RE: On Universal Ethics
The point of that shorthand is not restricted to harm. For example, if you act like an asshole, you are explicitly broadcasting your consent for asshole behavior against individuals. Thus, you have no leg to stand on when someone acts like an asshole to you. Reciprocity. Also, keep in mind this is a shorthand for the more specific principle I elucidated in the post. It is, by no means, a comprehensive standard, but it does accurately reflect that principle when applied to situations where one may violate the consent of another through their actions.
As far as harm, that is measured by violation of property. This includes external property, in the form of things that are owned, and internal property, such as one's physical person. Whether or not someone takes offense to something has no bearing whatsoever on whether that thing is moral. The deciding factor is whether consent has been violated. Once that is established, the second factor to take into account is whether the party being violated has violated another prior to the aforementioned violation. If yes, then the action is not immoral (though, as stated before about the subjectivity of restitution, it is possible to act immorally even when the initial reciprocity of harm is not immoral). If no, then the action is immoral.
Where in the threshold of social objectivity that defines when someone has acted like an asshole?
Does bumping into someone on a busy sidewalk constitute a harm? What should be the reciprocation?
(There is this nagging problem in social objectivity where answers may vary, I really haven't found a solution to it)
(Since we are discussing humans, offenses can lead to a 'pistols at dawn' event)
An asshole's an asshole. It also has no bearing on whether or not consent has been violated. Someone shouting obscenities at you does not constitute a violation of property.
As for the sidewalk example, while it could be construed as a trespass, the nature of the trespass warrants little more than asking for an apology, one which may or may not be given. Reciprocity deals with the level of violation. Bumping into someone on the street is neither intentional, nor severe, and the response for such should accord with the level of harm suffered by the person whose property was violated.
(I'd also like to note that, if two people agree to a duel with pistols at dawn, there is nothing immoral in that situation, as both parties consented freely to the duel; this is no different, essentially, than a boxing match)
Well, in determining what the 'social truth' is about assholery, we run into this question:
They are a asshole by what measure?
Is that action assholery?
Do 30 out of 30 randomly selected people see that person as a asshole or the behavior as assholery?
What if 15 out of 30 people see that person as a asshole?
We do prefer accuracy here to inaccuracy right?
The bumping could have been intentional and severe or at least perceived to be so. Harm registered by the person being bumped is somewhat subjective.
(No problem with dueling, there was just a brushing away of offense as if there would be no risk in doing so, I typically will assign some margin of risk per possible offense, not so much for risk oversion, but more for risk awareness)
Question about assholery: what relevance does this portion of the discussion have? Absent the discussion about violation of consent, the only relevance creating a uniform standard of assholery serves is in establishing social conventions or mores. Being an asshole isn't, itself, immoral behavior unless it involves the violation of another's property.
Harm can be measured objectively. The perception of harm is certainly subjective (my pain isn't your pain), but how it violates property and to what degree are empirical questions, not social ones.
On the point about dueling, duels are consensual acts; without the consent of the other party, the initiating party cannot engage in the duel. It then becomes murder/attempted murder, which is immoral, as no violation of property occurred prior to the use of deadly force. So if you were suggesting that dueling is somehow a risk one incurs for social slights, then I don't see how that is, as one can simply refuse.
If you're trying to illustrate the whole "you shut your mouth or I'll beat your ass" situation, then yes, you can ascribe risk to offenses, but the point I'm making isn't that being a dick won't make people violently angry. My point is that getting violently angry over something that doesn't violate property is immoral. It cannot be justified in a sound, valid way. Thus the guy throwing a punch at someone over words is the aggressor, and as stated above, can be retaliated against without moral consequence.
I'm trying to illustrate that empirical truth is empirical truth, and social truth is well....something else. That's it.