No, that is not 'reasonably' said, in a logical sense.
- You took no direct action which 'hurt' your competition in the job market. Your competitors hurt themselves by not being prepared for that market. Your action to educate yourself has no bearing on their failure to do so.
You'll find no example of inflicting actual harm on another without having force or fraud involved. 37 - tpaine
Not to split hairs, but my statement was one could reasonably say that that person had been hurt.
Logically, your action in getting educated did not 'hurt' your competion.
You are using faulty logic, not just 'splitting hairs'.
My original premise was that one could not make that simple statement about hurting others and use it as an ethical principle without applying caveats to it. You, in your response applied caveats to it.
You cannot make a pronoucement, and declare that it unassailable. "No caveats" is a ludicrous attempt to do so.
I used that simple example purposely because most people will come to that same conclusion. Which was basically I didn't intend to inflict actual harm so therefore I'm not morally culpable for the harm or the result of his harm was because of something he failed to do. Either of them work but nevertheless they are still caveats
You seem to think that claiming an argument is a 'caveat' makes that point somehow invalid. Weird use of the word.
You make the statement, "You'll find no example of inflicting actual harm on another without having force or fraud involved." I'm assuming that this statement is defining when an individual is ethically wrong or legally culpable in the infliction of an actual harm and not whether an actual harm has been inflicted.
You lost me. The statement is clear english. Your assumed 'definition' is an attempt to obscure that meaning.
Because I can think of plenty of examples of the infliction of actual harm which doesn't meet this criterion.
Put them up then.
As a definition of what constitutes the unethical or illegal infliction of actual harm it works as a general moral principle. But I can think of plenty of cases of where it collapses. These cases are most likely due to differences in the choice of first principles and of course that's something we can choose to disagree on.
That paragraph is nonsense bafflegab. A bunch of words strung together for effect.
An Example: If I deny a patient medical help because he hasn't health insurance and they died as a consequence one might say that I unethically or illegally inflicted actual harm and one could probably say that force was somehow involved or maybe fraud. Force: because he had to come to my facility. Fraud: because I made a promise that I would treat all patients. Now actually neither of these might apply and some may callously say that no, no actual harm was inflicted except by the individual himself because he had no health insurance and that's why he died. That kind of presents a conundrum; in my denying him medical care am I inflicting actual harm or no? I would say that by denying him the care I am inflicting actual harm and whether force or fraud has anything to do with it or not my behavior is still immoral and wrong. Whether I can be held legally liable is a different question.
Whatever. -- I'm sorry, but this stream of consciousness writing style defeats me. I refuse to spend the time to try deciper what you're saying.
This is a pretty simple statement. On their face value the words: as long as one doesn't do anything which hurts anybody else isn't too difficult to understand, but that's why it's a lousy moral dictum. Which was the point I was trying to make in the first place. You've refined it's interpretation by reading into it your definition of what constitutes "inflicting actual harm" and implying that's how it should be interpreted. You're reading that into it, not me, I'm just dealing with it on its face value.