Has the man that cannot have knowledge of any of this been wronged in any way? — Mark Dennis

If he truly will not ever experience any of the consequences of the actions, then no.

In this example scenario though... well, a lot more details would need to be fleshed out to say for sure, but if the man has a wallet then presumably he somehow uses money in some way that he would eventually notice its absence, and given that his brain relies on his body for him to keep having whatever internal experiences he still has, injury like a punch in the face would eventually impact that brain function, and if he has a wife, presumably something about that relationship matters (maybe she's the one taking care of him, keeping him alive despite his complete sensory dysfunction?), so if the masked man sleeps with her and that jeopardizes that relationship, then he will eventually lose whatever he's getting out of it.

This hearkens back to the Experience Machine, where my only concern with getting into such a machine would be my subsequent ignorance of the outside world's potential impacts on me and the machine, and so the risk that something might eventually happen that would impact the blissful experiences the machine is giving me.

Good points to raise. Wouldn't expect any less from you.

Here is a question that will flesh it out more; Were you harmed in being a witness to what happens to the man?

He just sits there with his thoughts and memories of perception. Out of nowhere, a masked man steals the mans wallet, punches him in his face and has sex with the mans wife in front of him. — Mark Dennis

Maybe the masked bandit would be thoughtful enough to have sex with the guy who doesn't have many opportunities to feel pleasure. It would work for me, but never mind.

Of course a wrong would be done. A person has rights that can be attacked without one being aware of it. If a bank officer swindles you out of your money, you have been swindled before you find out about it. A comatose person (however we define 'coma') has rights too. That's why we don't just start cutting them up for spare parts when they've been unconscious for a couple of weeks. "Awareness of a wrong" isn't required for a wrong to exist.

You might not suffer from being swindled until you know about it; you might not suffer from pain inflicted that you can not feel, but that is another issue separate from a wrong done.

No I don't think I'd be harmed. Depending on how the details of the scenario flesh out, I might suffer some empathically, but that's not really the masked man harming me personally.

What if the man in question is your friend or family? What if the assailant is your friend or family?

What about people who suffer from PTSD because of the things they witnessed but weren't subjected to? Fear of driving for example; can be a problem for people who have only been a witness to a horrific vehicle crash.

Out of nowhere, a masked man steals the mans wallet, punches him in his face and has sex with the mans wife in front of him. — Mark Dennis

If you reduce the happening to just a punch in the face, I might be able to agree with no harm (although not feeling pain reduces our awareness of harm done, not eliminates the harm - if he gets a broken nose resulting in a deviated septum or something, it is a problem whether he feels it or not). The wallet and the wife bring all sorts of implications into the scenario that suggest some sort of harm has been done. I think @Pfhorrest pointed that out more directly.

I am not suggesting you have taken a stance, but if we think it is ok to perform these actions because the man won't be conscious of it, then haven't we justified any and all actions to any being that is deemed unconscious? If so, where we draw the line of conscious/unconscious would be a MASSIVE debate of huge importance.

I guess your PTSD/friends & family examples suggest that any action against an unconscious being is justified unless a conscious being witnesses the event and is somehow harmed.

As much as I thought I knew my answer to the thread title (yes, they must perceive the harm to be harmed), a quick bit of thinking and reading and I am much less convinced (the scenarios would have to be VERY specific for me to be comfortable with "no harm"). Interesting stuff.

Same answer: depending on how the situation is really fleshed out (or how I believe it to be fleshed out), I might suffer, but the masked man hasn’t harmed me. And it the victim truly will never be aware of any adverse consequences of the actions upon him, then he hasn’t been harmed either.

The important part is that “never”. Doing something to someone that they’re not presently aware of but will produce negative consequences that they will become aware of in the future is still harm. Doing something to someone that they will never see any difference from cannot be harmful to them.

And it the victim truly will never be aware of any adverse consequences of the actions upon him, then he hasn’t been harmed either. — Pfhorrest

Do you think his Mother and Father would agree with that? Do they feel harmed?

The important part is that “never”. Doing something to someone that they’re not presently aware of but will produce negative consequences that they will become aware of in the future is still harm. Doing something to someone that they will never see any difference from cannot be harmful to them. — Pfhorrest

So if a man dies not knowing he raised the offspring of another man with an adulterous wife, he has not been harmed by it? What if as he dies he firmly believes his line will continue, when in reality it dies with him? Can we assume that if he could have known he would feel greatly hurt and betrayed by this knowledge? A person doesn't have to know that their perceived truth is a lie for it to be harmful to them.

if a person perceives their life to be brilliant and they narcissistically believe they are infallible, can harm really befall them if they don't see it that way?



Ignorance is bliss on the one hand; curiosity and the thirst for knowledge on the other. Like so much in life, it is good to have a balance.

Do you think his Mother and Father would agree with that? Do they feel harmed? — Mark Dennis

That depends on what they believe about the situation. If they agree that he has not been harmed (which, again, seems like a stretch given the most likely assumptions to make about fleshing out this scenario, since he probably will suffer some consequences in the future), then they will not suffer empathically for him. If they think otherwise, they will feel otherwise.

So if a man dies not knowing he raised the offspring of another man with an adulterous wife, he has not been harmed by it? What if as he dies he firmly believes his line will continue, when in reality it dies with him? Can we assume that if he could have known he would feel greatly hurt and betrayed by this knowledge? A person doesn't have to know that their perceived truth is a lie for it to be harmful to them. — Mark Dennis

I suppose this does require a slight modification of my stated position. I'm fuzzy-headed this morning so this might not be my best seat-of-my-pants philosophizing, but I'd say that if a person only never suffers the consequences of an action against him because of something like his own death, and unbeknownst to him desires that he thought had been fulfilled were actually not fulfilled, in a way that he could have discovered at some point but just by chance did not, then he was still harmed.