Financial loss, physical injuries, etc.
These things -can- be measured -- and, if you wanted to, you could create a
'unit' from those measurements, describing equivelancies among them.
Words that have the potential of causing financial loss would not be considered fighting words. And what is measured is financial loss, not harm. A billionaire who loses $20K in profit has lost more than a person who makes an average $50,000 if they lose $10K. The latter person has, more than likely, received more "harm" from their losses, but the former has had greater
measurable losses.
Conversely, a person who makes $65K a year and has three kids that loses 10K is probably going to suffer
more harm than a bachelor with no kids who makes $60K a year and loses that very same 10K. teh difference in
harm would be documentable, but not measurable.
Physical injuries simply cannot be measured. Only described and documented. Measurements can
only relate to values. To show that there can not be a value placed on physical "harm", I offer the following:
What's the difference in
value between the loss of the left foot and the loss of a left hand?
Now, after you've thought about that in a general sense, what's the difference in value between teh loss of the left foot and the loss of left hand for a professional
musician, say a concert pianist at the start of their career?
Clearly, for said musician, the harm done by the loss of a left hand is going to be greater than that of the loss of the left foot. Whereas a professional soccer player would be harmed more from the loss of the left foot, as losing his hand would have little to no effect on his livelihood.
Do we consider the harm received from losing one's left hand equal to that of losing the right? If so, does that mean a right-handed person has been harmed just as much as he would have been if he lost his left hand? Or do we measure harm in this situation by handed-ness?
Is so, what about losing a finger on the left hand versus losing a finger on the right one? Would that still be based on handedness, or would it be equal? Is a pinky worth the same value as an index finger? Would a right-handed guitar player get more "harm points" if he lost a finger on his left hand as opposed to his right?
What I'm trying to show is that harm, the actual damage one receives overall, is simply not a legitimately measurable construct.
Harm is a
relative factor, though, it is just
not a subjective one. You
can document and describe the damage that comes from something harmful, and this degree of harm inflicted will be clear to an objective observer.
i.e. For a professional musician, going deaf is more harmful than going blind would be. We can't place a value on one over the other without knowing more details about the person being harmed.