Do you adhere to the value of 'harm none'?

[Coriolis]

I guess it depends on how strictly you feel the need to pursue "values" of this sort... I wouldn't consider this a real value in any proper sense; it could be considered a tenant of some code, or perhaps a rule of thumb as something to briefly touch on as one deliberates certain decisions where such a consideration becomes pertinent.

It might make more sense to view it as a rule of thumb, or moral yardstick. By this I mean I take it as a call to consider very carefully the consequences of my actions, and to ensure that any harm is vastly outweighed by good. Just another form of cost-benefit analysis. I cannot even begin to make this calculation, however, if I have not examined my actions in this way.

In conclusion: if "harm none" is but one value weighed among others, which can needs be tempered or limited as required for the sake of other values; then this doesn't seem like such a problematic position.

Those other values inform your definitions of harm and good.

follow up point: "none" would presumably also have to include the self, which would prevent self-sacrifice, and the grace it can afford. (And possibly the potential for personal development (which can only come from the loss of something- depending on how deeply you wish to take this follow up point toward it's far reaching implications).

Yes, "none" very definitely includes the self. It therefore cautions against suicide, subtance abuse, unhealthy lifestyle, and other behaviors that harm oneself in addition to any external harm caused. Self-sacrifice may be justified based on the criterion in my first paragraph, namely whether it brings about greater good (i.e. is the action resulting in least harm).

 

[Zangetshumody]

Those other values inform your definitions of harm and good.

I understand your greater point, but I think it is dangerous to reduce one's decision making capability to a formula hinged upon one grand binary that is meant to arbitrate all consequence and action (namely: harm and the good).

I always feel, the top of the pyramid is not a certain scale that balances one's life, but a single pinnacle of able awareness that is not automatically constrained by any measure. This is what I consider as the true liberty and the light the scriptures speak of.
Not that there can't be said to be certain laws in operation: although without a spiritual understanding the operation of those laws will seem hidden.

The law I'm thinking of is: Give, and it shall be given unto you.

full scripture (which gives you more grounding for the operation of this understanding)->

Luk_6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

Because ultimately, considerations of harm is a type of fear that does have a level of torment attached to it. Of course some people will be in situations where if they dispatched the line of thinking you advocate (or at least endorse for your personal use), they would cause more destruction;- but I would argue that a measure of self-policing one's own unbalanced life, although noble sounding, is no real substitute for working out real (unblemished) joy.

I'm not proposing abandonment of how you manage your life's blood; only that with a more fixed and stable identity that has full capacity to vest outside authority to your identities full satisfaction; we could be living in a community where these fears are confined to a former mode of life. [When I speak of identity, I mean how you conceive of yourself, and how you are known by others].

Of course how such a society would be constructed is a subject that touches close to some Star Trek sociological theme...

my 2 cents on the matter (at this moment):
Of course I would not suggest vesting outside authority into a thing of the world: but in the hearing of the Word of God. The living God with flesh; contained by those created in his image who dwell in his spirit (and he in them). And believing on people in this way can lead to a pretty active life where one does not need to intellectually measure so much: because all the answers are already out there, we just need the correct atmosphere that allows people to share them freely with us (as they say: your attitude determines your altitude) [a way of understanding my point practically would be: we just need to master the art of asking in which people's identity does play a big role)].

 

[Coriolis]

I understand your greater point, but I think it is dangerous to reduce one's decision making capability to a formula hinged upon one grand binary that is meant to arbitrate all consequence and action (namely: harm and the good).

It is much less a binary than a hierarchy: what brings the greatest benefit at the least cost, but considering these attributes with respect to the full range of your influence, not just your own person or family.

Because ultimately, considerations of harm is a type of fear that does have a level of torment attached to it. Of course some people will be in situations where if they dispatched the line of thinking you advocate (or at least endorse for your personal use), they would cause more destruction;- but I would argue that a measure of self-policing one's own unbalanced life, although noble sounding, is no real substitute for working out real (unblemished) joy.

Some people might feel fear, but it is not necessary. All one needs is a realistic assessment and appreciation for cause and effect relationships. The whole purpose of "harm none" is to do the minimal harm possible in a situation. If one acts in such a way to cause greater destruction, one has not applied the philosophy correctly; or at least is operating on faulty information. On the other hand, it is possible to derive joy from causing harm to others, so this is an even worse yardstick.

my 2 cents on the matter (at this moment):
Of course I would not suggest vesting outside authority into a thing of the world: but in the hearing of the Word of God. The living God with flesh; contained by those created in his image who dwell in his spirit (and he in them). And believing on people in this way can lead to a pretty active life where one does not need to intellectually measure so much: because all the answers are already out there, we just need the correct atmosphere that allows people to share them freely with us (as they say: your attitude determines your altitude) [a way of understanding my point practically would be: we just need to master the art of asking in which people's identity does play a big role)].

Not everyone has the same view of God, or of humanity. This sounds like abdicating my responsibility to consider the consequences of my actions to some external, unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable body of hearsay. At least as much harm has been done in the name of various sources of "the word of God" than from unadorned human failings.

 

[Zangetshumody]

It is much less a binary than a hierarchy: what brings the greatest benefit at the least cost, but considering these attributes with respect to the full range of your influence, not just your own person or family.

I was talking about the quality of the judgement; The possible considerations created by use of the judgement might create the picture of a hierarchy; but the judgement itself is a scale comprised of two measures to be weighed against each other: this is the binary I'm talking about [the one measure being of 'good', the other measure being 'the harm'].

The greater point I'm trying to raise, is that good is not a measure; that there is such a thing as "The good". It doesn't just exist as a description or quality that can be measured, it is the liberty one has through reason to do any measuring.

And then I bring up the point, that there are different ways of applying this liberty to remove the need to measure your actions by harm; and that this is accomplished by forging a real identity in the world (and within your mind). This is not something that can necessarily be accomplished over night; because re-positioning yourself in the world, depending on your current position; takes changing your pattern of exchange with people- which requires not just words, but also the deed.

[My way of understanding "the deed" can be summed up in two words (and one name): Jesus Christ.]

And so I think it better to work on this real development [of improving one's image (in the world) [or operation], and indirectly thereby [improving] one's environment], instead of an intellectual framework to accommodate the imbalances one can judge.

In summation:
Be the change you want to see; so that no harm needs be counted nor considered. [because one is just following the good (and living in its spirit), choosing between different forms of good based on liberty]. This cannot be accomplished by an atom in a greater world; but with the proper realization of one's identity, I believe it can be forged.

 

[chubber]

When you are defending yourself, there is no choice but to go offensive, as it sometimes the best defence.

 

[prplchknz]

most of the time, except when it comes to the protecting myself or others, then I have no problems with violence, but in general I leave people alone.

 

[LadyLazarus]

Hmm,I suppose, to an extent I do, although if someone harms me first(whether it be physically or emotionally) I will not hesitate to retaliate, in fact I may very well enjoy it.I tend to be merciless and sadistic when it comes to being wronged/hurt by others.

An eye for an eye...

Although, I don't usually/intentionally try to cause others harm if they have not hurt me first.

 

[Thursday]

If you do things correctly, you're still gonna harm someone. More often than not, you're damaging weak and insecure egos and esteems rather than feelings. I'm generally rather rough, so as long as I don't hurt feelings tooooo much, I'm content.

 

[chubber]

If you do things correctly, you're still gonna harm someone. More often than not, you're damaging weak and insecure egos and esteems rather than feelings. I'm generally rather rough, so as long as I don't hurt feelings tooooo much, I'm content.

Hulk smash

 

[Red Herring]

If we're talking about higher lifeforms and not mosquitoes, roaches, flies, viruses, bacteria, and criminals, then yes.

Ehm, just what exactly are we talking about here ... I mean, what kind of crime would a fellow human being have to commit to be as worthy as vermin or a petri dish of bacteria in your eyes? What causes a human being to suddenly no longer be a "higher lifeform" and lose their right to life and bodily integrity? Stealing a loaf of bread or bombing a kindergarden, where do you draw the line?

 

[chubber]

Ehm, just what exactly are we talking about here ... I mean, what kind of crime would a fellow human being have to commit to be as worthy as vermin or a petri dish of bacteria in your eyes? What causes a human being to suddenly no longer be a "higher lifeform" and lose their right to life and bodily integrity? Stealing a loaf of bread or bombing a kindergarden, where do you draw the line?

Funny how the types that identify with felines are so soft and cuddle, but in the mean time, back at the ranch, they are vicious leopards, ready to rip out the throat of a poor mouse to eat, because they need to survive.

 

[Red Herring]

Funny how the types that identify with felines are so soft and cuddle, but in the mean time, back at the ranch, they are vicious leopards, ready to rip out the throat of a poor mouse to eat, because they need to survive.

I can not make head or toe of this answer. Can you please be more explicit?

 

[chubber]

I can not make head or toe of this answer. Can you please be more explicit?

claim: "I don't want to hurt any body"
claim: "I'm like a cat"

cats: "much on animals, hurts them in the process"

the irony. the end

 

[Red Herring]

claim: "I don't want to hurt any body"
claim: "I'm like a cat"

cats: "much on animals, hurts them in the process"

the irony. the end

Sorry, still not getting it. You quoted me quoting you saying you had two catgories: one was not to be harmed and included higher beings and the other could be harmed and included vermin and criminals. What does a cat (or any animal) hunting for survival have to do with you making a distinction between criminal human beings and apparently all other vertebrae? A criminal is not punished for survival, he is not executed for food or for play (at least not in theory), so where does animal behavior come into play when we were discussing hurting fellow human beings? A cat does not hurt another cat unless they are fighting for territory, food or a mate all of which could be consideres questions of survival. None of that is the case when it comes to hurting or not hurting a criminal ... or is that exactly the comparison you meant to make? That we do have a social consensus to hurt criminal (by locking them away or other punishments) in order to protect out territory, food or mate? That is the only interpretation of what you said that sounds plausible to me and yet I would strongly disagree with that comparison. Help me out here, I still don't get it.

Or were you referring to the thread in general and not answering my question even though you quoted me?

 

[Red Herring]

Also, who in this thread said they were like a cat? I certainly didn't and yet you cited it as claim n° 2 as if you were referring to me. It's puzzling.

 

[Qre:us]

I'm curious to see how universal this value is and what it means to people from different backgrounds and types. So do you adhere to it? Why or why not? And what does it encompass for you? How important is it to you? What drives it?

Oh and it would be interesting to state your type first, and then answer, I think.


As for me:

ENFP

I live and breathe this. Suffering is something I cannot abide to see and do nothing about - be it another human being, or any other living being. I don't watch the news for a reason and I'm part of several charities to do what I can. If I'm aware that I might've hurt someone - however minor - I feel immensely guilty, even if a part of me rebels and tells me 'they had it coming'. I feel everyone has the right to be themselves and not be punished or taken advantage of it or be exploited by others for it - that includes animals and more. Free choice and the pain of having that taken already makes me rage, however small. On the other end of the scale is deliberate torture of another living being - something that I just cannot fathom.

I know you follow Wicca, and this is their creed, right? "If it harms none, do as you will."

Causing harm is unavoidable, as long as one interacts with the world, in any capacity. It seems like it is more a matter of degree. Meaning, the depth with which one evaluates their every action, inaction and reaction. How far do you follow the ripple effect?

I think, each of us, calculate, to different degrees of awareness, harm versus benefit, and choose accordingly. In this process of evaluation, we call upon an individually-assigned heirarchy of our values.

Some of our heirarchies (nods to Maslow):

Humans versus other mammalian animals versus non-mammalian animals like birds, reptiles, amphibians versus bugs versus plants, etc.

Justice versus mercy

Self versus Others (Loved ones, acquaintences, strangers we interact with, strangers we do not interact with, strangers we identify with in some way, straongers we do not identify with)
etc....

 

[Amargith]

I'm actually not Wiccan, but I have a wiccan background, and yeah, that is their creed

Thanks for adding your insights to the pot.

 

[Coriolis]

I was talking about the quality of the judgement; The possible considerations created by use of the judgement might create the picture of a hierarchy; but the judgement itself is a scale comprised of two measures to be weighed against each other: this is the binary I'm talking about [the one measure being of 'good', the other measure being 'the harm'].

The greater point I'm trying to raise, is that good is not a measure; that there is such a thing as "The good". It doesn't just exist as a description or quality that can be measured, it is the liberty one has through reason to do any measuring.

I really don't understand what you are getting at here. Good is a quality, a subjective property of choices or events that can vary in degree, and also coexist with harm or other negative attributes. These are what one balances in attempting to make constructive, respectful choices.

And so I think it better to work on this real development [of improving one's image (in the world) [or operation], and indirectly thereby [improving] one's environment], instead of an intellectual framework to accommodate the imbalances one can judge.

What is to keep one from forming an image or identity in the world that is harmful? You have no standard here at all to help in choosing one course of action over another. The axiom of harm none (or do the least harm possible) is far from an intellectual framework, though one can certainly discuss it from an intellectual perspective. It is implemented to good effect every day by people of all backgrounds, inclinations, and walks of life.

Justice versus mercy

If there were more justice in the world, we would have less need for mercy.

 

[prplchknz]

Also, who in this thread said they were like a cat? I certainly didn't and yet you cited it as claim n° 2 as if you were referring to me. It's puzzling.

I've said I'm like a cat, I probably have feline DNA, but I don't recall saying that in this thread. Well now I have. So if the person you're asking can time travel to the future and sees this post but got confused that they time traveled, I can see the confusion

 

[rebeccaB]

I believe that we can do everything we want to as long as we don't harm anyone. The Wiccan Rede is a statement that provides the key moral system in the Neopagan religion of Wicca and certain other related Witchcraft-based faiths. A common form of the Rede is, harm none, do what ye will. Recycling is one of the many activities individuals are asked to do to be able to “go green,” and a few states will even pay for it. Regrettably, that means fraud artists will find a way to scam the system, such as when it comes to California, where recycling fraud is costing millions of dollars per year.