Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Harm

Harm denotes a setback to an individual's or entity's interests or well-being, often manifesting as physical injury, psychological distress, or economic detriment, and serves as a foundational criterion for justifying interventions in ethics and law.^[1]^[2]^[3] Central to liberal thought, the harm principle—articulated by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty—holds that personal liberty should be restricted only to prevent harm to others, excluding self-harm or mere offense.^[4]^[5] Defining harm precisely remains contentious, with philosophical accounts emphasizing causal setbacks to baseline well-being rather than subjective feelings, while empirical assessments in fields like healthcare quantify incidents through methods such as chart reviews and trigger tools to track preventable adverse events.^[6]^[7] Harms encompass diverse forms, including bodily damage from violence, mental anguish from emotional abuse, and financial impairment from exploitation, each evaluated via causal links to reduced welfare rather than vague moral intuitions.^[8]^[9] Controversies arise over thresholds—such as distinguishing direct causation from allowance of harm—and applications, where overly broad interpretations risk eroding individual autonomy, as critiqued in analyses of Mill's framework.^[10]^[11]

Definitions and Philosophical Foundations

Etymology and Historical Evolution

The English noun and verb "harm" entered the language from Old English hearm, recorded before 1150 CE, signifying physical injury, grief, or moral wrong.^[12] This term stems from Proto-Germanic *harmaz, shared with Old Norse harmr (sorrow or grief) and Old High German harm (injury or outrage), reflecting a broad Germanic conceptualization of detriment encompassing both tangible damage and emotional distress.^[13] Etymologists trace its deeper origins to a Proto-Indo-European root *ḱormo- or related forms denoting pain or scraping injury, though the precise connection remains conjectural due to limited reconstructive evidence.^[14] In medieval English usage, from the Middle English period (circa 1100–1500 CE), "harm" expanded to include intentional wrongdoing or evil intent, as seen in legal and religious texts where it denoted breaches of duty causing loss or suffering, often intertwined with concepts of sin or divine disfavor. Early common law, emerging in 12th-century England under Henry II, formalized harm in the writ system, where remedies addressed direct injuries like battery or trespass, prioritizing compensatory justice for verifiable setbacks to person or property over abstract moral harms.^[16] This legal evolution mirrored broader European traditions, drawing from Roman delicts (wrongful acts causing damage, codified in Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis around 533 CE), which distinguished culpa (negligence) from dolus (intent), but confined actionable harm to observable effects rather than preventive or paternalistic interventions. The philosophical conceptualization of harm underwent significant refinement during the Enlightenment, culminating in John Stuart Mill's 1859 formulation of the "harm principle" in On Liberty, which posited that coercive interference with individual liberty is justifiable only to prevent harm to others, excluding self-regarding actions or purely moral offenses.^[17] This marked a shift from pre-modern views, prevalent in religious and absolutist frameworks, where harm encompassed offenses against divine order or communal norms (e.g., blasphemy or usury deemed harmful to societal virtue).^[1] Post-Mill, 20th-century analytic philosophy, influenced by Joel Feinberg's work in the 1980s, broadened harm to include wrongful setbacks to interests, incorporating psychological and indirect effects while critiquing overly expansive interpretations that blur causation with mere offense.^[18] Empirical legal developments, such as U.S. tort reforms in the late 20th century, further emphasized provable causation and quantifiable damages, reflecting causal realism over speculative risks.^[19]

Core Philosophical Concepts

In philosophy, harm is fundamentally understood as a setback to an individual's interests or well-being, where interests encompass basic needs, goals, and capacities essential for a flourishing life. This conception traces to analytic moral philosophy, emphasizing that harm requires not mere displeasure but a tangible impairment, such as the frustration of welfare interests (e.g., security, autonomy) or non-welfare interests (e.g., projects or relationships). Philosopher Joel Feinberg articulated this in his 1984 work Harm to Others, defining harm as a "wrongful setback to interests," distinguishing it from mere offense, which involves subjective disgust without objective impairment.^[17]^[18] Feinberg's framework insists on wrongfulness, rooted in moral culpability, to delineate actionable harms from benign setbacks, thereby grounding limits on liberty in ethical realism rather than paternalism. Consequentialist theories, particularly utilitarianism, conceptualize harm through its aggregate effects on utility, measured as reductions in pleasure or increases in pain across affected parties. Jeremy Bentham's hedonic calculus (1789) quantified harm by intensity, duration, and extent of suffering, positing that actions causing net disutility constitute moral wrongs, irrespective of intent.^[20] John Stuart Mill refined this by prioritizing higher intellectual pleasures, yet retained harm's causal link to diminished overall happiness, influencing debates on whether indirect or probabilistic harms (e.g., environmental degradation) justify intervention.^[21] This approach prioritizes empirical measurement of outcomes, aligning with causal realism by tracing harms to verifiable chains of events rather than abstract rights. Deontological ethics, conversely, frames harm in terms of inherent violations of duties or rights, independent of consequential tallies. Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative (1785) views harm as arising from treating persons as means rather than ends, such as non-consensual interference with autonomy, even if it yields net benefits.^[22] This duty-based view critiques utilitarian harm assessments for potentially endorsing sacrificial acts, insisting on absolute prohibitions against certain harms (e.g., deception or coercion) to preserve moral integrity. Contemporary deontologists extend this to threshold deontology, allowing consequential overrides only beyond extreme harm levels, balancing rule adherence with realistic harm aversion.^[22] Philosophical debates persist on harm's scope, including non-comparative harms—impairments absolute rather than relative to counterfactual baselines—and the role of baseline neutrality, where harms presuppose a natural or entitled status quo disrupted by causation. Skepticism arises from welfare pluralism, questioning whether subjective interests suffice without objective flourishing standards, as in Aristotelian eudaimonia, which ties harm to failures in realizing human function.^[23]^[3] These concepts underscore harm's normative weight, informing ethical theories by demanding evidence of causal negativity over ideological presumptions.

The Harm Principle and Its Critiques

The Harm Principle, articulated by John Stuart Mill in his 1859 essay On Liberty, posits that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."^[24] Mill distinguished between self-regarding actions, which society should not coerce even if they lead to personal detriment, and other-regarding actions that impose setbacks on others' interests, justifying intervention only in the latter case to safeguard liberty and utility.^[25] This principle underpins classical liberal limits on state authority, emphasizing individual autonomy absent direct victimization of third parties, and has influenced legal doctrines on free speech, vice laws, and personal conduct.^[26] Critics contend that the principle's narrow focus on direct, tangible harm to others falters in defining "harm" with sufficient precision, rendering it vulnerable to expansive or inconsistent application; for instance, Mill's exclusion of psychological or indirect setbacks has been challenged as overly restrictive given empirical evidence of emotional distress constituting measurable welfare losses.^[27] Philosopher Joel Feinberg proposed supplementing it with an "offense principle" to address profound, unavoidable disgust or annoyance inflicted on unwilling audiences, arguing that such experiences impose real burdens akin to harm, as evidenced by public nuisance cases where no physical injury occurs yet social costs accrue.^[11] Further critiques highlight the principle's neglect of societal disintegration from tolerated vices, as articulated by Lord Devlin, who maintained that shared moral norms form the "cement" of community cohesion; erosion through private immorality risks indirect harms like cultural fragmentation or increased public burdens, unsupported by Mill's individualistic framework.^[28]^[29] Empirically, applications in policy domains such as drug prohibition reveal tensions: while strict adherence might decriminalize personal use, data on addiction's externalities—including familial dependency, healthcare strains (e.g., U.S. opioid crisis costs exceeding $1 trillion annually from 2015–2020), and productivity losses—demonstrate cascading effects on non-users, challenging the self/other divide.^[30]^[31] Communitarian scholars argue this overlooks causal interdependencies in human societies, where unchecked self-harm amplifies collective vulnerabilities, as seen in evolutionary models of cooperation breakdown.^[27] Devlin's legal moralism, prioritizing empirical social stability over abstract liberty, posits that preventive enforcement of norms averts broader harms, a view substantiated by historical correlations between moral laxity and institutional decay in analyzed societies.^[32] In practice, the principle's implementation has stretched beyond Mill's intent, incorporating paternalistic or preventive rationales that dilute its libertarian core, as evidenced by expansions in preventive justice doctrines where anticipated risks justify preemption absent realized harm.^[33] This elasticity underscores a core limitation: without robust metrics for harm thresholds, it permits subjective interpretations that favor state overreach, contravening first-principles constraints on coercion.^[34] Proponents of refined versions advocate integrating causal realism—tracing probabilistic chains of effect—but acknowledge the original's inadequacy for complex, interdependent harms like environmental degradation or economic externalities, where individual actions aggregate into collective detriment.^[35]

Classifications and Types of Harm

Physical Harm

Physical harm refers to direct, observable damage to the body's physiological structures or functions, including injuries such as lacerations, fractures, burns, bruises, and malnutrition, as well as resulting conditions like organ failure or death.^[36] Unlike psychological harm, it manifests through tangible physiological changes, often involving tissue disruption, inflammation, or systemic impairment, and is typically assessed via medical diagnostics like imaging, biopsies, or vital sign monitoring.^[37] This form of harm arises from mechanical forces, chemical exposures, thermal extremes, or biological agents, and its severity correlates with outcomes like temporary disability, permanent impairment, or mortality. Common causes include interpersonal violence, such as assaults involving hitting, punching, or weapon use, which produce patterned injuries like bilateral bruising or bite marks.^[38] Unintentional mechanisms predominate globally, with road traffic incidents accounting for 23% of injury-related deaths, self-inflicted injuries 15%, and violence 11%, totaling over 5 million annual fatalities as of recent estimates.^[39] In the United States, injuries cause 300,900 deaths yearly (89.8 per 100,000 population), led by poisoning (109,522 deaths), motor vehicle crashes, falls, and drownings.^[40] Chronic substance use exacerbates physical harm through organ toxicity; for instance, high-dose alcohol and tobacco induce liver cirrhosis, cardiovascular disease, and cancers, with relative harm rankings placing heroin and crack cocaine high due to overdose risks and infectious complications.^[41] Measurement relies on standardized clinical tools evaluating anatomical and physiological impact. The Injury Severity Score (ISS), derived from the Abbreviated Injury Scale, assigns values to injuries across body regions (head, chest, abdomen, etc.), summing squares of the three highest scores to predict mortality risk, with scores over 15 indicating severe trauma.^[37] In healthcare settings, harm severity is rated on scales incorporating physical impairment (e.g., loss of limb function) alongside recovery duration, enabling epidemiological tracking; for example, corporal punishment in children links to immediate bruises and long-term risks like cardiovascular issues from chronic stress.^[42] Empirical data from registries, such as CDC's WISQARS, quantify incidence by mechanism, revealing unintentional injuries as the top killer for ages 1-44, underscoring causal pathways from falls (elderly) to poisoning (opioids).^[43] These metrics prioritize objective physiological endpoints over subjective reports, though underreporting in violence statistics—due to institutional biases in data collection—may underestimate interpersonal causes.^[44] ![Self Harm and Harm to Others of the most common Drugs][float-right] Substance-induced physical harm exemplifies preventable mechanisms, with chronic use of opioids causing respiratory failure and infections, while stimulants like methamphetamine lead to cardiovascular collapse and dental decay ("meth mouth").^[41] Environmental exposures, such as radiation or toxins, produce delayed harms like carcinogenesis, as seen in elevated cancer rates post-occupational incidents.^[42] Interventions focus on causal interruption, with evidence showing seatbelt laws reducing traffic fatalities by 45% and naloxone reversing opioid overdoses, highlighting empirical efficacy in mitigating physical damage.^[39]

Psychological Harm

Psychological harm refers to damage to an individual's mental or emotional well-being, often manifesting as trauma, behavioral changes, or symptoms requiring psychological intervention, distinct from physical injury but capable of producing somatic effects.^[45] It arises from exposure to stressors such as violence, abuse, or disasters, leading to conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression.^[46] Empirical studies indicate that while not all exposures result in lasting impairment— with only about 9% of trauma-exposed individuals developing PTSD—cumulative or severe events increase vulnerability through disrupted stress responses and neurobiological alterations.^[47] Key manifestations include PTSD, characterized by intrusive memories, avoidance, hyperarousal, and negative mood alterations persisting beyond one month post-event, affecting 3-7% of the U.S. population lifetime prevalence.^[46] Anxiety and depression frequently co-occur, with trauma-exposed groups showing elevated symptom severity; for instance, child victims of violence exhibit significantly higher PTSD rates into adulthood compared to non-victims.^[48] Psychological harm from emotional abuse involves tactics like humiliation or threats, correlating with chronic distress without overt physical markers.^[49] Long-term effects extend to psychosocial dysfunction, mediated by intermediary psychopathology rather than direct trauma residuals; longitudinal data link early trauma to adult interpersonal difficulties, substance misuse, and suicide attempts.^[50]^[51] Childhood maltreatment, for example, predicts doubled risks of psychiatric disorders and physical health declines via sustained hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis dysregulation.^[52]^[53] Assessment relies on validated instruments like the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) or Life Events Checklist, quantifying exposure and symptom severity through self-report and clinician evaluation, though subjectivity challenges objectivity—symptoms must impair functioning to denote harm.^[54]^[55] Interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy demonstrate efficacy in mitigating effects, reducing PTSD symptoms by 30-50% in meta-analyses, underscoring causality via reversible pathways.^[56] Sources from clinical psychology, including APA guidelines, emphasize empirical thresholds over anecdotal reports to distinguish harm from transient stress.^[57]

Economic and Property Harm

Economic harm refers to financial losses or damages incurred by an individual or entity resulting from another's actions, encompassing direct, incidental, and consequential pecuniary losses such as lost wages, reduced future earning potential, and business interruptions.^[58]^[59] In tort law, pure economic harm—monetary loss without accompanying physical injury or property damage—is often subject to the economic-harm rule, which limits recovery to prevent indeterminate liability for remote financial impacts.^[60] For instance, in cases of fraudulent misrepresentation or unlawful interference with trade, plaintiffs must demonstrate a direct causal link between the defendant's conduct and the economic detriment suffered.^[61] Property harm constitutes physical injury to or destruction of real or tangible personal property, arising from negligence, intentional acts, or natural forces, such as structural damage from accidents or environmental spills.^[62]^[63] Unlike economic harm, which is intangible and calculable through financial records, property harm requires assessment of tangible assets' diminution in value, often via professional appraisals comparing pre- and post-incident conditions.^[64] The 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill exemplifies combined property and economic harm, where crude oil contaminated Alaskan shores, fisheries, and vessels, leading to cleanup costs exceeding $2 billion and long-term losses to commercial fishing estimated at over $2.8 billion by 1993 assessments.^[65] Quantification of economic harm typically involves forensic economic methods, including projections of lost profits, discounted cash flows, and mitigation offsets, ensuring claims reflect verifiable data like pay stubs and market analyses rather than speculative projections.^[66]^[67] Property harm valuation, by contrast, relies on repair costs, replacement value, or fair market diminution, with insurance policies often capping coverage for third-party claims.^[68] These distinctions underscore causal realism in harm assessment: economic losses must trace proximately to the injurious act, while property damage demands empirical evidence of physical alteration, avoiding conflation with non-verifiable subjective impacts.^[69] Social harm encompasses impairments to interpersonal relationships, social institutions, and collective cohesion that arise from structural, economic, or behavioral factors, often extending beyond criminal acts to include systemic issues like inequality and institutional failures. Zemiology, a sociological framework, defines social harm ontologically across physical (e.g., injury from unsafe work conditions), autonomy (e.g., restrictions on personal agency through poverty), and relational dimensions (e.g., erosion of community bonds).^[70] ^[71] Empirical indicators include declining interpersonal trust, which in the United States fell from 58% of adults reporting "most people can be trusted" in 1964 to 31% by 2016, with further erosion to lower levels among lower-income and less-educated groups by 2025, correlating with reduced civic participation and heightened social isolation.^[72] This decline, partly driven by unemployment experiences and political disillusionment, exacerbates societal vulnerabilities such as increased mental health issues and populism, as evidenced by longitudinal analyses showing trust erosion explaining up to half of reduced social capital since the 1970s.^[73] ^[74] Cultural harm manifests as the degradation or suppression of shared cultural elements, including traditions, languages, and identities, leading to collective trauma and loss of adaptive practices. It can stem from endogenous factors, such as entrenched practices like female genital mutilation (FGM), which has affected over 200 million women and girls alive today across 30 countries, primarily in Africa and the Middle East, resulting in long-term physical and psychological sequelae including chronic pain and infertility.^[75] Exogenous pressures, including globalization, accelerate cultural homogenization; for instance, indigenous languages worldwide have declined by an estimated 60% since 1900, with globalization contributing to the erosion of traditional knowledge systems among groups like the Maya in Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula through economic integration and media dominance.^[76] ^[77] Such erosion correlates with health disparities, as cultural trauma disrupts protective social mechanisms, increasing vulnerability to stress-related disorders in affected communities.^[78] ^[79] In tandem, social and cultural harms often intersect, as declining trust undermines cultural transmission; for example, low-trust environments in high-inequality societies foster individualism over communal rituals, perpetuating cycles of relational breakdown observed in studies of Western populations since the 1990s.^[80] Interventions targeting these harms emphasize bolstering social capital through visible norm shifts, though empirical success varies, with community programs reducing harmful practices like child marriage by 20-30% in targeted African regions via public pledges and education.^[81] Quantifying these harms remains challenging due to subjective elements, but metrics like trust surveys and cultural vitality indices provide proxies for assessing prevalence and mitigation.^[82]

Causes and Mechanisms of Harm

Direct and Indirect Causation

Direct causation in the analysis of harm describes a scenario where an initiating event or action produces the harmful outcome through an immediate and unmediated process, absent significant intervening variables or agents. This form of causation aligns with scenarios in which the cause and effect are linked by a straightforward counterfactual dependency, such that the harm would not occur but for the direct action, and no substantial chain of secondary events disrupts the connection. For example, in cases of acute physical trauma, such as a deliberate punch fracturing a bone, the mechanical force applied directly results in tissue damage without reliance on further biological or environmental mediators.^[83]^[84] Empirical studies in biomechanics confirm this immediacy, where force transmission leads to injury metrics like bone strain exceeding 1-2% within milliseconds of impact. Indirect causation, by contrast, entails harm arising from mediated pathways, where the initial cause influences intermediary factors that in turn generate the adverse effect, often involving extended temporal or spatial gaps. This mediated structure complicates attribution, as the full causal chain must be traced to establish necessity—removing the initial cause would prevent the intermediaries and thus the harm, but probabilistic elements or multiple contributors may dilute immediacy. A canonical legal example is product liability for faulty vehicle components: a manufacturer's defect in brakes may lead to a collision not through direct force but via the driver's compensatory actions and road conditions, with harm manifesting as crash-related injuries; liability hinges on foreseeability of such chains, as evidenced by U.S. tort cases where courts apply the "but-for" test alongside proximate cause limits to filter remote links.^[84]^[85] In epidemiological contexts, tobacco smoking exemplifies indirect harm to lung tissue, where initial exposure triggers chronic inflammation and genetic mutations over years, culminating in cancer via cellular proliferation pathways rather than instantaneous damage.^[86] Distinguishing these modes informs moral and legal responsibility, as direct causation often implies stronger intentionality or culpability—philosophers note that agents bear heightened accountability for unmediated harms due to clearer control over outcomes—while indirect chains introduce attenuation, potentially invoking doctrines that permit foreseen but unintended side effects if the primary intent avoids harm. Quantifying indirect effects requires mediation analysis, decomposing total harm into direct (unmediated) and indirect (path-specific) components; for instance, econometric models of policy-induced economic harm decompose job losses into direct regulatory costs and indirect market contractions, revealing that indirect pathways can amplify total effects by 20-50% in sectors like manufacturing.^[88] Challenges arise in verifying chains empirically, as confounding variables demand rigorous controls like instrumental variables to isolate true mediation from spurious correlations.^[89] This framework underscores causal realism, prioritizing verifiable mechanisms over mere temporal precedence to avoid overattributing harm to distant antecedents.

Individual vs. Collective Responsibility

Individual responsibility for harm centers on the volitional actions of specific persons, where causation is traced directly to their choices and intentions, enabling moral and legal accountability at the personal level. This attribution aligns with causal realism, emphasizing that harms arise from discrete decisions rather than diffuse forces, as individual agents possess the capacity for foresight, deliberation, and control over outcomes. For instance, in criminal law, liability requires proof of an actor's mens rea and actus reus, holding the perpetrator accountable regardless of broader contexts. Empirical studies on blame attribution reveal a tendency to prioritize individual agency in harm scenarios, consistent with the fundamental attribution error, where observers attribute negative outcomes to personal dispositions over situational factors.^[90] Collective responsibility, by contrast, attributes harm to groups, organizations, or societies, often invoking emergent properties from aggregated behaviors or institutional structures that no single member fully controls. Proponents argue this applies to widespread harms like corporate pollution or systemic discrimination, where group agency—through shared norms, policies, or joint intentions—generates accountability beyond individuals. For example, in the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, while Captain Joseph Hazelwood's impaired navigation caused the grounding, Exxon Corporation faced collective liability for inadequate oversight and safety protocols, resulting in $2.7 billion in cleanup costs and fines imposed on the entity.^[91] However, philosophical critiques contend that collectives lack true agency, as they cannot deliberate or intend independently; harms remain reducible to individual contributions, rendering group blame a legal fiction for practical compensation rather than moral desert.^[92] The tension arises in causal chains: individual actions provide the proximate mechanisms for harm, yet collective dynamics can amplify or enable them, complicating attribution. Individualist views, rooted in libertarian ethics, prioritize personal responsibility to incentivize self-control and deterrence, warning that collectivizing blame diffuses accountability and fosters excuses, as seen in attributions for organizational accidents where leaders are scapegoated via proxy logic despite distributed decisions.^[93] Collectivist frameworks, prevalent in academic ethics influenced by communitarian theories, justify group sanctions for shared complicity in harms like climate change, where per capita emissions (e.g., U.S. average of 15.5 tons CO2-equivalent annually in 2022) aggregate to global effects, but such approaches risk unfairness by punishing non-consenting members or overlooking free-rider problems.^[94] Empirical evidence from attribution research supports individual primacy for direct harms, with studies showing stronger blame for personal causation in negative outcomes, though cultural variances exist—e.g., Americans emphasize actor intent more than Japanese, who weigh contextual factors.^[95] In practice, hybrid models prevail: legal systems impose vicarious liability on collectives (e.g., employer respondeat superior for employee torts) to ensure victim redress, while moral philosophy debates reduce collective claims to summed individual faults, rejecting irreducible group guilt to avoid metaphysical overreach. This distinction informs policy, as overemphasizing collectives—often amplified in institutionally biased analyses—may undermine personal agency, whereas grounding responsibility in verifiable individual causation promotes effective prevention without diluting causal accountability.^[96]

Assessment and Measurement

Objective Metrics and Empirical Methods

Objective metrics for harm assessment prioritize quantifiable indicators derived from physiological, epidemiological, or economic data to minimize reliance on self-reported experiences, which can introduce recall bias or subjectivity. In physical harm evaluation, the Injury Severity Score (ISS) provides a standardized anatomical quantification by summing the squares of the three highest Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) scores across six body regions, yielding values from 0 to 75, with higher scores correlating to increased mortality risk and resource utilization in trauma cases.^[97] This metric, developed in the 1970s and refined through empirical validation against outcomes like survival rates, enables cross-study comparisons but assumes additivity of injuries, potentially underestimating diffuse trauma.^[98] Epidemiological tools extend this to broader health harms, where Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) combine years of life lost (YLL) due to premature mortality with years lived with disability (YLD), weighted by disability severity factors established via expert Delphi panels and empirical health state valuations.^[99] DALYs facilitate population-level comparisons of harm burdens, as applied by the World Health Organization in global disease assessments, revealing, for instance, that injuries account for over 10% of total DALYs worldwide, though critiques note cultural variations in disability weights may embed Western biases.^[99] Complementary metrics like Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) incorporate similar adjustments for economic evaluations of interventions, prioritizing cost-effectiveness in harm prevention.%20How%20do%20we%20measure%20population%20harm.pdf) Psychological harm quantification remains challenging for purely objective metrics due to its internal nature, but empirical proxies include physiological markers such as elevated cortisol levels or altered heart rate variability measured via wearable devices, correlated longitudinally with stressor exposures in cohort studies.^[100] Validated scales like the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), empirically derived from diagnostic criteria and factor-analyzed against clinical outcomes, offer semi-objective scoring, with cutoffs (e.g., ≥33 indicating probable PTSD) tuned for sensitivity and specificity in veteran populations exceeding 80%.^[54] Economic harm employs direct tabulations of out-of-pocket costs and indirect estimates via human capital methods, valuing lost productivity as foregone earnings discounted to present value; for example, U.S. workplace injuries generate annual economic burdens exceeding $170 billion, derived from longitudinal wage data and actuarial models.^[101] Empirical methods for causal attribution of harm leverage statistical techniques to isolate effects amid confounders. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide gold-standard evidence by randomizing exposures and measuring pre-post outcomes, as in vaccine safety assessments tracking adverse events at rates below 1 per million doses for severe harms.^[102] Observational data employ propensity score matching or instrumental variable approaches to mimic randomization, estimating, for instance, the causal impact of policy changes on injury rates with confidence intervals narrowed through bootstrapping.^[102] Trigger tools, retrospectively scanning records for sentinel events (e.g., unexpected transfusions indicating iatrogenic harm), detect adverse incidents at rates 10-100 times higher than voluntary reporting, enhancing detection in healthcare settings via chart audits validated against expert review.^[103] These methods underscore causal realism by testing falsifiable hypotheses, though selection biases in data sources—such as underreporting in administrative records—necessitate sensitivity analyses for robustness.^[103]

Challenges in Quantifying Subjective Harm

Subjective harm, encompassing experiences such as emotional distress, psychological trauma, and perceived reductions in well-being, resists straightforward quantification due to its inherent reliance on individual introspection and self-reporting, which introduces variability and potential inaccuracies. Unlike objective physical injuries measurable via biomarkers or imaging, subjective harm lacks universally agreed-upon physiological indicators, complicating empirical validation. Self-report scales, such as the Subjective Units of Distress Scale (SUDS), often exhibit psychometric limitations including construct underrepresentation and irrelevance, undermining their reliability for precise measurement.^[104] A primary challenge arises from response biases in self-assessments, including recall inaccuracies where individuals misremember or reinterpret past emotional states, and social desirability effects that prompt under- or over-reporting to align with perceived norms. Empirical studies on subjective well-being (SWB), inversely related to harm, highlight how retrospective surveys are susceptible to these memory distortions, whereas real-time experience sampling methods—though more accurate—are resource-intensive and impractical for large-scale application. Cultural and contextual factors further exacerbate inconsistencies, as interpretations of harm vary across societies; for instance, what constitutes psychological distress in one group may not register similarly in another, hindering cross-study comparability.^[105]^[106] In legal and clinical domains, quantifying subjective harm for compensation or diagnosis poses additional hurdles, as courts and practitioners must infer extent from subjective testimony without objective corroboration, often leading to disputes over causation and severity. Scales for psychological distress face scrutiny for validity, with evidence suggesting they may fail to capture multifaceted emotional impacts reliably, particularly in consumer protection or trauma contexts where behavioral and physiological markers are inconsistently integrated. Longitudinal tracking reveals fluctuations in reported harm influenced by external variables like ongoing therapy or life events, yet standardized metrics remain elusive, as demonstrated by ongoing debates in SWB research where demographic predictors explain only partial variance in outcomes.^[107]^[108]^[109] These measurement gaps underscore broader methodological tensions in quantitative psychology, where establishing behavioral phenomena as truly scalable entities requires rigorous demonstration beyond correlational data, yet persistent critiques question whether subjective attributes lend themselves to numerical representation without oversimplification. Advances in multi-method approaches, combining self-reports with ecological momentary assessments, offer partial mitigation but do not resolve interpersonal heterogeneity or the absence of gold-standard validators.^[110]^[111]

Applications in Various Domains

In Law and Criminal Justice

In criminal law, the harm principle provides a core justification for state intervention, positing that criminal prohibitions should primarily target conduct that causes or risks harm to others, rather than paternalistic or moralistic concerns. This principle, derived from John Stuart Mill's 1859 essay On Liberty, limits the legitimate scope of criminalization to preventing setbacks to the interests of individuals other than the actor, excluding self-regarding actions absent direct external harm.^[27] Legal scholars like Joel Feinberg have expanded this to distinguish "harm" as a wrongfully set-back interest, contrasting it with mere offense, thereby guiding prohibitions against acts like assault or fraud while questioning moral offenses without tangible victims.^[112] Courts in jurisdictions such as Canada have invoked variants of the principle in constitutional challenges to drug laws, though consensus remains elusive on its status as a binding limit rather than a policy heuristic.^[113] Harm in criminal justice systems is typically defined as a tangible or intangible adverse consequence to a person's welfare interests, encompassing physical injury, property damage, emotional distress, or economic loss resulting from prohibited conduct.^[114] Criminal codes operationalize this through elements requiring proof of harm or its imminent risk; for instance, under the U.S. Model Penal Code, offenses like battery demand actual bodily impairment or substantial pain, while theft statutes specify deprivation of property value exceeding nominal thresholds.^[115] Empirical assessments of harm severity inform charging decisions, with prosecutors prioritizing cases involving greater injury—data from U.S. federal cases show that offenses with physical harm result in indictment rates over 90%, compared to under 50% for property crimes without violence.^[116] This focus aligns with causal realism, emphasizing direct linkages between acts and outcomes, though indirect harms like psychological trauma from threats are increasingly recognized via statutes expanding victim rights.^[117] In sentencing, harm quantification plays a pivotal role in determining punishment proportionality, often via matrices balancing harm severity against offender culpability. Jurisdictions like England and Wales employ a harm-culpability grid in guidelines, where high-harm offenses (e.g., causing death or serious injury) paired with high culpability (intentional acts) yield custodial terms up to life imprisonment, supported by empirical weighting of outcomes like victim injury duration or economic loss.^[118] Victim impact statements further integrate harm evidence, with studies indicating they increase sentence lengths by 10-20% in jurisdictions allowing them, by providing concrete data on unquantified effects like long-term disability.^[119] However, challenges arise in measuring subjective harms, prompting tools like crime harm indices that assign weights based on public surveys of offense gravity—such indices correlate with recidivism predictions but face criticism for underemphasizing socioeconomic context in harm attribution.^[120] Debates persist over "victimless" crimes, where no direct complainant exists, such as consensual adult transactions in drugs or sex work, questioning whether indirect societal harms (e.g., addiction externalities or market violence) justify criminalization under the harm principle. Proponents argue these acts impose uncompensated costs on third parties, with surveys showing 70-80% of respondents perceiving moral wrongs like prostitution as harmful to community welfare despite lacking immediate victims.^[121] ^[122] Critics, drawing on first-principles limits to state power, contend overcriminalization of such acts inflates justice system burdens—U.S. data indicate victimless offenses comprise 40-50% of arrests yet yield low deterrence, with recidivism rates exceeding 60% due to weak causal ties between punishment and behavioral change.^[123] Restorative justice models address this by prioritizing harm repair over retribution, empirically reducing reoffending by 14% in randomized trials through victim-offender mediation focused on verifiable restitution rather than incarceration.^[124] Mainstream academic sources often downplay enforcement costs in favor of expansive harm definitions, reflecting institutional biases toward interventionism, whereas economic analyses highlight net societal harm from prolonged sentences in low-harm cases.^[125]

In Medicine and Public Health

In medicine, harm arises predominantly through iatrogenic mechanisms, where therapeutic interventions produce unintended adverse effects such as adverse drug reactions, procedural complications, and nosocomial infections. Globally, unsafe medical care contributes to an estimated 134 million adverse events annually across primary and secondary facilities, with medication-related errors accounting for a substantial portion and resulting in prolonged hospital stays, disabilities, or deaths.^[126] In the United States, adverse drug events represent a critical public health concern, with emergency department visits and hospitalizations linked to them exceeding 700,000 cases yearly, many involving preventable errors in prescribing or administration.^[127] Diagnostic inaccuracies exemplify a pervasive form of medical harm, leading to delayed or incorrect treatments that exacerbate patient conditions. A national analysis estimates that 795,000 Americans experience permanent disability or death each year due to misdiagnosis of dangerous diseases, spanning ambulatory, emergency, and inpatient settings, with cancers, infections, and vascular events most commonly affected.^[128] Surgical adverse events, including wrong-site operations and postoperative infections, further compound iatrogenic burden, with healthcare-associated infections alone causing up to 10% of patient harm in hospitals worldwide.^[126] While aggregate mortality attributions—such as claims of over 250,000 annual U.S. deaths from medical errors—have been critiqued for conflating correlation with causation and relying on extrapolated data, empirical reviews confirm errors as a leading preventable contributor to excess mortality, potentially rivaling major diseases when rigorously quantified.^[129]^[130] In public health, harm emerges from scaled interventions where aggregate benefits mask subgroup risks or systemic unintended consequences, such as antimicrobial stewardship failures driving resistance. Overprescription policies, exemplified by U.S. guidelines in the 1990s-2000s emphasizing opioid use for chronic pain, precipitated an epidemic with over 500,000 overdose deaths from 1999-2021, illustrating iatrogenic amplification through policy incentives misaligned with long-term causal dynamics.^[131] Similarly, aggressive population screening for conditions like prostate cancer has led to overdiagnosis rates of 20-50%, prompting unnecessary biopsies, treatments, and associated harms including incontinence and impotence without net survival gains.^[132] Radiation-based diagnostics and therapies, while diagnostic staples, contribute to secondary cancers in 1-5% of exposed patients over decades, highlighting dose-dependent trade-offs often underemphasized in guideline development.^[131] These domains intersect in scenarios like hospital-acquired conditions, where public health surveillance data reveal that 1 in 31 U.S. hospital patients contracts an infection annually, prolonging stays by 4-7 days and inflating mortality risks by 10-20%.^[126] Empirical measurement challenges persist, as underreporting—estimated at 90% for adverse events—stems from fragmented systems and cultural barriers to disclosure, necessitating causal inference methods like propensity scoring to disentangle intervention effects from baseline risks.^[133] Addressing such harms demands prospective pharmacovigilance and policy evaluations prioritizing randomized evidence over observational correlations, particularly amid institutional tendencies to favor interventionist paradigms that may overlook low-probability, high-impact downsides.

In Ethics and Moral Philosophy

In moral philosophy, harm serves as a foundational concept for evaluating actions and justifying constraints on liberty. Within consequentialist theories like utilitarianism, harm is equated with reductions in utility, specifically the diminution of pleasure or increase in pain across affected parties. Jeremy Bentham's hedonic calculus, outlined in his 1789 Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, quantifies harm by dimensions such as intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent, aiming to aggregate net disutility to determine moral permissibility. John Stuart Mill advanced this in his 1863 Utilitarianism by distinguishing higher and lower pleasures, positing that actions causing profound intellectual or moral setbacks constitute greater harm than mere physical discomfort, though empirical measurement remains challenging due to subjective valuations of utility.^[134]^[135] Mill's harm principle, articulated in his 1859 On Liberty, further specifies that societal or state interference with individual actions is justifiable solely "to prevent harm to others," excluding self-regarding conduct even if it leads to personal detriment, as coercion undermines autonomy and long-term societal progress through experiential learning. This principle prioritizes empirical causation: direct injuries like assault qualify as harms warranting prohibition, while indirect or speculative risks, such as voluntary intoxication without externalities, do not, countering paternalistic overreach. Philosopher Joel Feinberg, in his 1984 Harm to Others, refined this by defining harm as a setback to interests where the victim has a right not to suffer such impairment, excluding mere disappointments or voluntary risks; he argued this objective standard avoids conflating harm with subjective offense, though critics note its reliance on antecedent rights presupposes contested moral baselines.^[136]^[137] Deontological ethics, exemplified by Immanuel Kant's framework in his 1785 Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, decouples harm from consequentialist utility, framing it instead as violations of rational duties or the categorical imperative to treat humanity as an end in itself, not a means. Coercion, deception, or exploitation thus inflict moral harm by undermining autonomy, regardless of net outcomes; for instance, lying harms the liar's rational agency and the deceived party's right to truth, even if no empirical suffering ensues. This duty-based approach critiques utilitarian harm assessments for potentially endorsing aggregate benefits at individual expense, such as sacrificing innocents for majority welfare, emphasizing instead inviolable rights derived from reason. Virtue ethics traditions, from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (circa 350 BCE), conceptualize harm as erosion of eudaimonia through vice cultivation, where habitual wrongdoing damages character integrity over time, prioritizing personal moral development against external impositions.^[138]^[139] Ongoing debates in moral philosophy center on harm's boundaries, with empirical evidence from behavioral studies indicating that perceived harms like emotional distress often correlate weakly with objective welfare setbacks, challenging expansive definitions that blur into paternalism. Feinberg's offense principle supplements the harm criterion by permitting restrictions on profound, unavoidable affronts, but only if they outweigh liberty costs, as in public nuisance cases; however, applications to speech or lifestyle choices risk subjective inflation, where cultural biases amplify minor discomforts into purported harms, diverging from Mill's causal realism. These tensions underscore philosophy's insistence on verifiable causation and rights-based limits to prevent moral overreach.^[140]^[3]

In Modern Technology and Society

Modern technology introduces novel forms of harm through mechanisms such as algorithmic amplification of divisive content, erosion of privacy via pervasive data collection, and unintended consequences of automation on human decision-making. Empirical evidence links excessive social media use to elevated risks of anxiety, depression, and self-harm ideation among adolescents, with a 2025 Pew Research Center survey finding that 48% of U.S. teens view these platforms as having a mostly negative impact on peers' mental health, up from 32% in 2022.^[141] A meta-analysis of randomized trials indicates that restricting social media access can improve subjective well-being, suggesting causal pathways from usage to psychological distress rather than mere correlation.^[142] Adolescents with pre-existing mental health conditions report higher engagement with these platforms and lower satisfaction with online interactions, exacerbating isolation and exposure to harmful content like self-harm glorification.^[143] Artificial intelligence systems pose harms through biased outputs that perpetuate discrimination and errors that endanger lives. In criminal justice, the COMPAS recidivism prediction tool exhibited racial bias, falsely labeling Black defendants as higher risk at twice the rate of white defendants with equivalent reoffending histories, leading to disproportionate sentencing impacts.^[144] Healthcare algorithms have similarly undervalued the needs of Black patients, systematically underestimating severity of conditions like kidney disease due to training data reflecting historical disparities in care access, resulting in delayed interventions.^[145] Broader AI risks include data privacy breaches and erroneous medical decisions; a review identifies potential for AI-induced patient harm via misdiagnoses or insecure health data handling, with existential threats from misaligned superintelligent systems debated in peer-reviewed analyses but grounded in observable near-term failures.^[146] Cybersecurity vulnerabilities in interconnected societies inflict economic and personal harms on a massive scale. The average global cost of a data breach reached $4.44 million in 2025, reflecting financial losses, reputational damage, and identity theft affecting millions, with phishing and human error contributing to 68% of incidents.^[147] Cybercrime's aggregate toll exceeded $1 trillion annually by 2020, encompassing societal disruptions like ransomware attacks on critical infrastructure, which cascade into physical harms such as delayed emergency services.^[148] These breaches erode trust in digital systems, amplifying indirect harms through widespread fear and behavioral shifts toward isolation. Technology-induced addictions further compound individual and societal harms by impairing productivity and relationships. Global prevalence of smartphone addiction stands at approximately 27%, with social media addiction at 17%, driven by dopamine-reinforcing design features like infinite scrolling and notifications.^[149] In the U.S., surveys estimate 1.5-8.2% suffer clinical internet addiction, though self-reported phone dependency affects over 50% of adults, correlating with sleep disruption and reduced cognitive function.^[150]^[151] These patterns reflect causal engineering of engagement over user autonomy, prompting regulatory scrutiny under harm-based frameworks akin to tobacco or gambling controls.

Strategies for Prevention and Response

Harm Reduction Paradigms

Harm reduction paradigms consist of evidence-based public health strategies that seek to diminish the adverse health, social, and economic consequences of substance use and related behaviors, without mandating complete cessation of the activity. These approaches emphasize pragmatic, non-coercive interventions tailored to user realities, such as providing sterile injecting equipment to avert infectious disease transmission or distributing naloxone to reverse opioid overdoses.^[152] ^[153] Central tenets include acceptance of persistent drug use among certain populations, prioritization of immediate harm mitigation over long-term abstinence, and client-centered flexibility that accommodates any positive behavioral shift, however modest.^[154] ^[155] The paradigms originated in the early 1980s as responses to surging HIV infections among injecting drug users, with pioneering needle syringe exchange programs in cities like Amsterdam and New Haven demonstrating feasibility amid opposition to perceived endorsement of drug use. By the 1990s, international bodies such as the World Health Organization endorsed these methods, crediting them with averting an estimated 10,000 HIV cases in Australia alone through syringe distribution by 2000. Key implementations include opioid substitution therapies like methadone maintenance, which stabilize users and cut illicit opioid consumption by 50-80% in randomized trials, and supervised consumption facilities that have prevented over 20,000 overdoses in Canada since 2003 without documented on-site fatalities.^[156] Drug checking services, enabling users to detect adulterants like fentanyl, further exemplify the paradigm by informing safer consumption practices.^[157] Empirical evaluations affirm effectiveness in targeted domains: meta-analyses of syringe programs show 18-56% reductions in HIV incidence and no net increase in drug injecting frequency.^[158] Naloxone distribution has reversed over 26,000 U.S. opioid overdoses since 1996, correlating with 46% drops in overdose mortality in dissemination areas.^[159] However, outcomes vary; while infectious disease harms decline, overall substance use prevalence often remains stable or rises slightly in some cohorts, prompting debates on whether benefits outweigh systemic costs.^[156] Critics contend that harm reduction fosters moral hazard by normalizing risky behaviors, potentially prolonging addiction and elevating public expenditures—U.S. programs, for instance, cost billions annually amid persistent overdose rates exceeding 100,000 in 2023.^[160] Longitudinal studies reveal unintended effects, including community perceptions of increased disorder near facilities and no consistent evidence of accelerated treatment entry.^[157] ^[161] Proponents counter that abstinence-focused alternatives yield comparable or worse results, as prohibition-era data indicate higher per-capita harms in restrictive jurisdictions like Sweden versus liberalized ones like Portugal post-2001 decriminalization, where overdose deaths fell 80%.^[162] Yet, causal attribution remains contested, with confounders like socioeconomic factors complicating isolation of paradigm impacts.^[163] These tensions underscore harm reduction's role as a partial, context-dependent tool rather than a panacea, best integrated with enforcement and recovery options for net harm minimization.^[164]

Prohibition and Deterrence Approaches

Prohibition approaches to harm prevention involve legal bans on substances, activities, or behaviors deemed to cause significant damage, aiming to eliminate supply and access entirely.^[165] In the United States, the 18th Amendment enacted national alcohol prohibition from 1920 to 1933, which initially reduced per capita consumption by an estimated 30-50% through restricted availability, leading to declines in alcohol-related mortality and cirrhosis rates.^[166] However, consumption gradually rebounded to pre-prohibition levels by the late 1920s, accompanied by a surge in organized crime, speakeasies, and poisoned alcohol from illicit production, which caused thousands of deaths from contaminated supplies.^[165] ^[167] The global "war on drugs," initiated by U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1971, exemplifies modern prohibition efforts against narcotics, with policies emphasizing supply interdiction and criminalization to curb addiction, overdose, and societal costs.^[168] Despite trillions spent, U.S. drug overdose deaths rose from about 6,000 in 1980 to over 100,000 annually by 2021, with black markets fueling cartel violence in producer countries like Mexico, where homicide rates linked to drug trafficking increased over 300% from 2007 to 2018 following intensified enforcement.^[169] ^[170] Empirical analyses indicate prohibition displaces rather than eliminates harm, as underground economies evade regulation and substitute more dangerous production methods, such as fentanyl-laced heroin.^[171] Deterrence strategies complement prohibition by leveraging the threat of sanctions—such as fines, imprisonment, or execution—to raise the perceived costs of harmful actions, rooted in rational choice theory where individuals weigh benefits against risks.^[172] Criminological meta-analyses confirm that punishment certainty (likelihood of detection and apprehension) deters crime more effectively than severity, with studies showing a 10-20% drop in offenses from increased police patrols or swift enforcement, as opposed to minimal effects from harsher sentences alone.^[173] ^[174] For instance, U.S. data from 1970-2000 reveal that rising incarceration rates correlated weakly with crime declines, which aligned more closely with economic factors and policing innovations emphasizing visibility over penalty length.^[175] In non-substance domains, deterrence has shown targeted success; traffic safety laws with automated cameras reduced speeding-related fatalities by up to 14% in implemented areas by enhancing certainty of fines, without relying on draconian penalties.^[173] Yet, empirical reviews highlight limitations: impulsive or low-impulsivity offenders respond differently, and over-reliance on severity can erode legitimacy, fostering recidivism rates exceeding 60% post-incarceration.^[176] ^[177] Prohibition-deterrence hybrids often amplify enforcement costs—U.S. drug war expenditures topped $1 trillion from 1971-2020—while failing to address root causes like demand or socioeconomic drivers of harm.^[178] Overall, evidence underscores that while these approaches can suppress immediate harms through restriction and fear, they frequently generate secondary damages via evasion, inequality in enforcement, and diminished public compliance.^[179]

Building Resilience and Personal Agency

Resilience constitutes the psychological process of adapting effectively to adversity, trauma, or significant stressors that may inflict harm, enabling individuals to maintain or regain mental health equilibrium. Personal agency complements this by denoting the sense of volitional control over one's actions and environment, which empowers proactive responses to potential harms rather than passive victimization. Empirical reviews demonstrate that resilience is not solely innate but learnable, with traits such as optimism, self-compassion, and an internal locus of control moderating the impact of stressors like adverse childhood experiences or occupational trauma on outcomes including depression and suicidality.^[180]^[181]^[182] Evidence-based interventions emphasize cultivating self-efficacy and perceived control, which studies link to faster recovery and reduced symptom severity post-adversity; for instance, higher self-efficacy correlates with buffered effects of bullying or parenting stress on positive affect. Cognitive-behavioral techniques, including reframing negative narratives to avoid over-personalization or permanence in setbacks, foster adaptive coping and have shown efficacy in trauma-exposed populations. Physical wellness practices, such as regular exercise and adequate sleep, alongside mindfulness exercises like journaling or meditation, enhance emotional regulation and prevent escalation of harm into chronic conditions, as supported by longitudinal data on stress inoculation effects.^[180]^[182]^[181] Social resources amplify personal agency by providing relational buffers; strong support networks, including empathetic relationships or community involvement, mitigate isolation and promote resilience, with research indicating that teacher or peer support reduces the mental health toll of adverse events in youth and adults. Goal-setting and purposeful activities, such as breaking problems into actionable steps or aiding others, reinforce agency by building self-worth and motivation, evidenced in post-trauma cohorts where such behaviors predicted sustained adaptation over passive rumination. These approaches underscore causal pathways where individual initiative, rather than external dependencies, drives harm mitigation, though over-reliance on resilience narratives without addressing stressor severity can risk underestimating systemic harms.^[180]^[181]^[182]

Controversies and Debates

Expansion of Harm to Include Offense and Discomfort

In ethical and legal discourse, the traditional delineation of harm—rooted in John Stuart Mill's 1859 formulation in On Liberty, which restricts interference with liberty solely to avert direct injury or setback to others' vital interests—has faced reinterpretation to incorporate psychological states such as offense and discomfort.^[11] This shift posits that emotional distress from words or ideas constitutes actionable harm warranting regulation, extending beyond Mill's exclusion of mere displeasure or moral indignation, which he deemed insufficient for curtailment of expression.^[183] Proponents argue this accounts for modern understandings of trauma, where exposure to disagreeable content allegedly triggers symptoms akin to post-traumatic stress, including anxiety and reduced empathy.^[184] Empirical scrutiny, however, reveals scant causal evidence linking offensive speech to enduring psychological damage equivalent to physical harm. Experimental studies attempting to induce harm via exposure to derogatory language suffer from ethical constraints and self-reported biases, yielding correlational rather than demonstrable effects; for instance, short-term discomfort may arise, but no robust data supports long-term impairment without predisposing vulnerabilities.^[185] Critics, including psychologists Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, contend that equating transient offense with harm promotes "safetyism," a culture that pathologizes normal emotional challenges, eroding resilience as evidenced by rising anxiety rates among youth correlated with avoidance of discomfort in educational settings since the mid-2010s.^[186] Institutional adoption of this expanded view, such as in U.S. university speech codes post-2010, often prioritizes subjective feelings over objective metrics, reflecting biases in academic environments toward protective interventions despite lacking randomized controlled trials validating their necessity.^[187] This conceptual broadening carries practical repercussions, including legal expansions like enhanced harassment standards under Title IX interpretations from 2011 onward, where discomfort from "unwelcome" ideas has justified sanctions, diverging from precedents requiring tangible injury.^[188] Philosophically, it undermines Mill's utilitarian calculus by inflating minor offenses into harms that chill discourse; commentators note that while hate speech may correlate with societal prejudice, regulating on discomfort grounds conflates causation with correlation, ignoring adaptive human responses to adversity documented in resilience literature.^[189]^[190] Ultimately, the debate hinges on whether subjective metrics supplant verifiable setbacks, with evidence favoring restraint to preserve inquiry over preemptive mitigation of unease.^[191]

Subjective vs. Objective Standards

Objective standards of harm require verifiable, measurable impairments to an individual's tangible interests, such as physical injury, economic loss, or demonstrable psychological damage corroborated by biomarkers or longitudinal outcomes, rather than relying on self-perception alone.^[26] These standards draw from John Stuart Mill's harm principle in On Liberty (1859), which justifies restricting liberty only to prevent "harm to others" defined as setbacks to interests society recognizes as rightful, excluding mere emotional offense or displeasure.^[4] Mill emphasized objective criteria to avoid paternalism, arguing that subjective feelings of harm could arbitrarily expand state or social interference, as offense alone does not impair autonomy or security.^[192] In legal contexts, objective standards predominate for assessing harm in torts and criminal law, employing the "reasonable person" test to evaluate whether conduct caused predictable damage, independent of the victim's subjective sensitivity.^[193] For instance, negligence liability hinges on whether a prudent observer would foresee injury, not the plaintiff's personal vulnerability, ensuring consistency and preventing exploitation of exaggerated claims.^[194] Empirical studies reinforce this by showing that objective measures, such as clinical biomarkers or behavioral data, correlate more reliably with long-term health outcomes than subjective self-reports, which often inflate perceived harm due to cognitive biases like negativity or expectation effects.^[195] ^[196] Subjective standards, conversely, prioritize an individual's reported distress, including emotional discomfort or perceived offense, as sufficient grounds for deeming conduct harmful.^[197] Proponents, often in contemporary ethical discourse influenced by postmodern views, contend this accounts for diverse vulnerabilities, such as trauma triggers, but critics note its vulnerability to manipulation, as self-reports frequently diverge from objective evidence—e.g., self-perceived illness predicts life expectancy imperfectly when unanchored by physiological data.^[198] In practice, subjective approaches have expanded harm's scope in institutional policies, like university speech codes equating disagreement with violence, yet psychological research indicates humans exhibit resilience to verbal offense absent tangible threat, with no causal link to objective impairment from mere exposure to ideas.^[199] The tension arises in balancing individual agency against collective claims: objective standards promote causal realism by demanding evidence of actual impairment, mitigating biases in subjective reporting that amplify minor slights into systemic narratives, particularly in biased academic environments favoring emotional validation over empirical rigor.^[200] While subjective elements may inform context, such as intent in mens rea, overriding objective thresholds risks eroding free expression and personal responsibility, as Mill warned, by conflating discomfort with injury.^[26] Empirical validation thus favors hybrid models where subjective claims require objective substantiation to avoid arbitrariness.^[201]

Political Weaponization of Harm Narratives

The strategic deployment of harm narratives in politics entails framing policy disagreements, cultural critiques, or opposing viewpoints as existential threats to vulnerable groups, thereby justifying expansive state interventions, censorship, or social sanctions. This approach leverages an expanded definition of harm, extending beyond verifiable physical or direct psychological injury to encompass subjective feelings of offense, microaggressions, or anticipated distress.^[202] Psychologist Nick Haslam identifies this as "concept creep," a semantic broadening observed in academic and therapeutic discourses since the late 20th century, where concepts like trauma or prejudice now include phenomena previously considered benign or resiliently navigable.^[203] In political arenas, such creep facilitates the reclassification of speech or ideas as "violent" or "harmful," enabling actors to demand deplatforming or regulation without empirical demonstration of proportional damage.^[204] A prominent manifestation is "safetyism," a cultural paradigm elevating psychological safety above other values like truth-seeking or open inquiry, as analyzed by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and legal scholar Greg Lukianoff.^[205] They trace its rise to institutional shifts in the 2010s, particularly on U.S. college campuses, where administrators yielded to student demands for "safe spaces" and trigger warnings, citing harm from exposure to challenging ideas; between 2014 and 2017 alone, over 150 such incidents were documented, often tied to ideological conformity.^[206] Haidt attributes this to cognitive distortions like the "untruth" that emotions define truth, amplified by left-leaning institutional biases in academia, where care/harm moral foundations dominate progressive rhetoric while sidelining proportionality assessments.^[205] Politically, safetyism underpins calls for content moderation on platforms, framing dissent—such as skepticism toward certain public health mandates or election integrity claims—as societal harm warranting suppression.^[207] Empirical evidence suggests asymmetric application: liberals exhibit greater endorsement of expanded harm concepts compared to conservatives, correlating with support for speech restrictions to avert discomfort.^[208] For instance, in the lead-up to the 2020 U.S. election, government-linked entities flagged thousands of social media posts as "misinformation" posing election harm, resulting in algorithmic demotion or removal, predominantly affecting conservative-leaning content on topics like voter fraud allegations.^[207] Similarly, hate speech regulations in Europe and proposed U.S. bills invoke harm prevention to curb online discourse, yet studies show selective enforcement, with lower prioritization of physical harms from policy outcomes like reduced policing amid "defund" movements, which correlated with a 30% homicide spike in major U.S. cities in 2020. This selective invocation reveals causal disconnects: while emotional harm narratives mobilize support for identity-based policies, they often overlook data-driven risks, such as elevated crime rates in sanctuary jurisdictions, where harm minimization rhetoric delayed enforcement actions. Critics argue this weaponization erodes democratic resilience by pathologizing disagreement, fostering polarization where compromise is cast as complicity in harm. Haidt and Lukianoff document how safetyist interventions, like disinviting speakers (over 100 cases annually by the late 2010s per Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression tracking), stifle intellectual diversity without reducing actual distress, as evidenced by stagnant or rising anxiety rates among youth post-implementation.^[209] In international contexts, authoritarian regimes repurpose harm rhetoric for narrative control, as seen in disinformation campaigns framing opposition as societal threats, but democratic variants risk similar overreach when media-academic alliances amplify unverified harm claims to delegitimize electoral challengers.^[210] Ultimately, privileging subjective harm over objective metrics invites policy capture, where power accrues to those most adept at narrativizing victimhood, undermining first-principles evaluation of trade-offs in open societies.^[211]

References

[1]
Ethics Explainer: The Harm Principle
Oct 27, 2016 · He defines harms as wrongful setbacks to interests to which people have rights. He would argue you wouldn't be harming anyone by winning a ...
[2]
Johansson | A Simple Analysis of Harm - Michigan Publishing
Mar 31, 2023 · In this paper, we present and defend an analysis of harm that we call the Negative Influence on Well-Being Account (NIWA).Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[3]
More on what it means to suffer harm - Taylor & Francis Online
Jun 20, 2022 · This paper defends what I call the 'wellbeing conception of harm', according to which the relevant criterion for determining whether one has suffered harm is ...
[4]
Harm Principle - Ethics Unwrapped
Harm Principle. The harm principle is the idea that people should be free to act as they wish as long as their actions do not cause harm to others.
[5]
The Harm Principle and the Nature of Harm
1 According to this principle, commonly attributed to John Stuart Mill, the state can justifiably intervene against an individual only if intervening prevents ...
[6]
How to define "harm" in ethics - Philosophy Stack Exchange
Sep 4, 2015 · Harm is a label that we place on a very specific set of perceived stimuli. Namely, stimuli that induce an undesirable effect within our minds.Harm Principle and Duty to Rescue - Which "baseline" should an ...Are there ethicists who defend the conclusion that "harm" be defined ...More results from philosophy.stackexchange.com
[7]
Expert Consensus on Currently Accepted Measures of Harm - PMC
Common methods for adverse event measurement include voluntary reporting systems, trigger tools, administrative data analysis, manual chart review, clinical ...Missing: empirical studies
[8]
Domestic Violence - Department of Justice
Jan 22, 2025 · Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, psychological, or technological actions or threats of actions or other ...
[9]
Risk of harm in social and behavioral sciences generally fall in three ...
Jul 3, 2024 · These risks of harm are generally categorized into three major areas: physical harm, psychological harm, and social or economic harm.
[10]
Doing vs. Allowing Harm - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
May 14, 2002 · One natural suggestion is that the agent who does harm causes it to occur; whereas the agent who allows harm doesn't cause it, but simply fails ...Sequences, Action, Inaction... · 'Safety Net' Cases · Letting Yourself Do Harm
[11]
[PDF] John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle and Free Speech
Abstract. This article advocates employing John Stuart Mill's harm principle to set the boundary for unregulated free speech, and his Greatest Happiness ...
[12]
harm, n. meanings, etymology and more | Oxford English Dictionary
... harm is in the Old English period (pre-1150). It is also recorded as a verb from the Old English period (pre-1150). harm is a word inherited from Germanic.
[13]
Harm - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
Harm, from Old English hearm and Proto-Germanic *harmaz, means hurt, pain, or grief. Its origin traces back to PIE *kormo-, denoting pain or injury.
[14]
harm - Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Etymology. From Middle English harm, herm, from Old English hearm, from Proto ... Adjectives often applied to "harm": bodily, physical, environmental, emotional, ...
[15]
https://www.%5Bmerriam-webster
[16]
[PDF] Harm, History, and Counterfactuals
Harm is a causal process, not just a state, and is a setback to interests, not all of which are harm. It involves a defective action causing adverse effects.
[17]
The Limits of Law - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jan 29, 2022 · The Harm Principle. Far and away the best-known proposal for a principled limit to the law is the “harm principle” from John Stuart Mill's On ...
[18]
3 The Meaning of Harm Derived from Interests: Joel Feinberg's ...
This chapter looks at the conception proposed by Joel Feinberg, that harm is the wrongful setback to a person's interest.
[19]
The Harm Principle and the Nature of Harm | Utilitas | Cambridge Core
Dec 6, 2021 · The Harm Principle states that state intervention is justified if it prevents harm, and is at least partly because of it.Missing: evolution | Show results with:evolution
[20]
The History of Utilitarianism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Mar 27, 2009 · That insight is that morally appropriate behavior will not harm others, but instead increase happiness or 'utility. ... deontological constraints.<|control11|><|separator|>
[21]
Utilitarianism – Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics - Rebus Press
Benefit and harm can be characterized in more than one way; for classical utilitarians such as Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), they ...
[22]
Deontological Ethics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Nov 21, 2007 · Deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted.
[23]
Doing Away with Skepticism about Harm | Ethical Theory and Moral ...
Jan 9, 2025 · The concept of harm plays a central role in many philosophical discussions. There are numerous ethical theories, claims, and arguments that ...
[24]
The Project Gutenberg eBook of On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill.
That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His ...
[25]
On Liberty - Econlib
Feb 5, 2018 · All that makes existence valuable to any one, depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct, ...<|separator|>
[26]
Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy
Oct 9, 2007 · Mill's greatest philosophical influence is in moral and political philosophy, especially his articulation and defense of utilitarianism and liberalism.
[27]
[PDF] Rebuilding the Harm Principle: Using an Evolutionary Perspective to ...
Abstract. Following Mill's (1859) definition, the 'harm principle' came to dominate legal debates about crime and the appropriate response of the justice ...
[28]
[PDF] The Harm Principle, Legal Moralism and the "Disintegration Thesis"
Aug 16, 2018 · Lord Devlin. The point I want to stress in all of the above concerns the novelty that liberalism introduces into “modern controversy” with ...
[29]
[PDF] Legislating Morality: Scoring the Hart-Devlin Debate after Fifty Years
Is Mill's Harm Principle (or Something Close to It) Defensible? Devlin saw this as a novel and highly troubling view of the limits of state power over the ...
[30]
HARM PRINCIPLES | Legal Theory | Cambridge Core
May 4, 2015 · This paper draws a number of distinctions between harm principles. It then argues that each harm principle is compatible with many other principles that impose ...
[31]
The Limits of the Harm Principle - ResearchGate
Aug 7, 2025 · The harm principle, understood as the normative requirement that conduct should be criminalized only if it is harmful, has difficulty in dealing with those ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[32]
[PDF] Devlin Was Right: Law and the Enforcement of Morality
Devlin certainly disagrees substantively with Mill, yet both ap- peal to "expediencies" and consequences. there are areas of conduct that are harmful to others ...
[33]
[PDF] Prevention, Wrongdoing, and the Harm Principle's Breaking Point
Forget the argument that the harm principle collapsed by being co-opted by legal moralism; 2 now, the harm principle has stretched itself to the breaking point.
[34]
Beyond the Harm Principle - eScholarship
It provides a narrow rationale for the legitimate use of state power, and precludes other proposed bases. I explain why its conception of freedom is not subject ...
[35]
[PDF] The Hollowness of the Harm Principle - Digital USD
In taking this position, I do not mean to join up with the principle's renowned (or notorious) critics– namely, Lord Devlin and his nineteenth-century ...
[36]
Concepts, Definitions, and Guidelines for Measurement - NCBI - NIH
Examples of physical harm include lacerations, burns, fractures, bruises, malnutrition, and others (Dyer et al., in this volume). Similarly, financial harm can ...
[37]
The measurement of harm in inpatient settings: an overview
The aim was to develop a comprehensive programme of work describing the epidemiology of harm in NHS Wales hospitals, and to develop and evaluate methods for the ...
[38]
Types and indicators of abuse: Safeguarding adults - SCIE
Physical abuse · Domestic violence or abuse · Sexual abuse · Psychological or emotional abuse · Financial or material abuse · Modern slavery · Discriminatory abuse ...Missing: economic | Show results with:economic
[39]
Current trends and update on injury prevention - PMC - NIH
Globally, the three leading causes of death from injuries are RTIs (23%), self-inflicted injuries (15%) and violence (11%) [Figure 1]. For unintentional ...
[40]
Injuries - FastStats - CDC
All injury deaths. Number of deaths: 300,900; Deaths per 100,000 population: 89.8 ; All poisoning deaths. Number of deaths: 109,522; Deaths per 100,000 ...
[41]
Physical harm due to chronic substance use - PubMed
Chronic use at high dose of illicit drugs, alcohol and tobacco is associated with physical disease. The relative physical harm of these substances has not ...
[42]
Corporal punishment of children and health
Aug 20, 2025 · indirect physical harm due to overloaded biological systems, including developing cancer, alcohol-related problems, migraine, cardiovascular ...
[43]
Injuries and Violence Are Leading Causes of Death - wisqars - CDC
Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death for Americans aged 1-44 years old. The leading causes of death for unintentional injury include: ...
[44]
The Burden of Violence to U.S. Hospitals | AHA
Jun 2, 2025 · In the U.S., up to 76% of health care workers have reported experiencing violence, with over 80% experiencing verbal violence and 33% ...
[45]
Psychological harm Definition | Law Insider
Psychological harm means harm that causes mental or emotional trauma or that causes behavioral change or physical symptoms that require psychological or ...
[46]
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH
Feb 25, 2024 · Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent and complex psychiatric condition that arises in response to exposure to traumatic events.Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
[47]
[PDF] A conceptual framework for the impact of traumatic experiences
A recent epidemiological study found that, with rates averaged across trauma types, only about 9% of those exposed to traumatic stres- sors develop post- ...
[48]
Study Finds that Child Victims of Violence Face Long-Term ...
Apr 6, 2023 · A study of young adults who were victims of violent injuries as children found significantly higher levels of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in this ...
[49]
Psychological abuse | 1800RESPECT
Psychological abuse is behaviour that aims to cause emotional or mental harm. It may not hurt your body, but can be just as painful and distressing.
[50]
Long-term effects of psychological trauma on psychosocial functioning
The results lend support to the general model that effects on psychosocial functioning following traumatic experience are mediated by psychopathology, ...Missing: harm | Show results with:harm
[51]
The Long-Term Health Consequences of Child Physical Abuse ...
Nov 27, 2012 · This overview of the evidence suggests a causal relationship between non-sexual child maltreatment and a range of mental disorders, drug use, suicide attempts, ...<|separator|>
[52]
Frontiers | Childhood Trauma and Chronic Illness in Adulthood
Multiple studies have shown associations between childhood trauma and later psychological distress, psychiatric disorders, and depression (Turner and Lloyd, ...
[53]
How Childhood Trauma May Impact Adults | URMC Newsroom
May 1, 2024 · “Trauma influences our stress response system and may be associated with compromised immunity and poor cardiovascular health.” ...Missing: harm | Show results with:harm
[54]
Trauma and Stressor Exposure Measures - National Center for PTSD
These assessment instruments measure the types of trauma a person has been exposed to, or the degree of severity of the traumatic event someone experienced.
[55]
DSM-5-TR Online Assessment Measures - Psychiatry.org
These patient assessment measures were developed to be administered at the initial patient interview and to monitor treatment progress.
[56]
Review Effectiveness of interventions for psychological distress ...
This review shows that targeted psychological interventions, especially CBT, positively impact PTSD, depression, and anxiety, in recovery from traumatic injury.Missing: harm | Show results with:harm
[57]
[PDF] for Psychologists in the Assessment of Psychological Trauma in Adults
In addition, greater cumulative trauma throughout one's lifetime has been found to predict more severe symptoms of PTSD in older adulthood, by which time the ...
[58]
Economic harm - (Intro to Law and Legal Process) - Fiveable
Definition. Economic harm refers to financial losses or damages incurred by an individual or entity as a result of another party's actions.
[59]
Economic harm Definition | Law Insider
Economic harm means all direct, incidental, and consequential pecuniary harm suffered by a victim as a result of criminal conduct.
[60]
Economic-Harm Rule Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Economic-harm rule is a principle of tort law that a plaintiff cannot sue in tort to recover for purely monetary loss as opposed to physical injury or ...
[61]
Economic Torts: Exploring Unlawful Interference and Fraudulent ...
Jun 14, 2024 · The plaintiff must establish a direct link between the defendant's wrongful conduct and the economic harm suffered. This means showing that ...
[62]
property damage | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Property damage is injury to real or personal property. An example could be a chemical leak on a piece of real estate, or damage to a car from an accident.
[63]
Property Damage - Legal Dictionary - Law.com
property damage. n. injury to real or personal property through another's negligence, willful destruction or by some act of nature. In lawsuits for damages ...
[64]
[PDF] Reference Guide on Estimation of Economic Damages, Reference ...
The first is an appraisal of the property, and the second is an application of that appraisal to quantify the loss from the harmful act. The starting point for ...
[65]
Economic Damage Quantification Calculations - MDD
Economic damage quantification is the measurement of these damages which often result from a harmful act.
[66]
How Economists Perform Economic Damages Calculations
Economic damages are generally calculated as the difference between the monetary value of an asset or stream of cash flows at a certain point in time.
[67]
How Forensic Economists Define Economic Damage in Civil Lawsuits
Nov 1, 2024 · Forensic economists calculate damages using objective, data-driven methods, ensuring that the plaintiff's losses are clearly quantified. Their ...
[68]
property damage (PD) - IRMI
Property damage (PD), as defined in the general liability policy and the homeowners policy, covers physical injury to tangible property including resulting ...<|separator|>
[69]
Quantifying Economic Damages - CONSOR IP Experts
Consor's service quantifies economic damages from financial losses, helping determine compensation for disputes or legal claims accurately.
[70]
Defining social harm - Policy Press Scholarship Online
Through this analysis an 'ontological' definition of social harm is proposed comprising of three dimensions (physical, autonomy and relational harms). The ...
[71]
Social harm - Criminology beyond crime - The Open University
A concept that enables criminology to move beyond legal definitions of 'crime' to include immoral, wrongful and injurious acts that are not necessarily illegal ...
[72]
Americans' Declining Trust in Each Other and Reasons Behind It
May 8, 2025 · For example, Americans with lower levels of education or income are less likely to say most people can be trusted.
[73]
A longitudinal study of individual-level sources of declining social ...
We found that about half of the observed decline in US social trust may stem from: i) ever more unemployment experiences, ii) ever less confidence in political ...
[74]
Trusting others: How unhappiness and social distrust explain populism
The decline in happiness and social trust in Europe and the US explains a large share of the rise in political polarisation and anti-system votes. Subjective ...<|separator|>
[75]
Harmful practices | UNICEF
Harmful cultural practices like child marriage and female genital mutilation (FGM) are discriminatory practices committed regularly over such long periods ...
[76]
Globalization and vulnerable populations in times of a pandemic - NIH
Dec 14, 2020 · A good example of how globalization affects indigenous and vulnerable populations is the Mayan Communities in the Yucatan Peninsula. In our ...
[77]
Globalization and Its Impact on Indigenous Cultures
Globalization has certainly had an impact on the world's indigenous communities and sustainable ways of life, and the surrounding ecosystems in which they live.
[78]
Cultural trauma as a fundamental cause of health disparities
As social scientists and Indigenous scholars have observed, damage to one's culture directly harms ... research, cultural trauma may also directly harm ...
[79]
Cultural trauma as a fundamental cause of health disparities - PMC
This paper presents a novel conceptual model detailing cultural trauma and the mechanisms through which it may disrupt health and create disparities.2. Collective Trauma And... · 6. Cultural Trauma... · 8. Interventions<|separator|>
[80]
The Decline of Social Capital in the United States and its Effect on ...
Dec 27, 2021 · Conclusively, modern American society is reducing social capital and paving the way for increasing individualism.
[81]
[PDF] SOCIAL NORMS AND GENDER- RELATED HARMFUL PRACTICES
What works to change social norms? 20. Grounding social norms change within existing cultural values. 20. The importance of making social norms change visible.
[82]
Social harm and the structure of societies - University of Birmingham
So the idea of social harm originally was to expand that notion of harm to encompass the harms that organisations cause that nation states cause. But latterly ...
[83]
(PDF) Direct and Indirect Causes - ResearchGate
Aug 7, 2025 · The causal influence of one event on another is direct, if it is not mediated by other events in between; otherwise it is indirect.Abstract · References (39) · Recommended Publications<|separator|>
[84]
Foundations of Law - Indirect Causation - Lawshelf
Direct causation is where the defendant's actions cause the plaintiff's harm without the assistance of an intervening force. Indirect causation exists when ...
[85]
A Common Issue In Proving Causation: Indirect Causes
Jan 3, 2023 · Indirect causation is when a healthcare provider causes harm not by doing something obvious, but because of something else they've done or haven't done.
[86]
Causal Mediation | Columbia University Mailman School of Public ...
The direct effect is the effect of exposure on the outcome absent the mediator. The indirect pathway is the effect of exposure on the outcome that works through ...
[87]
(PDF) The Preference for Indirect Harm - ResearchGate
Aug 7, 2025 · Taken together, these findings provide evidence for a new bias in judgment, a tendency to favor indirectly harmful options over directly harmful ...
[88]
[PDF] Direct and Indirect Treatment Effects: Causal Chains and Mediation ...
This paper discusses the nonparametric identification of causal direct and indirect effects of a binary treatment based on instrumental variables. We identify ...
[89]
Direct and Indirect Treatment Effects: Causal Chains and Mediation ...
This paper discusses the nonparametric identification of causal direct and indirect effects of a binary treatment based on instrumental variables.Missing: harm | Show results with:harm
[90]
5.3 Biases in Attribution – Principles of Social Psychology
The fundamental attribution error involves a bias in how easily and frequently we make personal versus situational attributions about others.The Actor-Observer Bias · Self-Serving Biases · Group-Serving Biases
[91]
[PDF] Blaming leaders for organizational accidents: Proxy logic in collective
When presented cases about negative outcomes following an individuals' actions, American participants have a stronger tendency to causally attribute to the ...<|separator|>
[92]
Collective Moral Responsibility - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Collective moral responsibility refers to arrangements appropriate for addressing widespread harm and wrongdoing associated with the actions of groups.Feinberg's Taxonomy of... · Group Liability with... · Group Liability with the...
[93]
Collective Responsibility Should be Treated as a Virtue
Oct 18, 2022 · I propose a new way of seeing collective responsibility, which is able to attribute the vice of irresponsibility to such disorganized groups.
[94]
The Unfairness Objection to the Practice of Collective Moral ...
Feb 18, 2021 · The unfairness objection argues that collective moral responsibility can unfairly affect individuals, especially when they are punished for ...
[95]
Blaming: Harm Attribution in the United States and Japan
Cultural differences significantly affect harm attribution in the U.S. and Japan, impacting legal outcomes. Americans attribute accidents more to human actions, ...
[96]
Andrew C. Khoury, Individual and Collective Responsibility
First, the subject of an attribution of responsibility may be an individual agent or a collective agent. Second, the object of the responsibility attribution ...
[97]
Comparison between Injury Severity Score (ISS) and New ... - NIH
It is the most widely used instrument for calculating the severity of single injuries, and to assess the overall severity of a patient with multiple injuries, ...
[98]
Injury Severity Score (ISS) - MDCalc
Injury Severity Score (ISS) standardizes severity of traumatic injury based on worst injury of 6 body systems.
[99]
Calculating and presenting disability adjusted life years (DALYs) in ...
DALYs are the sum of present value of future years lost due to premature death, and future years adjusted for disability severity.
[100]
How to measure psychological stress in health research - NIH
This article describes best practices in stress measurement, detailing which dimensions of stressor exposures and stress responses to capture, and how.
[101]
Measuring the benefits of occupational safety and health research ...
Mar 15, 2022 · We summarize the benefit measurement methods that were used and the results of these research efforts in terms of costs saved, injuries and illnesses prevented.Missing: harm | Show results with:harm
[102]
Causal evidence in health decision making - PubMed Central
Dec 21, 2022 · Causal inference methods aim for drawing causal conclusions from empirical data on the relationship of pre-specified interventions on a ...
[103]
Methodology and rationale for the measurement of harm with trigger ...
a new method of measuring harm—the trigger tool—has been developed. It is easily customized and can be readily taught, enabling consistent and accurate ...Missing: empirical empirically
[104]
Rethinking the Subjective Units of Distress Scale: Validity and ... - NIH
Our evaluation demonstrates that the SUDS suffers from significant psychometric weaknesses, including construct underrepresentation, construct irrelevance, ...
[105]
The Reliability of Subjective Well-Being Measures - PMC
This method of measuring affect minimizes the role of memory and interpretation, but it is expensive and difficult to implement in large samples. The Day ...
[106]
Understanding subjective well-being: perspectives from psychology ...
Nov 19, 2020 · Based on our criterion for categorizing and comparing empirical studies, we find numerous challenges limiting comparability including ...
[107]
Psychological harm: what is it and how does it apply to consumer ...
Generally psychological damage is taken to refer to pain, which can be experience mentally as well as physically, along with mental suffering, emotional ...
[108]
Legal Hurdles in Proving Psychological Trauma After Car Accidents
Legal Challenges in Proving Psychological Trauma. One of the primary hurdles in proving psychological trauma in court is the subjective nature of mental health.
[109]
Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Progress and Challenges - PMC
May 2, 2018 · We summarize several important advances in the measurement of SWB and highlight key remaining methodological challenges that must be addressed.
[110]
Challenges for Quantitative Psychology and Measurement in ... - NIH
Yet the promise of quantitative study of psychology is also one of its greatest challenges: demonstrating in a convincing way that quantification of behavioral ...Missing: subjective | Show results with:subjective
[111]
Advances and Open Questions in the Science of Subjective Well ...
May 24, 2018 · This review provides an overview of many major areas of research, including the measurement of SWB, the demographic and personality-based predictors of SWB,
[112]
Harm to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law
The author proposes a definition of harm and applies it to moral, vicarious, posthumous, and prenatal harm. He also relates the concept of harm to associated ...
[113]
A Second Chance for the Harm Principle in Section 7 ? Gross ...
First, the majority in Malmo-Levine found that there was not a sufficient consensus that the harm principle is the sole justification for “criminal prohibition, ...
[114]
[PDF] The Role of Harm and Evil in Criminal Law
Generally, a "harm” or a “harmful” result is used here to refer to a tangible or intangible conse- quence of conduct, such as those described in the result ...
[115]
[PDF] Criminal Law - The Principle of Harm and Its Application to Laws ...
Specifically, conduct which does not meet the criterion of legal harm should not be declared criminal. The principle of legal harm will be developed, its ...
[116]
Risk Assessment in Criminal Sentencing - Annual Reviews
Mar 28, 2016 · Abstract. The past several years have seen a surge of interest in using risk assessment in criminal sentencing, both to reduce recidivism by ...
[117]
Harm: Definition and Measurement
Nov 17, 2022 · Harm occurs when an act, inaction, incident, or condition adversely impacts the welfare interests of an individual.
[118]
The adoption of a crime harm index: A scoping literature review
Another challenge exists when the crime categories listed in a criminal code or sentencing guidelines do not fully correspond with the offence ...
[119]
The impact of victim impact statements on legal decisions in criminal ...
This study investigates the association between VIS delivery and outcomes of legal decision making in criminal proceedings.
[120]
[PDF] harm: a neglected concept in criminology, a necessary benchmark ...
The centrality of harm was later obscured by the conversion of harms to individuals to harms to the interests of the king or state (Eser, 1966: 351). As a ...
[121]
Are Victimless Crimes Actually Harmful? - Sage Journals
Victimless crimes are consensual acts without a complaining participant. A study found that most people felt these acts were harmful.
[122]
[PDF] There Are No Victimless Crimes - Center for Justice Innovation
The court views the community as the victim of quality-of-life offenses, guided by the principle that there is no such thing as a victimless crime.
[123]
[PDF] Victimless Crimes: A Proposal to Free the Courts
Victimless crimes are acts outside the law with no identifiable victim, like drunkenness or vagrancy, and account for almost half of US court cases.
[124]
Incarceration and Crime: A Weak Relationship
Jun 13, 2024 · Criminological evidence shows that criminal careers typically end within approximately 10 years and recidivism rates fall measurably after about ...
[125]
[PDF] Overcriminalization's New Harm Paradigm - Vanderbilt University
Drawing from the fields of criminology and behavioral ethics, this Article makes the case that overcriminalization actually increases the commission of criminal.
[126]
Patient safety - World Health Organization (WHO)
Sep 11, 2023 · Common adverse events that may result in avoidable patient harm are medication errors, unsafe surgical procedures, health care-associated ...Missing: CDC | Show results with:CDC
[127]
FastStats: Medication Safety Data - CDC
Apr 17, 2024 · An adverse drug event (ADE) is when a medication causes harm to someone. They are a serious public health threat.
[128]
Burden of serious harms from diagnostic error in the USA
An estimated 795 000 Americans become permanently disabled or die annually across care settings because dangerous diseases are misdiagnosed.
[129]
A New, Evidence-based Estimate of Patient Harms Associated...
In fact, the IOM declared that the “number of deaths [per year] due to medical error may be as high as 98,000.”<|separator|>
[130]
Medical Error Is Not the Third Leading Cause of Death
Aug 27, 2021 · The BMJ's higher estimate of preventable deaths due to medical error—440,000 patients a year—translates to 62% of all hospital deaths, as was ...
[131]
When Public Health Goes Wrong: Toward a New Concept of Public ...
Last, I discuss three case studies of public health errors: radiation treatment, the opioid epidemic in the US, and the opioid epidemic in Canada. I will ...
[132]
Understanding the unintended consequences of public health policies
Aug 6, 2019 · Public health policies sometimes have unexpected effects. Understanding how policies and interventions lead to outcomes is essential if ...
[133]
Understanding the Effects of Iatrogenic Management on Population ...
Jul 7, 2023 · Based on this definition, approximately 5%−8% of global deaths are attributed to ADRs, accounting for half of all preventable harm in medical ...Missing: peer- | Show results with:peer-
[134]
Making Sense of Morality: Bentham, Mill, and Utilitarianism
Jul 6, 2020 · On utilitarianism, no morals are intrinsically right or wrong, or good or bad. Following the trend we've seen, they thought pleasures and pains, ...
[135]
The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number – Business Ethics
For one, there has never been a satisfactory definition of “harm,” and what one person finds harmful another may find beneficial. For Mill, harm was defined as ...Learning Objectives · Maximizing Utility · Synthesizing Rights And...
[136]
Mill's Harm Principle: A Study in the Application of On Liberty
May 12, 2023 · English philosopher and political economist John Stuart Mill argued that people learn by choosing: this is how they become creative and productive individuals.
[137]
[PDF] Harm to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, JOEL FEIN
Feinberg's original intent was to present a philosophical inquiry into prohibi- tions of victimless crimes, id. at 7, a subject to which the harm principle ...
[138]
Kantian Deontology – Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics - Rebus Press
Kant believes that there is one categorical imperative that is the most important and that should guide all of our actions.
[139]
Introduction to ethics: Duty-based ethics - BBC
Someone who follows Duty-based ethics should do the right thing, even if that produces more harm (or less good) than doing the wrong thing: People have a duty ...
[140]
[PDF] Harm.pdf - Philosophy - Northwestern
John Stuart Mill presents his harm principle in On Liberty as a strict limitation on state interference in the lives and actions of individuals.<|control11|><|separator|>
[141]
Teens, Social Media and Mental Health - Pew Research Center
Apr 22, 2025 · Roughly half of teens (48%) say these sites have a mostly negative effect on people their age, up from 32% in 2022. But fewer (14%) think they ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
[142]
The effects of social media restriction: Meta-analytic evidence from ...
This meta-analysis quantifies whether social media restriction affects subjective well-being. Included studies were those that were randomized controlled trials ...
[143]
Social media use in adolescents with and without mental health ...
May 5, 2025 · Adolescents with mental health conditions reported spending more time on social media and were less happy about the number of online friends than adolescents ...
[144]
Real-life Examples of Discriminating Artificial Intelligence - Datatron
Examples of AI bias include a US healthcare algorithm favoring white patients, COMPAS predicting more false positives for black offenders, and Amazon's hiring ...
[145]
AI Bias: 8 Shocking Examples and How to Avoid Them - Prolific
Oct 24, 2023 · 8 shocking AI bias examples · 1) COMPAS race bias with reoffending rates · 2) US healthcare algorithm underestimated black patients' needs · 3) ...
[146]
Threats by artificial intelligence to human health and human existence
The risks associated with medicine and healthcare include the potential for AI errors to cause patient harm, issues with data privacy and security and the use ...
[147]
110+ of the Latest Data Breach Statistics to Know for 2026 & Beyond
Sep 24, 2025 · The average cost of a data breach dropped to $4.44 million in 2025, a 9% decrease from the all-time high in 2024. The global average would have ...Missing: societal harm
[148]
Cyber risk and cybersecurity: a systematic review of data availability
Cybercrime is estimated to have cost the global economy just under USD 1 trillion in 2020, indicating an increase of more than 50% since 2018.
[149]
Review Global prevalence of digital addiction in general population
Global pooled prevalence estimates were 26.99% (95% CI, 22.73–31.73) for smartphone addiction, 17.42% (95% CI, 12.42–23.89) for social media addiction, 14.22% ( ...Missing: induced | Show results with:induced
[150]
Internet Addiction: A Brief Summary of Research and Practice - PMC
Surveys in the United States and Europe have indicated alarming prevalence rates between 1.5 and 8.2% [1]. There are several reviews addressing the definition, ...Missing: data | Show results with:data
[151]
Technology Addiction Statistics 2024 - The Center for Internet ...
Over 35% have internet addiction, 50% of Americans believe they are phone addicted, 60% of teens show cell phone addiction signs, and 80% of Gen Z check phones ...
[152]
Harm reduction principles for healthcare settings - PubMed Central
Oct 24, 2017 · Harm reduction refers to interventions aimed at reducing the negative effects of health behaviors without necessarily extinguishing the ...
[153]
Principles of Harm Reduction for Young People Who Use Drugs - NIH
Harm reduction is defined as a set of practical strategies and ideas aimed at reducing negative consequences associated with drug use. It is also a movement for ...
[154]
Defining harm reduction - PubMed
The principle feature of harm reduction is the acceptance of the fact that some drug users cannot be expected to cease their drug use at the present time.
[155]
[Box], EXHIBIT 3.2. Harm Reduction Pillars, Principles, and Core ...
Focuses on any positive change, as defined by the person. The 12 harm reduction principles call on providers to: 1. Respect autonomy. 2. Practice acceptance ...
[156]
Harm Reduction Therapy: A Practice-Friendly Review of Research
Harm reduction therapy means not withholding services when a client can't, or won't, meet our treatment outcome ideals. Harm reduction therapy means we meet the ...
[157]
U.S. substance use harm reduction efforts: a review of the current ...
Jun 8, 2025 · This paper aims to bridge publications and reports on current state and federal harm reduction intervention policies and discuss policy recommendations.Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
[158]
[PDF] MONOGRAPH 06 A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF HARM REDUCTION
Harm reduction was defined as policies and interventions that focus on reducing the harms associated with drug use, not the amount of drug used. The following ...
[159]
Harm Reduction Strategies to Improve Safety for People Who Use ...
Oct 30, 2024 · This section will review the use of harm reduction strategies in various healthcare settings and their evidence for effectiveness. Many harm ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
[160]
Harm Reduction: A Misnomer - PMC - PubMed Central
Nov 5, 2020 · Moreover, many if not all of the criticisms of harm reduction programs could be expressed in terms of consequences. ... unwanted pregnancies and ...
[161]
Messages Underpinning Backlash to U.S. Harm Reduction Policy
Sep 18, 2025 · The first major concern that came up repeatedly is the notion that harm reduction programs lead to unintended negative consequences. These ...
[162]
[PDF] Harm reduction and its role in improving health outcomes in an era ...
Nov 27, 2024 · Specific harm reduction services may include drug testing kits, syringes to reduce the risk of infectious disease, overdose prevention ...
[163]
An Analysis of the Impact of Substance Abuse on Public Health and ...
May 30, 2024 · Another study of mortality risks found that approximately 18.7 percent of deaths were related to accidental drug overdoses, followed by 17.4 ...
[164]
Harm Reduction for Opioid Use Disorder: Strategies and Outcome ...
May 6, 2024 · ... unintended consequences, such as crime or increased drug use. Moreover, evidence suggests that persons who use syringe exchanges are five ...
[165]
Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure - Cato Institute
Jul 17, 1991 · At first glance, the evidence seems to suggest that the quantity consumed did indeed decrease.Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
[166]
Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health ...
Drinking habits underwent a drastic change during the Prohibition Era, and Prohibition's flattening effect on per capita consumption continued long after Repeal ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
[167]
Alcohol Prohibition – EH.net - Economic History Association
Evidence from Warburton (1932) suggests a substantial substitution of hard liquor for beer consumption during Prohibition, presumably because of this effect. 8 ...Missing: effectiveness | Show results with:effectiveness
[168]
Fifty-Two Years of Fear and Failure: The War on Drugs
Jun 17, 2024 · On June 17, 1971 Nixon officially declared the War on Drugs, telling Congress that drug addiction had become a “national emergency” and that ...
[169]
How the war on drugs impacts social determinants of health beyond ...
The U.S. war on drugs has subjected millions to criminalisation, incarceration, and lifelong criminal records, disrupting or altogether eliminating their access ...
[170]
[PDF] Violence and the US Prohibition of Drugs and Alcohol
Regarding drug prohibition, a number of similar exogenous effects are present. Ronald Reagan's escalation of the war on drugs seems to have re- flected his ...
[171]
[PDF] The Harmful Side Effects of Drug Prohibition
Some drugs make people feel good. That is why some people use them. Some of these drugs are alleged to have side effects so destructive that many advise.
[172]
[PDF] An Examination of Deterrence Theory: Where Do We Stand?
Dec 3, 2016 · DETERRENCE THEORY HAS been the underlying foundation for many criminal jus tice policies and practices throughout the.
[173]
[PDF] Five Things About Deterrence - Office of Justice Programs
A criminal's behavior is more likely to be influenced by seeing a police officer with handcuffs and a radio than by a new law increasing penalties. 4.
[174]
[PDF] HOW PUNISHMENT AFFECTS CRIME: AN INTEGRATED ...
There is, thus, mixed evidence that punishment will deter offending behavior, more so for less serious offences and less so for violent crime and capital ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[175]
[PDF] Do Criminal Laws Deter Crime? Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice
Severity of punishment was long thought to be the key component in deterring criminal behavior.21 As a result, lawmakers relied on the use of severe sanctions ...
[176]
The Empirical Status of Deterrence Theory: A Meta-Analysis.
“Effects of Criminal Punishment on Perceived Threat of Punishment: Toward an Understanding of Specific Deterrence.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency ...
[177]
Research Shows That Long Prison Sentences Don't Actually ...
Feb 13, 2023 · A 2021 meta-analysis of 116 studies found, for example, that custodial sentences do not prevent reoffending—and can actually increase it.
[178]
[PDF] The War on Drugs: Wasting billions and undermining economies
The 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the legal foundation of the global drug war, has two parallel and interrelated functions Alongside ...
[179]
The War on Drugs | Cato Institute
If drugs were legal, organized crime would stand to lose billions, and drugs would be regulated and sold by legitimate businesses in an open marketplace. Sixth, ...
[180]
Resilience to Stress and Adversity: A Narrative Review of the Role of ...
In the context of resilience, mental health research has examined positive affect either as an outcome of the resilience process or as a resource that ...
[181]
Building your resilience - American Psychological Association
Feb 1, 2020 · Psychologists define resilience as the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats, or significant sources of ...What Is Resilience? · What Resilience Isn't · Embrace Healthy Thoughts<|separator|>
[182]
Resilience Theory: Core Concepts & Research Insights
Aug 22, 2025 · Interventions rooted in positive psychology, like self-compassion and relational repair, have been shown to increase resilience and improve ...
[183]
“Harm” and Mill's Harm Principle* Piers Norris Turner - jstor
According to the expansive conception of “harm,” mere offense or emotional distress should count as a typically lightweight kind of harm. Most commentators, ...Missing: discomfort | Show results with:discomfort
[184]
Prevalence and Psychological Effects of Hateful Speech in Online ...
Further, the victims of hateful speech experience psychological symptoms, similar to post-traumatic stress disorder, such as pain, fear, anxiety, nightmares, ...
[185]
[PDF] DO OFFENSIVE WORDS HARM PEOPLE?
Second, because of methodological inadequacies and ethical problems with exposing people to offensive speech, there is little good research evidence of harm.
[186]
The Coddling of the American Mind - The Atlantic
Sep 15, 2015 · The Coddling of the American Mind. In the name of emotional well ... discomfort or give offense. Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an ...
[187]
The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad ...
The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are ... discomfort, risk of harm, and offense. Lukianoff and Haidt argue that the ...
[188]
[PDF] 363 HARM AND OFFENSE TODAY I. INTRODUCTION ...
The law has long sought to distinguish harm from offense. Often, the law has sought to treat differently behavior that imposes harms on others.Missing: discomfort | Show results with:discomfort
[189]
Exposure to hate speech deteriorates neurocognitive mechanisms ...
Mar 13, 2023 · Exposure to hate speech can lead to prejudice, dehumanization, and lack of empathy towards members of outgroups. However, the impact of exposure ...
[190]
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-08329-004
[191]
John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle and Free Speech: Expanding the ...
Sep 23, 2020 · This article advocates employing John Stuart Mill's harm principle to set the boundary for unregulated free speech.Missing: critique | Show results with:critique
[192]
Mill's Harm Principle: What is Harm and Does it Matter?
Mar 16, 2023 · The Harm Principle seems like a robust, and in many ways attractive, statement of classical liberal or libertarian political philosophy.
[193]
[PDF] Objective and Subjective Tests in the Law - UNH Scholars Repository
Nov 6, 2017 · The law attempts to distinguish between objective and subjective tests, but the article argues these are incoherent and the law takes them for ...
[194]
4. Understanding Mens Rea: Objective and Subjective Fault ...
We will focus in particular on subjective mens rea (intention, knowledge, recklesness, wilful blindness) and objective fault (ie: negligence).<|separator|>
[195]
Objective measures versus subjective self-report in clinical practice
Conclusion: Both subjective self-report and objective measure are important to characterize a patient. The use of VR visual perturbations allowed us to define ...
[196]
Subjective and Objective Measures of Health: Which is Better When?
Aug 5, 2025 · Objective measures can only be more reliable and valid, if properly administered, than patient self-reports, but such methods are often ...
[197]
Is there a distinction between Subjective and Objective Ethics, or not?
Jul 6, 2018 · Subjective ethics refers to when one's personal taste, emotional state, and contextual situation can cause one person to reach a different moral conclusion.
[198]
The validity of using self-reported illness to measure objective health
This study found that self-reported illness over a 4-week period of time is not immediate and is still a good measure of life expectancy; but not mortality.Missing: harm | Show results with:harm
[199]
Is Morality Objective Or Subjective? | Issue 167 - Philosophy Now
Morality is both objective and subjective. When we follow deontological principals of ethics – meaning, we obey laws, rules and regulations – our morality is ...
[200]
A comparison of self-report and objective measurements of ...
Self-report behavioural scales showed mostly negligeable and non-significant associations with objective data. Abstract. Smartphone and social media research ...
[201]
Measuring objective and subjective well-being: dimensions and ...
Jun 29, 2020 · This paper aims to present the theoretical background of well-being, by distinguishing between objective and subjective approaches, their relevant dimensions.
[202]
Harm inflation: Making sense of concept creep
Jul 22, 2020 · “Concept creep” is the gradual semantic expansion of harm-related concepts such as bullying, mental disorder, prejudice, and trauma.Missing: discourse | Show results with:discourse
[203]
[PDF] Harm inflation: Making sense of concept creep - Gwern
“Concept creep” is the gradual semantic expansion of harm-related concepts such as bullying, mental disorder, prejudice, and trauma. This review presents.
[204]
How 'Concept Creep' Made Americans So Sensitive to Harm
Apr 19, 2016 · Why Are So Many Concepts Creeping In the Same Direction? Concept creep is inevitable and vital if society is to make good use of new information ...
[205]
The Coddling of the American Mind
Embracing these untruths—and the resulting culture of safetyism—interferes with young people's social, emotional, and intellectual development. ... JONATHAN HAIDT.Notes and Figures · About Jonathan Haidt · Wiser Organizations · Reviews
[206]
Coddling of the American Mind - FIRE
Embracing these untruths—and the resulting culture of safetyism—interferes with young people's social, emotional, and intellectual development. It makes it ...
[207]
[PDF] the weaponization of “disinformation” pseudo-experts and
Nov 6, 2023 · These reports of alleged mis- and disinformation were used to censor Americans engaged in core political speech in the lead up to the 2020 ...<|separator|>
[208]
Do Concepts Creep to the Left and the Right? Evidence for ...
Jun 25, 2022 · There are a range of potential positive and negative implications of concept creep. For example, “concept creep runs the risk of pathologizing ...
[209]
10 Worst Censors: 2024 - FIRE
Feb 13, 2024 · The list below includes people guilty of many forms of censorship including raiding a small-town newspaper, punishing a middle schooler for ...
[210]
Disinformation research reveals how governments hijack ... - Civicus
Oct 22, 2021 · Disinformation research reveals how governments hijack & weaponize narratives to serve their political agenda. Media Releases 22 October 2021.
[211]
The Weaponization of Storytelling | The New Republic
Jun 27, 2024 · Annalee Newitz's Stories Are Weapons: Psychological Warfare and the American Mind attempts to shift this focus away from simply facts toward, as ...