There are two huge areas of fuzziness that I think cannot be resolved.
The first is whether the harm is the expected harm or the actual harm. All sorts of confusing situations arise in which one sets out to be kind but accidentally causes pain, and vice versa. One can try to dispel this by talking in terms of expectations, but further problems arise with that. — andrewk
The second is what does it mean to 'cause' harm. It may be that my decision to buy magazine X rather than magazine Y is the last straw that breaks the back of struggling magazine Y, which then folds, its editor suicides and her family is plunged into misery. Causes are a very fuzzy concept to try to pin down to something as clinical as a razor. — andrewk
To repeat, I agree with the OP as a broad moral principle, but I don't see it as a razor because it will still leave lots of dilemmas and contrary outcomes. — andrewk
If something does not inflict unnecessary or unjustifiable harm, it cannot be immoral. — VagabondSpectre
Moral imperatives typically are what you shouldn't do. They are constraints on action.
People who tell you that you have a positive duty to do something, that isn't just the converse of a negative constraint, seem to tend to have some sort of agenda. — darthbarracuda
I think the distinction between expected and intended harm is also salient: one can expect a certain amount of harm to result from an action without necessarily intending that that harm come about. For instance, a military may bomb an enemy military target with the expectation that some collateral damage will result, and yet intend to absolutely minimize civilian casualties (through extensive surveillance of the target, cross-checking multiple sources of intelligence, using "smart" bombs, etc).The first is whether the harm is the expected harm or the actual harm. All sorts of confusing situations arise in which one sets out to be kind but accidentally causes pain, and vice versa. One can try to dispel this by talking in terms of expectations, but further problems arise with that. — andrewk
It also seems clear that, even in some cases where some degree of non-consensual harm was reasonably expected to occur, that no moral infraction has taken place. Imagine a woman with an extremely racist father who brings home a black man for dinner, knowing full well that it will likely cause her father some consternation. When she enters with her date, her father clutches his chest and dies of a heart attack, Fred Sanford-style. I would remain to be convinced that the woman has acted unethically in such a situation.The second is what does it mean to 'cause' harm. It may be that my decision to buy magazine X rather than magazine Y is the last straw that breaks the back of struggling magazine Y, which then folds, its editor suicides and her family is plunged into misery. Causes are a very fuzzy concept to try to pin down to something as clinical as a razor.
If something does not inflict unnecessary or unjustifiable harm, it cannot be immoral. — VagabondSpectre
If something does not cause harm to anyone or anything, on what grounds could we deem such a thing to be immoral? — VagabondSpectre
If something does not inflict unnecessary or unjustifiable harm, it cannot be immoral. — VagabondSpectre
An old conception of the role of ethics may be useful. Human life is akin to a fleet of ships. For any fleet to complete a successful voyage, three aspects must be addressed:
1) The condition of each individual ship
2) The organization of the fleet
3) The route taken
Similarly, in ethics, one must address:
1) The condition of the individual person
2) Interpersonal relationships
3) The goal of one's life (and of society too). — Mariner
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.