Hmmm. It’s becoming apparent to me that I don’t want to regard membrane piercing as a necessarily objective phenomenon. Membrane piercing certainly isn’t always visible from every perspective.
That said, I think it’s still possible to prevent “membrane piercing”, even if whether it occurred can be somewhat subjective.
Responding to some of your examples:
Is it piercing a membrane if I speak and it distracts you, but I don’t touch you otherwise
Again: I don’t actually care so much about whether this is or isn’t a membrane piercing, and I don’t want to make a decision on that in this case. Instead, I want to talk about what actions taken by which agents make the most sense for preventing the outcome if we do consider it to be a membrane piercing.
In most everyday cases, I think the best answer is “if someone’s actions are supposedly distracting you, you shouldn’t blame anyone else for distracting you, you should just get stronger and become less distractible”. I believe this because it can be really hard to know other agent’s boundaries, and if you just let other agents tell you your boundaries you can get mugged too easily.
However, in some cases, self-defense is infact insufficient, and usually in these cases as a society we collectively agree that e.g. “no one should blow an airhorn in your ear—in this case we’re going to blame the person that did that”
What about if I destroy all your food sources but don’t touch your body?
It depends on how far out we can find the membranes. For example, if the membranes go so far out as to include property rights then this could be addressed.
What if I enclose your house completely with concrete while you’re in it?
Again depends on how far out we go with the membranes: in this case, probably: how much of the law is included.
It depends on how far out we can find the membranes. For example, if the membranes go so far out as to include property rights then this could be addressed.
I sort of agree, but my food sources are not my property, they’re a farmer’s property.
I edited numbers into my questions, could you edit to make your response numbered and get each one?
Edit: just see Davidad’s comment
Hmmm. It’s becoming apparent to me that I don’t want to regard membrane piercing as a necessarily objective phenomenon. Membrane piercing certainly isn’t always visible from every perspective.
That said, I think it’s still possible to prevent “membrane piercing”, even if whether it occurred can be somewhat subjective.
Responding to some of your examples:
Again: I don’t actually care so much about whether this is or isn’t a membrane piercing, and I don’t want to make a decision on that in this case. Instead, I want to talk about what actions taken by which agents make the most sense for preventing the outcome if we do consider it to be a membrane piercing.
In most everyday cases, I think the best answer is “if someone’s actions are supposedly distracting you, you shouldn’t blame anyone else for distracting you, you should just get stronger and become less distractible”. I believe this because it can be really hard to know other agent’s boundaries, and if you just let other agents tell you your boundaries you can get mugged too easily.
However, in some cases, self-defense is infact insufficient, and usually in these cases as a society we collectively agree that e.g. “no one should blow an airhorn in your ear—in this case we’re going to blame the person that did that”
It depends on how far out we can find the membranes. For example, if the membranes go so far out as to include property rights then this could be addressed.
Again depends on how far out we go with the membranes: in this case, probably: how much of the law is included.
I sort of agree, but my food sources are not my property, they’re a farmer’s property.
I edited numbers into my questions, could you edit to make your response numbered and get each one?