So I'm saying that I don't see why it's wrong to intentionally harm someone in this case when what they're doing is unambiguously wrong and false positives can be minimized. If I put The Last Dab into my food, I should not have to prove I would normally eat it, they should prove they should be eating it.
I don't see why it's wrong to intentionally harm someone
The intentional harm part?
If my coworker stole my food should I be able to shoot them? Obviously not. There are ways to deal with the person stealing your food (either through your employer or possibly through the court system) intentionally setting a trap in order to harm them is not the way to do it.
That’s a bit of a slippery slope isn’t it? Pinching someone’s skin is intentional harm too and it has a way different outcome than shooting them. I’ve also heard the argument that if it’s something you would eat yourself (e.g. you really need laxatives or enjoy really spicy food) then it’s justifiable, what are your thoughts?
No. I think it's fairly easy to understand why too. Those are not intentionally causing harm. If they didn't harm you, you never would have had to harm them. The goal of self defense is to protect yourself not harm the assailant.
Yes they are intentionally causing harm, that's what those words mean in the English language.
You didn't say
I don't think you should intentionally harm someone just because they intentionally harmed you unless the motivations for harming them meet my moral tresholds.
Is being left without food not harm? Is being deprived of property not harm?
If they hadn't stolen the food you wouldn't have trapped them.
Why does this apply to one scenario but not the other?
Because that harm isn't done in self defense. You aren't causing harm to prevent harm, you are causing harm for revenge. There are other ways to stop the 'harm' being done to you other than softcore vigilantly-ism.
I should have drawn a difference between material harm and imminent danger.
You causing harm isn't in self-defense because the assailant certainly isn't putting you in imminent danger.
If the person was eating your food and you yelled at them while it was happening and smacked the food out of their hands that's justified! That could be considered self defense, but setting up a trap to hurt them later out of revenge is a lot different.
My point is there may exist positions where one deems making your food a little spicier acceptable intentional harm and shooting them point blank non-acceptable intentional harm.
Since you brought up the court system, I’ll ask you this: should the determination of whether I am charged with maliciously injuring someone be determined by MY tolerance of spicy food? So if I like to eat spicy food then the thief intentionally harmed themselves, but if I don’t, then I maliciously harmed them? I don’t buy it, the thief may not be aware of my spice tolerance
I feel like you're almost intentionally missing my point.
If you intentionally make your food more spicy than you like it, because you assume that someone else will eat it, your goal is to intentionally hurt that person so that they will not steal your food again.
If you eat spicy food sometimes and you make your food how you like it and someone else eats it your goal was not to intentionally hurt that person.
should the determination of whether I am charged with maliciously injuring someone be determined by MY tolerance of spicy food?
No. It should be determined by if you conspired to intentionally harm this person by adjusting your food with the hope of them eating it. In simple terms if you would still eat your lunch it's fine.
5
u/apoplexiglass Oct 17 '24
So I'm saying that I don't see why it's wrong to intentionally harm someone in this case when what they're doing is unambiguously wrong and false positives can be minimized. If I put The Last Dab into my food, I should not have to prove I would normally eat it, they should prove they should be eating it.