You're simply ignoring the elephant in the room, Khem. Neither harm nor bad has been given a foundation that is objective. You've simply defined each in terms of the other. You were the one who brought up the dictionary definitions as if they settled something. Now that it has been shown that they don't settle anything, you want to forget you brought it up and simply move on to something else. If you have an objective basis of harm that isn't based on the subjective notion of bad which your dictionary definitions supplied, or a definition of bad that isn't based on a mere ipse dixit assertion that the bad is things that are harm, then provide it.
You're just going around in circles here, Khem, because you don't have an objective foundation for harm or bad.
As to your specific examples, a wound is only harm if having a wound is bad. It's only bad if your goal is not to have wounds because living is a goal you have. A wound, in and of itself, is neither good or bad. It is just an arrangement of matter, essentially no different from any other arrangement of matter. That we're able to measure arrangements of matter does not make one such an arrangement of matter objectively preferable to another arrangement of matter. And I can make the point rather simply by counter-example. A depressed person who shoots himself in the head creating a massive wound because he desires to die is a good thing in his world. So a wound can be good or bad, depending on the viewpoint of the person in question. That's the very definition of subjective.
And similar things apply to the rubble of a burnt down trailer. They are only bad insofar as people want things other than their trailer being burnt out. A burnt out trailer is only bad because someone wants a different state of affairs. Again, a counter-example. Suppose the owner of said trailer is in dire straits and needs money (and as a result, he also is depressed and wants to die, just to cover all cases). He is planning to burn down his trailer to collect the insurance money, but you happened to beat him to the punch. Suddenly burning down the trailer is a good thing and your assumption that it is bad or harm is fucked once again.
You're just going around in circles here, Khem, because you don't have an objective foundation for harm or bad.
As to your specific examples, a wound is only harm if having a wound is bad. It's only bad if your goal is not to have wounds because living is a goal you have. A wound, in and of itself, is neither good or bad. It is just an arrangement of matter, essentially no different from any other arrangement of matter. That we're able to measure arrangements of matter does not make one such an arrangement of matter objectively preferable to another arrangement of matter. And I can make the point rather simply by counter-example. A depressed person who shoots himself in the head creating a massive wound because he desires to die is a good thing in his world. So a wound can be good or bad, depending on the viewpoint of the person in question. That's the very definition of subjective.
And similar things apply to the rubble of a burnt down trailer. They are only bad insofar as people want things other than their trailer being burnt out. A burnt out trailer is only bad because someone wants a different state of affairs. Again, a counter-example. Suppose the owner of said trailer is in dire straits and needs money (and as a result, he also is depressed and wants to die, just to cover all cases). He is planning to burn down his trailer to collect the insurance money, but you happened to beat him to the punch. Suddenly burning down the trailer is a good thing and your assumption that it is bad or harm is fucked once again.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
