|
CADman904
Abortion Clinic Builder (5)
No Avatar
Posts: 399
|
Causing no Harm as Ethical Standard (March 14, 2005, 04:27:01 PM) |
 |
I have often heard Dan Barker talk about his ethical standard and seen it labeled as "harm minimization theory." I think his argument is that we should do whatever causes the least amount of harm to another individual. I understand where this is coming from but in my mind it could become a vehicle for all kinds of socialistic type policies. But perhaps I am leaping to quickly from a personal ethical theory to a social setting?
For instance, one person has made his billions of dollars from applying a "greedy capitalistic scheme" and wishes to spend his cash as he pleases. Someone who adovates harm minimization theory sees that there are many suffering from a lack of food so this person pitches a plea for government to do something - perhaps tax the man for a chunck of his wealth. What harm will that do to the man with the billions? It seems that "harm" needs to be more clearly defined. While it is true that the man with the cash won't be hurt monetarily per se there are issues of psycological and emotional trauma at having his hard earned money taken from him - what incentive does that create?
I like the objectivist approach much better as it sets on a firm foundation that the person who should benefit from one's actions is oneself and no one else. That someone else does not have a claim on another's productive efforts. In adhereing to the objective standard of property such an act of coercion would not take place.
In my mind this is where the objective approach becomes more difficult without fully developing a comprehensive ethical theory on coercion. Peikoff briefly addresses this by mentioning that words can inflict emotional and psycological damage. Kelly does a much better job in his LSO by discussing clearly the trader principles and objective benevolence. While I think the objective outline is good it seems to me that Dan's view of harm minimization is a good way to explain it in more "altruistic terms" (if I can say that without being blasted) than the objective view of making sure one does not commit acts of coercion. When the objective struture is in place the relational aspect of attempting to inflict as little harm on another becomes a subset if you will - a way to "proactivly" ask oneself if ones actions may be violations of coercive acts.
With this in mind one can always connect these questions back to the ethical standard of how one's actions are benefiting one's own moral standing in a social setting.
What do you think?
When the Israelites replaced El with his son Yhvh it was only a matter of time before Yhvh's son would one day replace him. |
 Status: logged off |
  |
| Order of replies: first reply last :: first reply first |
Franc28
Administrator (X)
Posts: 508
|
RE: Causing no Harm as Ethical Standard (March 14, 2005, 04:33:13 PM) |
|
Well, if harm minimization is not explicit, how can the Objectivist principles be worse ? I mean, they are both based on the same basic concept of harm or coercion.
The difference is that Objectivists advocate that one should not INITIATE coercion against someone else.
The trader principle says : we are both equals, we exchange value as individual, independent beings. If we can't do that, then there can be no trading. To force everyone to follow a social order is to destroy reason in application, which is our only means of morality.
|
| Status: logged off |
  |
CADman904
Abortion Clinic Builder (5)
No Avatar
Posts: 399
|
RE: Causing no Harm as Ethical Standard (March 14, 2005, 11:45:41 PM) |
|
quote:
| Well, if harm minimization is not explicit, how can the Objectivist principles be worse ? |
OK - yep I failed to see that ugh.
quote:
The difference is that Objectivists advocate that one should not INITIATE coercion against someone else. |
That's a good point. I think what I had in mind was *packaging* in the sense of "selling" one's morality. I think Rand did great harm to her ethical theory in terms of packaging by using the term "selfish." There are WAY too many negative connotations of this word and to attempt to explain it one only digs the hole deeper. (What I mean is that if it takes great effort to explain your morality then there must be some slight of hand right? I am thinking as a theist here. Theism's morality is quick and dirty - god said it, I believe it and that's all there is to it...) David King uses "self interested" instead and I think this gets away from the "negative press."
I think "harm theory" also betrays a silent view - that all that man does somehow harms another person. On the surface it looks like a benevolent or altruistic view but if the surface is scratched it could be that Dan views all actions as having the potential if not the actual effect of harming someone else. The result is a negative view of man whereas an objective view sees man as the creator of his own destiny - a positive and proud view. (What I want to be cautious of is to incorrectly characterize his views so if I am wrong please correct me.)
I think my initial thought was that if "harm theory" or "coercion theory" - if I may call it that - is a matter of what sounds better or what sits better in the mind... at least for me. It could be that I have not dwelt on this long enough but to merely say one must avoid acts of coercion seems vague or alien to me. To say one should avoid causing harm to another seems clearer or more concrete. It could be that it just sounds closer to a more familiar maxim such as "Do not do to someone else as you would have them do to you." So it could just be a "feeling" or an emotional connection...
OFF TOPIC:
I started re-reading Michael Martin's book "Atheism - a philosophical justification." I can remember getting this book about a year ago and I felt completely helpless in reading it. I gleaned some things but it just felt way over my head. After spending time here I am now understanding his book much better - what you are doing here guys does in fact help a lot! Thanks much for your time and efforts.
When the Israelites replaced El with his son Yhvh it was only a matter of time before Yhvh's son would one day replace him. |
| Status: logged off |
|
Franc28
Administrator (X)
Posts: 508
|
RE: Causing no Harm as Ethical Standard (March 15, 2005, 09:39:30 AM) |
|
quote:
| I think Rand did great harm to her ethical theory in terms of packaging by using the term "selfish." There are WAY too many negative connotations of this word and to attempt to explain it one only digs the hole deeper. |
Maybe so, but the terms "egoist" and "selfish" have been used in philosophy in that sense. It's the common meaning that has been hijacked. I have no problem using the word because that is what it means. Most people are actively hostile to self-interest (even though there is no alternative).
quote:
| David King uses "self interested" instead and I think this gets away from the "negative press." |
Really ?
quote:
| The result is a negative view of man whereas an objective view sees man as the creator of his own destiny - a positive and proud view. |
Bingo. The whole point of values is that they are things we act to gain, not things we suppress from other people. Objectivist morality does not tell you : "stop people from doing X". It tells you "do X and take responsibility for yourself when trading with others". To attack other people for moral issues is usually irresponsible, creepy and controlling.
quote:
| It could be that I have not dwelt on this long enough but to merely say one must avoid acts of coercion seems vague or alien to me. To say one should avoid causing harm to another seems clearer or more concrete. |
It's clearer but also wrong. I am going to cause harm to someone if I refute their beliefs publically. But I may be doing a good thing.
quote:
| It could be that it just sounds closer to a more familiar maxim such as "Do not do to someone else as you would have them do to you." |
Like I posted on my board, the Golden Rule is for creeps. It assumes that everyone shares your values and wants you to implement those values on them.
|
| Status: logged off |
|
