Could one put a lid on "dentist caused cosmetic damage, courts awarded more in damages than the patient will earn in a lifetime" scenarios
I don't see what's wrong with such scenarios. By your reasoning, if someone was retired and a dentist ruined their appearance, the dentist should have to pay nothing at all. Or if the dentist harmed someone with a childhood disease who won't live to their income-earning years. And even if they had income it would be better to harm a poor person than a rich one.
You might argue that if someone stands to make a lot of money from their appearance, the dentist has done additional damage, but that's just an additional amount of harm that is done by something that causes a base amount of harm to everyone, and it wouldn't consider all income, just appearance-based income.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't see what's wrong with such scenarios. By your reasoning, if someone was retired and a dentist ruined their appearance, the dentist should have to pay nothing at all. Or if the dentist harmed someone with a childhood disease who won't live to their income-earning years. And even if they had income it would be better to harm a poor person than a rich one.
You might argue that if someone stands to make a lot of money from their appearance, the dentist has done additional damage, but that's just an additional amount of harm that is done by something that causes a base amount of harm to everyone, and it wouldn't consider all income, just appearance-based income.
More options
Context Copy link