Philosophy Now Forum

In #3, and the other scenarios, it's intentionally set up to remove all possible awareness of the act being done to the victim(s). The reason why is to explore the possibility of the existence of harm regardless of their awareness of it. I agree that while the act may not be obviously harmful to the...

Firstly, I think that you'd have to ask yourself if you'd consider it harm if those things were done to you in the same way as you describe. That could be relative though, so regardless of what I might answer, it would really address the nature of harm . Someone could believe that as long as there ...

OK, so in the following scenarios there is no harm: 1) Bob creates a virus that steals .004 cents (4/10 of 1 penny) from every bank account in the world. Because this is merely 4/10 of 1 penny, no one knows it is even taken. This is called "penny shaving" and is the scam seen in the movie ...

I'm curious about the nature of "harm." As I understand it, it often requires measurable damage of some sort to the other party. But does that mean then, as long as the party is ignorant of the act then no harm is done? For example, X act is both illegal and immoral (in most cultures and i...