In this study I will analyze the concept of damage as it is used in tort law. To do this, I will address three questions: first, is there a single concept or multiple concepts of harm? Second, what is the explanatory power of comparative versus non-comparative criteria for determining what constitutes harm? Third, how are the concepts of harm, interest and well-being linked? I propose, first of all, to analyze these three questions on the basis of certain debates held in moral and political philosophy regarding the harm principle. Second, I will defend the hypothesis of the relevance of a generic concept of damage and the advantages of a complex comparative criterion for determining cases of damage. Finally, I will argue that the link between the concept of damage and the notion of interest cannot be sustained independently of certain moral conceptions.