What does unanlienated worker look like? Can anyone provide a vivid description? As I said in that thread: — schopenhauer1

I'm not out to "contradict" what you said, I'm out to dispute the frankly infantile framing of what you said. Can you imagine a state department lackey writing a white paper on geopolitics of Ukraine analyzing things in terms of "free will" and "moral responsibility"? They would be fired on the spot or else laughed at and told never to write that again on pain of infinate embarrassment. It's just so incredibly stupid.

Xtrix asked if the US contributed to the mess in Ukraine. And your response is a parable about bad parents and free will? What is this? Seasame Street? — Streetlight

No, what you're frankly out to do is continuously reiterate your narrative that you have some special understanding of the situation that somehow evades everyone else and so you stomp your feet around like that should make us better believe you.

What I said was that the Russians are morally responsible for their decisions. Somewhere you read into that that my position was that the best course of action for the US is to do that which would instigate immoral activity on the part of the Russians. That interpretation of my bad parenting analogy must also mean that you think I thought bad parenting was perfectly acceptable simply because they wouldn't be responsible for their children going out and committing murder.

In terms of the white paper you envision either of us being summoned to write, I suppose I would write it seeking to obtain whatever pragmatic objective I wanted to achieve, and I generally don't get sidetracked with moralizing. However, I do thank you for letting me know the consequence if I did moralize, as I'd be fired, laughed at, scolded, and just embarrassed until my face was so bright red that I'd never be able to show it ever ever again.

Other than just taking whatever opportunity you have to reiterate your narrative that you have an advanced and nuanced sense of understanding otherwise lacking everywhere you search, how exactly did what you say contradict what I said, even if what you said were true?

So let's leave that aside. Has the United States, as the world superpower, contributed to this mess in Ukraine? Yes, of course it has. Does anyone argue that this isn't the case? — Xtrix

To the extent that nothing occurs in a vacuum, sure, the existence of the US as a threat to Russia and the expansion of its influence through NATO sparked conduct on the part of Russia.

Who's to blame for Russian boots on Ukraine soil. I'd say Russia.

Moral responsibility rests not with the every actor along the causal chain, but upon the actor who interrupts that causal chain with a specific intentional act resulting in the specific bad act.

It's why we don't throw bad parents in jail for the acts of their children. It's that quaint notion of free will. That you killed because your parents sparked all sorts of bad conduct might be true, but if you pulled the trigger, it's on you and only you.

ask because I feel many if not all our problems are caused by not getting our priorities right. For example, I'm a sucker for good-looking peeps and my life is nothing but a series of disasters caused by my idée fixe with beauty. — Agent Smith

I'm not Hindu, but the idea of listing one's hierarchiy of priorities is an interesting one.

Truth and justice seem like they should make the list, but not beauty unless that is taken to mean all worldly pleasures.

At any rate, my top priority is my family, truth and justice be dammed.

You know those things by which to guide your life also without the Bible. You don't need the Bible for its content, you need it for the institutional justification of said content. — baker

That might describe someone, but it doesn't describe me.

I don't subscribe to the notion that wisdom and ethically appropriate behavior is known a priori. It is learned, and where that knowledge is found is varied. Maybe you acquired it from your parents, some role model, or a religion, I don't know. What I can say is that the Bible, for whatever historical reason, in Western society, became the vehicle for those most concerned and focused on finding meaning and purpose to our existence. From that piece of literature,with much creativity and bias, entire systems of often conflicting thoughts sprang forth.

My resort to the Bible for wisdom has nothing to do with delusions that God himself spoke it while Moses transcribed it. It has to do with it having been designated the human societal Western Constitution (so to speak) and the thousands of years of our best and wisest having wrenched meaning from it, even if the literal text no longer resembles the final interpretation.

I began making my argument, but you, as usual, jumped the gun. How dickish. — baker

Although I don't understand how I could have interrupted your argument before you could set it out, considering we're typing and not speaking, go ahead and say what you're wanting to say.

And back to the rule of the dick.

The surest way to keep the discussion of this topic superficial and never moving from the spot. — baker

There was nothing dickish or stubborn about my post. I made the obvious observation that the demand for abortion typically arose as the result of a mistake, namely in having gotten pregnant when the woman hadn't wanted to.

You indicated the choice wasn't in having had unprotected sex, but it was in having engaged in a relationship in the first place, and the sex that followed that was because society so demanded it that the couple had to submit and have the sex expected of them.

My point was that your argument was extremely poorly reasoned (i.e. pretty stupid) because (1) it defies my experience (in that the sex I've had, I truly wanted to have) and (2) if you believe most sex is under societal duress, you're claiming most sex is rape.

So, back to the discussion: women choose sex, then they choose abortion when they don't choose to have the child, and the reason the abortion is morally neutral yet unfortunate is because the fetus was not a person, but the emotional pain from the mistake is real.

There's nothing toxic about being too submissive, agreeable, etc. — Valued contributer

Rest assured, there's a dysfunctional side of stereotypical female behavior as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_Girls

Why you think that the Bible is a life guide, I'm not sure, but it sounds like you bought what someone else was selling. Give the "Pentateuch" a read and see if you can find where it tells you what to do. — Ennui Elucidator

I recognize it's not the mainstream view, but see:

https://www.yoramhazony.org/phs/

Or watch the discussion with Rabbi Sacks: https://youtu.be/8bKJF3UjkLU

The question of moderation is then understanding what drinking all of the wine is like and what drinking none of the wine is like. Moderation can only truly be moderate if the extreme ends are understood to some relative degree. — I like sushi

Sure, and I can't know what cyanide does unless I try it because there's no other way to obtain information.

My point is that if you believe a certain act is immoral and seek to make it illegal, I need to address your concern one way or another.

Saying that it's a matter of choice does not address your assertion. — frank

I took your point to be that if someone is pro-choice, they should be able to proudly announce all the abortions they have had. I was saying it's not a matter of pride or celebration because abortions are not a moral event, and they likely involve a very difficult and painful decision.

I agree that I've taken a pro-choice position, which is why I was offering the logic behind the seemingly paradoxical views of (1) I believe people should be permitted to have abortions, and (2) having an abortion is not cause for celebration.

#2 only follows if abortion is NOT a morally positive act (like feeding the poor). That's what I'm saying. Abortion is not a morally positive act.

The choice isn't actually between engaging in sex or not. It's between having a relationship or not; or between being seen as normal and worthy, or not. — baker

The argument that all sex is coerced due to societal pressures is pretty stupid. It categorizes all sex as rape and it defies my personal experience in that I actually did want to have the sex that I did.

You wouldn't have that freedom of interpretation in every country/culture. Not even when it comes to bum knees.
If anything, people are expected to trust medicine unquestioningly, and if they don't they get regarded as irrational. Refusing a suggested medical treatment could even get one categorized as a negligent patient and one could lose one's medical insurance. — baker

If there is a hypothetical country where they condemn those who don't receive knee surgeries as immoral, i stand in opposition to their morality.

I don't know why you're sharing with me the underwriting policies of a hypothetical health insurer as if that has something to do with morality.

Depends who that "you" is. If it's "society", the legislative body, someone more powerful than you, how can you still say that it's immoral if they decide for you? — baker

I'm saying that it violates my conception of morality for someone else to dictate the treatment of my bad knees. The power of that someone else is irrelevant to the moral question.

Just cross posted the same thing.

where Laurie Kilmartin said she would "joyfully abort our fetus"
— Harry Hindu

I would kind of prefer this to "a woman has a right to choose."

If you think abortion is moral, go ahead and say it. Normalize it. Otherwise it's like: "abortion is moral for some of us, but not all."

That doesn't make any sense. — frank

It's not that abortion is moral. It's that it's morally neutral in certain circumstances. Helping an old lady cross the street is moral as is feeding the poor in that it's something to encourage and celebrate.

I would think that abortion would in most cases be a difficult decision and not something many (although maybe some) would think warmly about. The need for the abortion, after all, is typically the result of a mistake, in that they did not want to have a child at this time in their life, but they made choices that led to the pregnancy.

Any medical procedure that might become necessary as the result of my own negligence would be a matter of choice for me to undergo, but that doesn't mean I'm somehow heroic because I chose or don't choose a particular procedure. For example, my knee hurts because of the two years of kick boxing I did, but I'm not having it scoped because I don't want to. The decision isn't moral or not moral. It's just a matter of choice. What I would think would be immoral is if you got to decide for me

To quickly finish what was said here , as indicated in the same: — skyblack

To begin with, art experience is transient. — skyblack

In the initial thread, it seemed the discussion related to how one could have a meaningful aesthetic experience, but then there was, in my opinion, an evasion of what it meant to have an aesthetic experience and some amount of combativeness in terms of offering an explanation, and that then resulted in that thread being closed.

This post appears to be a more specific discussion of Schopenhauer's aesthetics, if I've read this correctly, although there isn't any mention of him. Other than recognizing it as such, Schopenhauer isn't someone I know enough about to really contribute.

What I can say about the general idea of the thread is that I don't share your despondency, and so the need to find an escape (through art or otherwise) has no appeal. I appreciate the need by some for self-medication and vice in order to numb themselves from reality. It's also obvious that dependency or addiction could be a consequence and that would lead to a greater unhappiness.

I think the typical response to the question of how much and how often one should take a metaphorical drink of alcohol without exposing themselves to the negative consequences would be to drink in moderation. Moderation means rationally controlling your urges, which for some is easy and others impossible.

But like I said, you premise the conversation that that there is this need to escape the reality we're in, and unless one buys into that basic premise, this discussion becomes a conversation about finding a cure for which there is no illness.

Isn't this the life of a well taken care of kid in his parent's house, where he owes nothing to anyone, and owns nothing, and there's always a well stocked pantry and a helpful parent ready to offer assistance?

I was more than ready to leave the safety of that nest, why would I want to recreate it on a societal level even if I could?

How normal is this? — Michael

It does have precedence in South Carolina's Nullification Act of 1832 stating it did not have to pay federal taxes on cotton exports. That didn't ultimately turn out well for South Carolina.

I did look through the bill, and it even includes provisions stating the Supreme Court precedent should not be considered.

What you have is just a very political bill that has limited likelihood of being passed that some legislator wants to wave around showing how defiant he is in defense of protecting babies' lives. If that law passed, it would be declared unconstitutional. A state can't declare its sovereignty. It would never be enforced and Louisiana wouldn't secede from the union (unfortunately) in order to defend that right.

If they were the badasses they pretend to be, they'd just start prosecuting abortions now and not wait on the Supreme Court. They'd also not be permitting gay weddings, but they do, meaning that they are compliant citizens regardless of wanting to appear rogue.

It also would seem to include fertilizations that occur in vitro and would eliminate fertilization procedures.

From this: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/05/05/louisiana-abortion-bill-would-make-crime-murder/9656102002/ this appears to be a bill that just came out of committee, so I assume it has a long way to go (votes before both houses) before landing on the Governor's desk.

The problem, to the extent there is one, is that the US Constitution does not unequivocally provide a right to abortion and the American public is deeply divided over the issue, resulting in the election of Presidents who will appoint Justices sympathetic to their cause.

If the issue goes back to the democratic process, and abortion is made illegal, you needn't blame RGB or the Supreme Court, but you can blame John Q. Public, which is really where blame ought to lie.

Much has changed since Roe v Wade. I think that abortion will still be legal in all states but with varying limitations depending on the state. — Harry Hindu

Actually, abortion was never legalized in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wisconsin, but those laws have been unenforceable since Roe v. Wade. Presumably if Roe v. Wade is overturned, those laws would immediately become effective again.

I think there will be a good number of other states that will outlaw abortion as soon as they can. The battle to overturn Roe v. Wade hasn't just been a symbolic gesture over state authority. Much will change in certain states.

There is no such thing as theism per say - there are simply theists who hold a range of often incompatible and contradictory views from one another. — Tom Storm

Would it also follow that there's no such thing as religion due to the variations in religion? Can the same be said of political systems, that there's no such thing as them either due to their variations?

I agree with you of course that different religious systems describe their gods very differently, but each can independently be said to be theistic, and so the question then becomes what makes each theistic system resemble the next, but I don't think any of this means theism doesn't exist. We just find ourselves with the universal problem of precise definitions.

I think any honest theist would admit that the religious tradition they hold to is as much the result of family tradition, regional influences, and other such coincidences than actual free choice after full exploration. Sure, there are occasional Catholics who become Baptists, but none worship Zeus much any more, so something other than obvious truth must be guiding theists to their particular brand of religion.

My point here is that I do hold that whether to be atheist or theistic is a real choice we make, but once decided to be theistic, we tend toward the path of understanding most accessible to us. Those raised Jews turn toward Judaism and so on. With that, I think we're required to have respect for those other traditions with recognition ours isn't the only way; otherwise I'd be faced with the absurd argument I chose my Judaism after considering other options. I didn't.

I point this out only to defend against the idea that theism is so varied and murky that it doesn't meaningfully exist, and to respond maybe preemptively to the question of how can a theist pretend he's found the light after open minded exploration, when all he really did was repeat what he's always been told.

You can hardly expect to start a thread to discuss your brand of the aesthetic experience and then refuse to explain it and expect it remain open.

So again,carry on. — skyblack

So I read your OP and @T Clark's response and I did find his response fairly accurate in describing my thoughts. I disagree with him somewhat in that I didn't find your attitude just dismissive or even snooty, but more so intentional, reminding one of an aspiring cult leader.

You solicit the despondent with vague descriptions of existential doubt, you offer a solution you vaguely reference as aestheticism, and you refuse to explain what it is, wanting us to believe you possess this mysterious answer.

So, either tell us your secret or stop telling us you have one.

Can God end evil? — T Clark

I don't follow why this question is meaningless.

The question is often asked if God is all powerful and good, then why is there is evil in the world. That seems a reasonable question.

The emphasised part is a non sequitur. That he can create such a rock isn't that he does create such a rock.

You might as well ask "can a two-armed man cut off one arm?" and answer with "if he can then he'll only have one arm and so therefore isn't a two-armed man which is a contradiction" and so conclude that a two-armed man can't cut off one arm, which is of course false; I have two arms and am quite capable of cutting one off.

So an answer to your question is; yes, he can create such a rock, but because he doesn't there's nothing he can't do. — Michael

I just see it as a category mistake. Category A are physical objects and Category B are theoretical concepts. Within A, you have actual tangible things that can be measured, using words like 100 feet, 5,065 pounds, and 345 ounces. In B, you have theoretical intangible entities, that are described using words like biggest, strongest, and highest.

Rocks are within A. God is within B.

Can God create a rock he cannot lift? Because he's within B, we don't suggest God can lift a specific number of pounds. We just say he's the strongest and there is nothing within A he can't lift. If we suggest there is a rock he cannot lift, we'd need to know the weight of that rock and ask why that weight is more the most, which makes no sense (such is the category mistake).

This is to say rocks are real things that can be put on scales and weighed. Asking if God can create a rock he can't lift is to apply the B standard (the heaviest) to the A standard (an actual weight). You can't what is higher than infinity.

The other problem is that two wrongs make a right. I think that's the rule.

Which would you select and why? — Agent Smith

Everybody is wrong. — Tom Storm

If you're right that everyone is wrong, then not everyone is wrong because you were just right.

In golf, the winners pay the most per stroke for a round.

There is a chess puzzle called a helpmate where black assists white in arriving at mate of black, so the best black player would be the one that could best lead to his own demise.

It sort of responds to the OP, but not exactly, but it was the first thing I thought of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helpmate#:~:text=A%20helpmate%20is%20a%20type,White's%20nth%20move%20checkmating%20Black.

The other type of helpmate would the husband who helps with the dishes, but that's a survival skill of sorts.

Nice.

Without epistemological certainty there can be no certainty of ontological reality. Moral realism remains an assertion. — Fooloso4

I don't agree with this assertion. Regardless, I am certain there is a moral reality. Certainty is a special class of knowledge in any event.

Whether we know what is right doesn't affect what is right
— Hanover

If we do not know what is right we do not know if anything is right beyond whatever it is we assert to be right. — Fooloso4

And you comment is non-responsive to mine.

Those who are convinced of their own moral certainty are now the majority of the Supreme Court and a large and powerful enough faction of the Legislator to determine what significant portions of our lives will be. — Fooloso4

I don't know their level of certitude regarding moral issues and neither do you

The point is, what is regarded as the wisdom of the Bible does not conform to what you want it to. Where it does you call it wisdom, where it doesn't you reject it. I do think there is wisdom to be found but do not think it matches up with what you find. — Fooloso4

You have no idea what I derive from the Bible, Hamlet, or Winnie the Pooh.

Right. This supports the claim of moral relativism, that even under the pretext of what is unchanging and absolute the beliefs and values of human beings are not invariant. — Fooloso4

Variations in moral beliefs over time and among cultures is an obvious empirical fact, and if that proved relativism, the debate over moral realism would have ended long ago. The problem is that epistemological uncertainty has no bearing on ontological reality. Whether we know what is right doesn't affect what is right

In the absence of such knowledge perhaps what is best is to accept that certain moral problems do not yield clear solutions, that the recognition of uncertainty leads to toleration of differences. — Fooloso4

Why would someone advocate otherwise, as if to insist someone behave in a certain way when we ourselves aren't certain of what is the right way to behave? This has no bearing on moral relativism or absolutism, but is just pragmatics. I'm going to insist though that others not rape. Moral quandaries exist, but sometimes not

What I am suggesting is that our wise ancestors did not make such a clear distinction. The tree of knowledge is of both good and evil. One tree, so to speak, that bears fruit that is both good and evil, just as experience shows. (Koholeth) eschews the pollyannic view and squarely faces the fact that the wicked may prosper and the righteous get what the wicked deserve. — Fooloso4

By using a biblical analogy to make your point, do you not invoke the wisdom of the Bible?

Do you mean no historical evidence taking place or no historical evidence of them taking place in the rabbinical era? — Fooloso4

I don't accept the historicity of the Bible, so I'm not using that as a source of proof. Whether there were stonings in the Near East in the Bronze and Iron ages, I don't know as the historical record is pretty much lacking unless there's an archeological record. What I can say is that the institutional religious records written by the rabbis do not reflect stonings occurring, with that era beginning in the first century CE.

I'm also not committed to referring to the ancient Hebrews as Jews until much later in the biblical history, considering the religion of sacrifice centering around the Temple is a much different religion that what is practiced today.

So there is for you no connection between your moral realism and your claims about God and identification with Judaism? — Fooloso4

None might be an overstatement, but to the extent there is a dispute between a Judaic concept and my personal belief, my personal belief trumps.

In other words, your definition of God is subjective and based on the presupposition that there must be a meaning and purpose that is not subjective. — Fooloso4

Maybe as a broad sketch I might agree with this. I'd have to think on it. I do believe in the subjectivity of faith in a Kierkegaardian sort of way. I'm trying to make sense of it honestly.

To be clear, are you claiming that the quotes from Isaiah and Job are false? And that they are false because they do not conform to your definition of God as good? A definition that "we" or "one" should accept because that is what a reasonable person should do? — Fooloso4

I'm in disagreement with any statement that represents God as not being the source of the good or morality, whether that be Isiah, the Koran, or whoever says something contrary to what I think.

My take on the Bible is that it is an ancient source of wisdom, in particular how it has been interpreted, meaning our wisest ancestors used it as the vehicle to describe good from evil and to take a stab out of describing God. I think they did a far better job with the Bible, than say the Scientologists have done with Dianetics.

These are not mutually exclusive, many but not all scholars are believers. — Fooloso4

True.

Are you claiming that stoning was never taken literally? If it conflates your dubious distinction it does so for good reason. The rabbis who interpret the Law, both then and now, were both believers and biblical scholars. — Fooloso4

There is no historical evidence of the stonings taking place and extremely few death penalties being carrier out in the rabbinical era beginning in the 1st century CE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Judaism ( "The Mishnah states that a Sanhedrin that executes one person in seven years — or seventy years, according to Eleazar ben Azariah — is considered bloodthirsty.")

This is to say that that biblically imposed death penalties occurred in antiquity far less often than secular based death penalties in modernity.

How do you reconcile such changes with your claim that there is an objective morality? — Fooloso4

Because I have never suggested, hinted, or intimated that the Bible is the source of morality. I hold to moral realism, a claim that there is a true right or wrong, regardless of what the current population might hold.

So what would you suggest is the best way to answer the question? — Fooloso4

Through personal experience, introspection, and a need for there to be an anchor for meaning and purpose.

You shifted from biblical scholarship to modern biblical scholarship. The inclusion of the perspective of time is significant. — Fooloso4

What is significant isn't when it occurred as much as who is doing the scholarship. It's a distinction between believers and those not committed to interpreting it from a perspective of belief.

At least we can define God as the good and deny unholy acts are decreed by him, but only falsely in his name.
— Hanover

seriously? Or are you saying that you are not prepared to back up your claim? When you say "we" who are you referring to? — Fooloso4

I'm saying that I'm not committing to your strawmen and am asserting what I take to be a more proper conception of God.

I'm using "we" in the third person objective, synonymous with "one." It expresses an ideal, or what a reasonable person should do.

hard to do, but there is something in the attempt: better to be a pig satisfied than a philosopher unsatisfied, or not — Constance

That's a Mill quote, not Bentham.

That pleasure is, call it apriori good, is my position. Pleasure qua pleasure cannot be other than good. It is apodictically good. — Constance

So Kant's categorical imperative should have resulted in his being a Utilitarian since the hedonistic principle of Bentham was synthetic a priori?

I raised this problem before, but you ignored it. By what light do we read such passages from Deuteronomy? I think it obvious that we read them in light of beliefs and values which are not fixed and eternal, but relative to time and place. Those who wrote and those who first heard the Law did not think that it was not to be taken literally. — Fooloso4

There are two ways to read the Bible: (1) from a traditional view of a believer or (2) from the view of biblical scholarship. If you want an answer under #1, you will need to look at the tradition you are referencing and we can look at all the theology and additional texts used by that group. An Orthodox Jew would read it differently than a Reform Jew and differently than a Christian, and there are variations among Christian denominations.

Your last sentence quoted above is simply not correct and it conflates the views of #1 and #2. If you want to stand in the position of a believer, you are correct in asserting that Moses received the law from Mount Sinai and he accepted it as the word of God, but you also (depending upon your religious viewpoint) might be accepting that an oral law was also handed down that day that dramatically added to and altered the written word. That is, if you're a believer, tell me what you believe, and I'll believe you, but the views you're expressing of believers do not describe any real group of believers.

If you take the position of #2 (a modern biblical scholar), you will not say such things as "those who first heard the law" because that assumes a sudden handing down of law as opposed to hundreds of years of the Bible being written, it being edited, and it being combined by an editor into a single scroll. It also assumes a single march step through time of how the Bible was used and accepted, ignoring the fact that rabbinical Judaism is not at all similar to the Jewish practice during the times described prior to the destruction of the Temple.

What you are describing in your post is a modern fundamentalism that asserts a simple literalism to the Bible that isn't historically something biblical adherents held to, and it's certainly not something I adhere to. For that reason, it's a strawman.

As to your comment that biblical interpretations by adherents have varied through history and that fact is obvious, I agree. The insertion of biblical interpretation into this conversation only arose in this conversation when someone asked me about the historical accuracy of the flood (which I denied), but I never suggested the question of who God was best answered by referinng to the Bible.

The only strawman here is the one you made. It is not a matter of reading the myths literally. How do you understand the following:

Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.'
— Isaiah 45:7

Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?”
— Job 2:10 — Fooloso4

You would be interested in my interpretation of biblical text? Why? I think we could spend weeks on Job alone, considering that does present a very complicated discussion of theodicy.

I'm telling you that do no harm is a foundation that gets entangled with complex affairs in which things are brought into competition and contextualized, relativized, and it is here doing harm becomes ambiguous. — Constance

You are making an impossible distinction here, arguing that there are two definitions of terms (1) the absolute meaning and (2) the contextualized meaning. All actually fall under category #2.

Consider the color example. It remains what it is, most emphatically and without exemption, an absolute one might say (though this term is difficult); yet it can be taken up is countless ways that compromise this simplicity. — Constance

There is no essence to the term "yellow." "Yellow" means however it is used, and there is not a Platonic form that represents true yellow from which to measure. You're arguing essentialism, which isn't a sustainable position.

Generally speaking, pleasure os good. — Constance

If one holds to hedonism, pleasure is good by definition, but that position isn't universally held.

Do no harm. — Constance

But I'm saying sometimes we ought to harm and that your view is idiosyncratic, but you just keep telling me it's obvious we shouldn't harm.