As I mentioned before, it’s not only mental illness, It might be an emotional distress, underlying suffering or a coping mechanism, etc.
Sure yea I can go with that.. im just trying to understand.
Are you suggesting that all people who get tattoos have some underlying emotional distress or suffering, and therefore is self harm? Or are you saying that they dont, and it is only self harm if it harms the self and is out of mental illness or distress. Harming ones self not out of mental illness or distress is not self-harm? or it is?
The result is a net negative for the individual and society.
Did you really mean “and” here, or did you maybe mean “or”?
A tattoo causes a net negative for the individual but it iis very small. There is some risk of infection or complications, as well as damage to the skin. So the net harm for the individual while small is non-zero.
So if the criteria here is an “or”, then tattoo would qualify as self-harm no? Or perhaps you really did mean and, in which case we would agree by those criteria it is not self harm as only one of the two conditions is met.
That said if you did mean and, that would mean self harm that doesnt effect society, even out of mental illness by these criteria is perfectly ok. This would suggest that if someone is disliked by more people than they are liked they can commit suicide and that is perfectly ok because it harms the self but not society.