Summary

Rigorous definition filters moral inflation. Used without precision → confusion. Definition: Harm = non-consensual degradation of agent’s capacity to pursue or maintain valued goals. Key components: (1) Agent (capable of valuing, choosing, acting—no agent, no harm). (2) Valued goals (identifiable goals agent cares about—harm degrades capacity to pursue, not mere chance of success). (3) Capacity degradation (ability to act effectively impaired—physically, cognitively, socially, structurally). (4) Non-consensual (if agent knowingly accepted risk/outcome—surgery, contact sports—not harm). Examples that count: Physical assault, gaslighting (undermines cognitive trust), public humiliation with consequences, destruction of critical property (tools, work), discrimination blocking opportunities. Examples that DON’T count: Feeling offended (no functional capacity degraded), romantic rejection (disappointment ≠ impairment), someone else’s success causing envy (no obstruction), disagreement (goals untouched), unreciprocated investment (no capacity degraded). Why works: Captures physical/psychological/social/structural harms. Excludes symbolic/ideological/narcissistic distress. Grounds harm in agency and functional impairment. Cleanly separates harm (factual impact) from injustice (normative judgment). Can be harmed by nature, chance, or agent—but not all harms are wrong. To evaluate wrongness, first identify what harm is and isn’t. Definition provides precision and generality—clean foundation for responsibility, rights, justice discussions without smuggling moral assumptions.

Tags

Cross-References

Notes

  • Third of definitional trilogy
  • Functional/capability-based definition
  • Explicitly filters “moral inflation” (offense ≠ harm)
  • Foundation for political applications
  • Connects to agency theory