death row

No I am not stretching anything that far. You are. I did not suggest that you should be in jail for wearing nike trainers. I am saying that you contribute to these things and that your personal desires and material comforts are more important than the 6 year old forced to make your clothes. You can say that it isn't so but I can also say that I'm a 7ft black man with a 12 inch cock, doesn't make it true. The truth is in your actions. The percentage you contribute to these things get a "dick move bro" escalating to "hypocritical fuck" when you start preaching your "objective" ethics.

Unless they're acting on them in some capacity, or are failing to provide a service they promised to survive, It's not their problem. No, you can't act on someone or contribute by not doing either, the same way you can't steal by not donating your money.

If you fail to support others in your community but rely on them for support (i.e. Buddhist monk) you are an anti-social dick. If you hate paying communal taxes but want the fire put out before it burns your house down, the burglars arrested before they wreck your shit and the roads you travel on to be decent no matter where you go... You are an anti-social dick. If you declare yourself to care more about animals/people whatever whilst enjoying your battery farmed sports shoes then you are also a massive raging hypocrite.

Hurt, in this case, is the pain--of any kind--that one feels when their ability to live the life they want or would like to is suppressed, and harm is what one causes when they act on another (directly or indirectly), which causes it. It varies in duration, intensity, and type, but when the said condition is met, it is always felt, and there's no denying that. Childbirth is harmful only if It's not what the mother wants

Childbirth can be fatal no matter how much the mother wants it... You crazy individual.

That's such a flimsy and variable thing. Especially with so many hypersensitive muppets out there. There are so many ways in which that is impossible to accomplish.

This t-shirt made a woman collapse into tears because it was suppressing her as a woman in the atheist movement and contributing to the "patriarchy".

Now the t-shirt is not offensive, contains no foul language but it caused pain. Should the woman betold not to wear it or should the feminist be told to grow up and accept other people for who they are. IT'S SUBJECTIVE!

Heh, who says he needs to?

He says he doesn't want to die young of heart failure... So... Chris.