1. If you say that reducing harm is a valid standard because that is what people want, then how are you not committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying that what people want, is what makes something morally right?
2. If you say that reducing harm is a valid standard of morality because that is what people want, then how are you not promoting an arbitrary standard since it is based on peoples’ subjective feelings and desires which change?
3. If reducing overall harm is the standard of morality, then should a nation that is being attacked by another nation not practice self-defense, since by defending itself it may very well increase overall harm to both nations?
4. If you say such a nation has the right of self-protection which overrides the principle of reducing harm, then how are you not saying that there is a greater standard of morality to which the moral standard of reducing harm must be subject?
5. If there is a greater standard of morality than reducing overall harm, then why affirm that what-is-good-is-what-reduces-harm as the standard of morality, and not this greater standard as the one by which right and wrong are judged?
6. If you say that the nation being attacked should not defend itself lest it increases overall harm to both societies, then how are you not advocating the systematic takeover of nations by those aggressive nations that don’t hold to your moral standard?
7. If reducing harm is the standard of morality, then is it okay for people to lie and commit adultery as long as others don’t find out about it and there is no physical or emotional harm incurred by anyone?
8. If you answered yes to one or both of the two previous questions about lying and adultery, then aren’t you approving of these acts as long as no one is harmed?
9. If you answered no to one or both of the questions on lying and adultery, then how is your position consistent with the what-is-good-is-what-reduces-harm standard since no harm was suffered by anyone?
10. If reducing suffering is what is morally good and a society decides to incarcerate atheists because it deems them harmful to that society, would that be the morally right thing to do?
11. If incarcerating Christians and/or atheists because society says it reduces overall harm is really not the morally right thing to do, then why is it not right since it would be that society’s attempt at reducing overall harm?
12. If reducing harm is the standard of morality, then what do you do with those people who are perfectly normal, productive members of society who also just happen to like harming themselves?
13. Are those who like to harm themselves excluded from the moral standard about reducing harm since they like to suffer harm?
14. If they are excluded, then how is your standard that what-is-good-is-what-reduces-harm really a valid standard?
15. However, if people are wrong for wanting to harm themselves, then why are they wrong?
16. If people are wrong for wanting to harm themselves, then should you judge them as being mentally unhealthy?
17. If you don’t judge them as being mentally unhealthy, how is your standard that what-is-good-is-what-reduces-harm really valid?
18. If you do judge that those who like to suffer harm are being mentally unhealthy, do you have the moral obligation to force your standard of reducing harm upon them and stop them from harming themselves?
19. If you do not impose the standard of reducing harm on them, then how is your standard a tangible standard of morality?
20. But if you do force your standard on those who like to suffer harm, then isn’t that the same thing as the God in the Old Testament, who also forced his morals on people?
21.If you say that reducing harm is good only when the consent of an individual is not violated, why is that a standard that must be observed?
22. If you say that reducing harm is good only when the consent of an individual is not violated, how is this not committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying that what people want is what makes something morally right?
23. If you say that reducing harm is good only when the consent of an individual is not violated, then is it good for people to suffer harm when they consent to being harmed?
24. If you say that reducing harm is good only when the consent of an individual is not violated, then is it okay to forcibly stop someone from attempting suicide or taking harmful drugs when neither gives you consent to intervene?
25. If you do intervene against a person’s will and stop him from harming himself, then how is your action not contradictory to the standard about not violating a person’s consent when reducing harm?
26. If you do not intervene against a person’s will and stop him from harming himself lest you violate his consent, then how is your standard of reducing harm really good?
27. If you say that the standard of morality you use is neither good or bad, but just something that a given majority of people agree to, then how can it be a standard of morality since morality deals with universal good and bad?
28. Can a majority based morality be in any real sense called a “standard” since it must change by its nature?
29. Can the influence of a few, effect the mores of the many?
30. If yes, where do these powerful few get their morals?
31. If you say that the standard of morality you use is not a standard of what is good and bad, but just something that some people agree to, then how can you legitimately complain against any society that does something you don’t agree with - such as the Jews of the Old Testament?
32. If what-is-good-is-what-reduces-harm, then shouldn’t you ignore all of these questions since they might harm your worldview on morality? J