Formal

Why not everything with a name can be harmed. Modal Path Ethics defines harm as contraction of weighted reachable future-space in extance. That definition immediately raises a further question: What bears the contraction? If the answer is “persons,” then the framework collapses back into the person-centered ethics it was built

Why is moral weight structural, not subjective? The objection here is not that Modal Path Ethics lacks a definition of harm. The objection is that the definition used appears to require a second operation which has not yet been defended. If harm is contraction of reachable future-space in extance, then

Why can harm occur before persons exist? The likely objection is obvious enough to state: Contraction may describe a structural change. Why should anyone call it harm? If Modal Path Ethics cannot answer this, then the framework has only actually renamed loss in modal language. It would be describing a