Okay, harm principle <i><b>H</b></i>... basic idea is that the relative morality of an action is based on whether or not it harms other people, harm being an understandably subjective term, since it varies in opinion if its just physical harm or if mental harm should be included.
Here's a couple of things I've been thinking about on the subject... if you have any more musings, I say go for them...
1. Say person <i>A</i> claims <i><b>H</b></i> as the sole basis of their ethical system <b>M</b>.
Person <i>B</i> has some notion <i>p</i> that is some negative notion <i>s</i> toward a demographic <i>d</i>, and that there is a general consensus that <i>B</i> is a bigot.
Can <i>A</i> make a claim on the morality of <i>B</i> based on <i>s</i> within his system <b>M</b>?
2a. Let's say <i>A</i> adds extra convention <i>q</i>, which states that bigotry is wrong, to <b>M</b> to make <b>M</b>*.
Now, lets say <i>A</i> is in a debate with <i>C</i> over some action <i>r</i>, which <i>C</i> is against based on convention <i>y</i> within his moral system <b>N</b>.
Can <i>A</i> use discount the moral value of <i>r</i> based on his lack of acceptance of <i>y</i>?
2b. If yes, then can <i>A</i> expect anyone to take heed when he appeals to <i>q</i>?
...That took some effort to understand. I'll try to reformulate it in layman's language, if you don't mind:
The "Harm Principle" claims that what makes something moral or imoral is whether or not it harms other people.
1)Let's suppose Albert bases his entire moral system around the harm principle.
Let's say Bernard has some prejudice against a demographic group (he's racist/religiously intolerant/whatever).
Can Albert criticize Bernard's bigotry based on Albert's Harm Principle-based moral system?
2a)Albert addds "bigotry is wrong" to his moral system.
Albert is talking with Clem, who's claiming that something is right/wrong morally because of one of the moral rules Clem believes in. Can Albert discount Clem's opinion because he doesn't agree with that moral rule?
2b)If Albert does
discount Clem's opinion because of that disagreement, doesn't that contradict his "bigotry is wrong" rule?
Did I get it all right?