Philosophy talkers from the old o-board?

[Trev]

Hey guys, i was on the old board as "not worth asking", and later briefly as "dr. rock". Only found out about this board today.

Back on the old board there was a philo forum, i'm guessing similar to this, but there was a few people who really knew their shit. I have just started philosophy at uni in arts this year, and was wondering who around here might want to talk about stuff i might be having problems with or give opinions about.

So well the first question is, we are talking about moral harms, the idea that they happen when you mis-treat / mis-use a person, but no natural (physical or psychological) harm is actually recieved. ie. someone spreads a rumor about someone around a group of friends and the person in question never finds out (obviously if they ever did find out it would then be a psychological natural harm), or a man cheats on his wife secretly.

These are examples i have been told of moral harms, but i am having trouble finding a definition of the term. I am tending to think that even though it is wrong to cheat on your wife, your not "harming" her in anyway if she doesn't find out, rather you are harming yourself with your own guilt / concience.

Anyone have a definition of "Moral Harms"? or know of a good internet site / forum that might?

---

: sp - disco king

---

[ZeroSaidSadly]

moral harms. i dont think your gonna find a cookie cutter definition for that one on any site or forum man. i think its something thats going to have to be explained like you just did, i mean you may be able to make that shorter, but i think that will be just as good as what anyone else will be able to come up with, not because anyones lacking, but just because its a complex abstract idea.

i was more of a nonnie on the o board, but i did stop in the philosophy forum some, i was ZeroSaidSadly on the board and corganfan before that, im not sure if you'd remember me, i was on there for a while tho, since 2001. haha i actually remember something about someone named 'not worth asking' tho... everyone said he was elijah wood because he was a big pumpkin fan and he was registered on the o board. i think he spelt his name "not wurth asking" tho. sorry if i just blew your big cover man ;D ;D

[Trev]

Yeah there was a not wurth asking that was apparently elijah wood, and after that i got a few emails and messages from fans hoping i was him. It was funny, when i saw he joined (not knowing who he was) i was jokingly bitching to him about stealing my name, and he took it seriously and got a bit upset i think.

Well just today i was thinking about a more revised definition:
To act immorally in a way that would cause a natural harm to one or more individuals if they were aware of those actions.

But then i thought what if an untrue rumor was spread about you behind your back, and you never knew but you were "harmed" by the way others changed the way they acted around you due to this new dis-information. That would still count as a moral harm, but doesn't fit into my new definition.......hmmmmm.

But personally i think philosophy is a waste of time if you don't at least strive for definitions, if the words you use to communicate your thoughts are not 100% defined and understood by all parties in agreeance then you can't really get anywhere. How can we discuss moral harms if we cannot define it?

[ZeroSaidSadly]

well i see where your coming from, i think it is extremely important that all parties 100% understand what they're discussing, but im not sure i agree that the terms have to be organized in simple definitions, when they are in fact not simple at all. its imperative to thoroughly understand what you're talking about, but i dont think philosophy will ever be a subject that can offer a term sheet or term book with "definitions" of such complex ideas. to "define" key components of philosophys would require lengthy explanation and evaluation, because the components of this subject are unlike the components of science, for example, because they exist as abstract ideas, not objects or reactions like the elements or rain. i mean, you can define what constitutes an insect, but you'll never pinpoint an exact definition for god. you can discuss what god means and how others look at god, but its not something youre going to define in a single sentence.

[Knight0440]

+1 to Zero

Absolute definitions tend to self destruct when new examples or human ingenuity create counters. And I personally don't think philosophy ought to be matched with distinct definitions because philosophy is fluid and people are always trying to find the next idea based on other work.

The fact that you (Trev) were able to come up with a counter to your own definition proves this. But it's a process.