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

[Coriolis]

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.

Many discussions of the Rede focus on the "harm none" aspect - the idea that we must be mindful in all that we do of its effects on others, and on ourselves. We should not overlook, however, the other part, usually stated "do as you will". I will sometimes capitalize Will to emphasize that it doesn't simply mean to go around doing whatever we want day to day.

I see my will as a very intentional and determined thing. It is not simply the whims of the moment. To do my own will, I must first understand what my will is, which requires basic self-knowledge, and the ability to identify goals and priorities for my life. As such, it is related to my core values, and represents something that will guide my life and focus my efforts - as long as it "harms none".

 

[Magic Poriferan]

No. In some cases harming someone may have the optimal results.

Besides, if you don't make exceptions for unintentional harm or harm by multiple degrees of separation, it would be impossible to adhere to.

 

[Cellmold]

No.

I cannot avoid harming others in some way, whether physical or otherwise. I'm just too inconsiderate.

 

[Showbread]

I think pain is an inevitable part of life unfortunately. Sometimes having healthy boundaries in relationships means hurting others. I hate it when this is the case, but it sometimes is. This is definitely a lesson I had to learn the hard way. Sometimes the things we do to avoid hurting others end up hurting everyone more in the long run.

I am definitely opposed to unnecessary harm though.

 

[Cimarron]

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).

But I have to wonder, why should it include the self?

 

[Coriolis]

But I have to wonder, why should it include the self?

Why should it not? Each of us is worth protecting from harm and keeping sound and healthy. If someone thinks this attitude is selfish, they need only remember that it is easier to help others and make a positive impact on the world when one's own issues have been addressed.

 

[Nijntje]

I adhere to the Do-what-I-think-is-right principle, which is a quasi-casuist approach to morality. My inner book of rules is too complex and convoluted to be synthesized into a handful of simple principles. Nevertheless, it is this book that I follow. But since it is always with me, and since I trust my ability to properly grasp a situation posing a moral decision, I also trust that I can make the right decision in a rather ad-hoc fashion.

Obviously, there are situations in which harming others is justified.

my internal philosophy is startlingly similar to Nico's.

I'd *like* to think that I adhere to a 'harm none' view, in a perfect world where i am a perfect person, however, my own internal moral code is far too complex, convoluted and at time hypocritical to adhere to principles as straightforward and all encompassing as 'harm none'. The problem being the all encompassing nature of it and that fact that i cannot apply my internal morals across all situations where this belief may be employed.

 

[Poindexter Arachnid]

I do not do this. In fact, kind of the opposite.

Mostly because I am a scumbag with little no empathy for others.
Not gonna rationalize it away--I enjoy it unless it comes back to hinder me in some way.

It isn't fun anymore when you're held accountable.

But if I were to rationalize, I would say:
Hurting people is unavoidable and besides, nothing would get accomplished if we were "too nice" all of the time.

I'm like, a leader or something, and as a leader I make hard decisions for the good of others.

Gonna use that someday, especially because I don't mean it.

 

[Zangetshumody]

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.

You cannot take a worldly account for what is harmful, because that is attributing the self to a subjection and slavery to the world, at least at the level of moral authority.

There could always be those that attach envy to your achievements and works, but that doesn't mean you have harmed them by pride. The world is full of standards that compete and seek to dominate each other viciously; and therefore it is no surprise that any identity one assumes, when subjected to the judgement of those in the world- are going to be considered as harmful by someone's measure. But rather than vying with these possible competing perspectives with one's own style of vanity comprised of some 'no harm' standard (that would require a shared interpretation that can only function through some form of imposition to be of any enduring convenience), one could instead act decisively according to one's fully fleshed out image that one has of oneself in one's own understanding, upon which the spirit is set free in the liberty that is naturally discerned by one's informed heart of understanding.

[Supporting points illustrated by questions pertinent to my above argument:{presuming the scriptural account of Jesus life leading up to his death is not false:} was Jesus Christ harmful? Why was he killed? Was he killed for what he did? Or was he killed for what he said because of some ideological convenience to others? Do you think your 'no harm' principle is capable of killing for the cause of ideological supremacy or subsistence?]

 

[Flâneuse]

I think that actively trying to minimize preventable suffering is a better goal than just passively doing no harm - someone could probably do the least harm to others by living in complete isolation, but what would that achieve? That we should abstain from intentionally harming others as a general rule is a given, but it's not possible in every situation and it's not enough - not doing evil is not the same as doing good.

Also, although minimizing harm/suffering is an important part of my personal moral code, I view enriching life as being the ultimate goal instead. The goal of minimizing harm usually follows from that, although there are some actions that unavoidably cause pain but are ultimately helpful, such as telling someone a delusion-shattering truth.

 

[Galena]

I think pain is an inevitable part of life unfortunately. Sometimes having healthy boundaries in relationships means hurting others. I hate it when this is the case, but it sometimes is. This is definitely a lesson I had to learn the hard way. Sometimes the things we do to avoid hurting others end up hurting everyone more in the long run.

All of this.

"Hurt none" isn't so much a value for me as it is a raw and irrational/emotional instinct - hurting others hurts. Rational consideration and experience has led me to adopt a rational value more like what Showbread is saying, moderating the instinct when necessary. Sometimes the right thing runs counter to what is comfortable to your temperament and others': that's the difference between a value and an emotion.

 

[Coriolis]

There could always be those that attach envy to your achievements and works, but that doesn't mean you have harmed them by pride. The world is full of standards that compete and seek to dominate each other viciously; and therefore it is no surprise that any identity one assumes, when subjected to the judgement of those in the world- are going to be considered as harmful by someone's measure. But rather than vying with these possible competing perspectives with one's own style of vanity comprised of some 'no harm' standard (that would require a shared interpretation that can only function through some form of imposition to be of any enduring convenience), one could instead act decisively according to one's fully fleshed out image that one has of oneself in one's own understanding, upon which the spirit is set free in the liberty that is naturally discerned by one's informed heart of understanding.

This is were perception is NOT reality. Someone thinking I have harmed them is not the same as my actually harming them at all. It is also where the idea of relative harm comes into play. If my younger sister, for instance, becomes discouraged by my accomplishments because she always feels inadequate when she compares herself to me, should I stop accomplishing things, or perhaps simply stop speaking about my accomplishments around her? Either of those courses of action would lead to greater harm than just continuing as before, especially if I make an extra effort to be encouraging to her, and remind her of the things she can do well that I cannot. Our needs and wants as humans have enough commonality that if we also remain mindful of our differences, we can usually make a reasonable assessment of likely harm.

 

[Zangetshumody]

This is were perception is NOT reality. Someone thinking I have harmed them is not the same as my actually harming them at all. It is also where the idea of relative harm comes into play. If my younger sister, for instance, becomes discouraged by my accomplishments because she always feels inadequate when she compares herself to me, should I stop accomplishing things, or perhaps simply stop speaking about my accomplishments around her? Either of those courses of action would lead to greater harm than just continuing as before, especially if I make an extra effort to be encouraging to her, and remind her of the things she can do well that I cannot. Our needs and wants as humans have enough commonality that if we also remain mindful of our differences, we can usually make a reasonable assessment of likely harm.

Anyone who knows how to utter the word "actually" can make a claim as to the "actual". How can your claim of 'actual harm' be anything but an imposition through declaring reality for yourself and others (and too the prejudice of another's competing claim)?

[My example of this point being: "Either of those courses of action would lead to greater harm than just continuing as before"; I do not recognize this as necessarily true (according to your principle measure);- and so then I believe it is only with uniform interpretation of your principle can this principle ever become useful for justification. And morality without justification is going to end up as folly, because the lack of justification will make it impossible to make your moral schema actionable in the world (as condemnation of some form or another (especially legal), will conceivably impede proper exercise of the morality)].

Your assessment only works when everyone applies the same measure of harm to particular scenario's which have to be examined by a similarly bound imagination which is naturally not common among all people.

Whereas, when you are directed by a well formulated sense of who you are; that can then already guide you to select the right fire upon which to motivate your decisions. (Done so on a purely positive and entitled basis, and not done through weighing costs with calculation [which only allows one to select a lesser evil of sorts]. Because in mitigating cost and therefore seeking to manage evil, your never gonna get a really good outcome... because you have already forgone the hope of creating something (innately good) that will remain indefinitely (which I would argue can only be hoped for when intending to do something innately good [which is a different process based on giving authority to the right "discernment of meaning" which is an entirely different process than trying to extract meaning through a negative measure of calculating harm])).

 

[OrderOfTheCaelifera]

I'd like to be able to answer yes but doing so would make me a liar.

 

[Hive]

I think my values are more utilitarian, like whatever does the most good or least harm is usually the best course of action.

 

[Typh0n]

Ive heard of 'harm none' as the Wiccan Rede, basically meaning that if an action harms none, you're free to do it. It kinda makes sense, even if Im not Wiccan. Like I try to minimize the pain that I inflict on other humans, animals and to respect all forms of life, starting with my own, moving on to other humans and extending it to animal and plant life(respecting plant life, as sacred, as they can be destroyed, though I dont believe plants can feel pain or pleasure). I think it also means to me that if an action harms noone it can be done, but that doesnt mean I want it to be done. Sometimes there are reasons(such as choosing between two career paths) which would make an action or undertaking undesireable even if it harms none.

 

[Noll]

I try as much as I can, I try to avoid paying people to kill animals, and I try to avoid buying clothes made through unfair and unethical labor. The meat industry and sweatshops are the absolute worst things about capitalism if you ask me. It needs to be abolished. What's worse is how very few people actually seem to care at all. It makes me hate people. Of course, I would never befriend anyone who doesn't care about these things. Those who don't care are selfish and offensive savages, refusing to accept the wonderful ideas of solidarity, compassion and common sense! Harm none but harm those who deserve, is my way of thinking.

 

[Typh0n]

I think pain is an inevitable part of life unfortunately. Sometimes having healthy boundaries in relationships means hurting others. I hate it when this is the case, but it sometimes is. This is definitely a lesson I had to learn the hard way. Sometimes the things we do to avoid hurting others end up hurting everyone more in the long run.

I am definitely opposed to unnecessary harm though.

I dont really see how.

 

[Polaris]

It isn't currently possible for us to lead anything approaching harmless existences; in order to survive, we have to destroy other life. So no, I don't really adhere to the value of "harm none," although I find it to be an attractive ideal that I frequently aim for in my dealings with others.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Intentionally, yes.

But sunday morning while I was driving the bus to a customer I faced harsh reality not once but twice as two birds decided to suicide into me.