The significance of the discomfortneed not be a consideration.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:36,
archived)
Well, to go back to JSM, if I mayoffense is not harm
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:42,
archived)
Well, that's not clear.Mill thinks that it isn't. I'm not so sure - and by this I do mean that I don't know. I've been toying with the idea of writing something on offensiveness for a while now.
Whether or not it is, though, you're presupposing that it's the outcome of an action that makes the difference. It might be that you can be wronged without being harmed at all, or that any harm is wrong to the same extent, and that the degree thereof is a mere detail.
(Whether or not it is, though, you're presupposing that it's the outcome of an action that makes the difference. It might be that you can be wronged without being harmed at all, or that any harm is wrong to the same extent, and that the degree thereof is a mere detail.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:47,
archived)
Indeed, I agree with the theorybut I have personally addressed the questions and believe that the level of offence and harm IS important.
Aside from this, I believe that intent, rather than effect, is the governing factor in behaviour, but that does not apply to this argument.
Lunch, however, does.
Cheerio!
(Aside from this, I believe that intent, rather than effect, is the governing factor in behaviour, but that does not apply to this argument.
Lunch, however, does.
Cheerio!
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:51,
archived)