(January 3, 2018 at 11:22 am)Khemikal Wrote:(January 3, 2018 at 11:05 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I can't remember who I was talking with about harm and morality. But for any who hold this view, then would the girl be in the wrong, since the objective harm was done against the man?
Both parties are objectively harmed, as is society in general. She was groped, he was punched, and we have to live in a society where gropers need to be punched because some don't consider groping objectively harmful.
Now I remember... thanks!
What objective harm was done in groping? It seems like this would be at best subjective.... some may not mind as much, and it may even be relative to the person who is doing the groping. An external observer, cannot really tell what harm was done. What makes groping the boob wrong (from a harm standpoint), but tapping her on the shoulder not harmful? I don't think that the guy intended harm or was thinking about harming the girl. And yet she intentionally caused him harm.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
