Follow Up of the Discussion in 9th December.

We discussed the article written by Shannon in 9th December. In our group, there were Taro, Aiko and Hiroko.
We started the discussion with our critical reactions. Hiroko argued that there was an unclear part in Nonmaleficence chapter, that is, the process of mental harm was vague. I naturally read it without such a caution like "if my liberty is violated, I feel harm," but I'd noticed that it's my bias after Hiroko's critique. In the chapter, Shannon refers to a risk of harm, with giving an example of driving speed, but can the risk be discussed at the same level as harm itself? Of course, in our common sense, we accept the concept of a risk of harm without doubt, but the relation between the harm and the risk of it should be clearly explained in an academic situation.
Taro indicated that the structure of the article.