I found this quote, from another thread, to be very provocative:



I can't say I agree. It's difficult for me to see how an action which does no harm can be unethical. Of course, it can be debated whether a particular act does harm or not, and reasonable people may disagree over exactly what is harm. But if all parties agree that an action does no harm, how can it be unethical?

To be debated: Is there a basis for ethics other than harm?

To be debated: Is there a basis for ethics other than harm?

Yep, I'll start with affection, although this is not the only other basis on which ethical behavior can be based.

Doing something nice for someone else just for kicks isn't an avoidance of doing harm to the other person. It is simply doing something nice, an expression of affection. It is also not an act of defense of the other person.

This can be extended into doing something nice for unknown people, or charity.

The idea of doing random acts of kindness fits in here, along with casting bread on the waters of life.

Being courteous -- showing respect -- is another expression of ethical behavior based on a universal affection for others. Oh sure, courteous behavior avoids conflict, but that's not always why people are courteous to one another. Some folks simply like other folks.

There's an emotion that often does not include affection, and that is love. Love without affection can be very damaging to those involved, but add affection and the relationship has a chance of working. It's better to come to like someone first before love gets involved. I'm convinced that what we commonly think of as love is actually a temporal mental illness based on insecurity and dependence.

Loyalty is another basis for ethical behavior. This tends to come out of affection, or it might be simply another way of expressing affection. Loyalty can serve to avoid harm, as in being allies against a common threat -- but I see it running into broader areas, and out of this comes a whole greater than the sum of its parts.

Connected as well is trust. Affection, loyalty and trust -- a trinity of ethical foundation that is hard to build but easy to destroy. We see this all the time in personal relationships, and harm comes all around from the destruction. Yet behavior happens leading to the destruction, so how can one say that the avoidance of harm is a basis for the destructive behavior? It certainly is not.

But what about the behavior done to maintain the trinity? Is that simply to avoid harm? Not from what I see. It is rather behavior to maintain a situation that is pretty darn cool. That's not avoiding doing harm as much as enjoying what has been built, and building more upon it. It's positive rather than negative.

Taken in a citizen context, you can have affection for your country, be loyal to it, and trust the government. The part that easily gets knocked away is trust, and so there you go -- a citizen gone bad. Or loyalty can be compromised, as in spying for another country. That can happen out of greed or maybe some kind of attraction for risk. Affection for the country might be lost due to the country's political actions, and I see the results of this expressed in various bad behaviors.

Personally, I struggle with the trust part regularly, having been burnt too many times. I guess that's self-preservation behavior in order to avoid harm. So although avoiding harm is a strong motivator, it isn't the only one, and it's not the most rewarding one.

Well said AuthorMusician. I agree completely, many other considerations form the basis of "ethical" decisions.

Ethical considerations also include weighing several different harms as well. It is worthwhile to have discussions about ethics because as a society we must come to an agreement often times as to the path that is most acceptable to society on any particular issue. I think "ethics" also affects our conduct and the perception of our conduct by others.

To be debated: Is there a basis for ethics other than harm?

[/quote]

Inclusive fitness, survivial, selfish desire, or because it "feels good."

I am hard pressed to believe that anyone does anything out of the kindness of their own hearts. We are animals. Heaven only exists because "we" want to live forever...

I would agree with some of what AuthorMusician has said - as well as Immanuel Kant and his categorical imperitive - that an interest in "the greater good" (or, as someone somewhere once put it, promoting the general welfare) can also contribute to an ethical sense. The term I would generally use as an addition to "doing no harm" would be empathy. This would include not only refraining from doing harm, but also consciously doing that which will contribute to the greater well-being of one's fellows.

But I believe Vicki's question was more along the lines of whether or not ethical behavior could exclude the refusal to do harm. And, here, I think the answer is again, yes. There are cases where looking after the greater good can result in harm to some members of a society. This is where ethical dilemmas come into play. For example, during Reconstruction, it was argued that many freed slaves would be unable to properly care for themselves, that some would languish in poverty or poor health - that freedom itself could have casualties. And that was quite possibly the case in some instances. But which was the greater good? Abolition or continued slavery?

Similarly, there are questions of defense. Warfare, certainly, does harm - but when it is defensive warfare (rather than the kind we've been waging of late), the safety of one well-being of one society is pitted against that of another. This is one of the reasons that in an ethical society, war is a last, desperate resort. The primary aim should always be to do no harm (or the least possible harm), without putting a group at even greater risk. The same could apply to defending one's home, property, or loved ones.

Then there are examples of "tough love". Allowing an addict to go through withdrawal, for example, can do great harm, resulting in severe physical pain. But, given the option, is it more ethical to withhold substances rather than to supply them, assuming that the addict will be "better off" afterwards?

Err, ummm, this one rubs me really raw. Maybe it is because I have come to increasingly believe that my faith in a revival of ethics is a quixotic belief of mine. Why do ethics have to exist at all if harm is the only guiding light? Shouldn't our legal and civil law suffice to make everything work in that case. If harm is done to us we can go seek a remedy. The fear of having someone pursue a remedy against us should be a sufficient threat to keep people from causing others harm. What need in this scenario is there for ethics.

I think we have lost sight of what ethics should be. People in positions of power should do no harm AND avoid the appearance of impropriety. A judge may be able to practice perfect law if her son is in the courtroom trying a case before her, but it still is improper. A boss or superior officer may be able to have a sexual relationship with a subordinate and carry out his responsibilities properly, but it does not look right. When a decision is made about a promotion that works out in the favor of the one doling out sexual favors, then it looks like favoritism, whatever the reality.

When a politician receives an income from a private company while serving in office, he or she may be able to vote in regards to that company without being influenced by that monetary tie, but the general public would not believe it.

Ethics goes above and beyond not doing harm. And it is a lost art that gravely needs to be recaptured.

We have become an advocacy society when we need more ombudsmen and people who serve the greater good with the belief that is is a better way to get at the best solutions. Baseball could use such a viewpoint to deal with its steroid crisis. But advocacy is miring it down into a confrontation of power between the interests of the ownership and players. The irony is that both receive harm by treating this as an individual negotiating point for each side instead of looking past the advocacy and caretaking the larger sport that feeds the revenue stream and lifestyle they are bickering over as is declines.

Ethics or the lack thereof is based on principals and principals are based on learned behavior or influenced by a group ideology. For example an exclusive neighborhood may find solar collector panels an eyesore that would reduce the value of all residents property causing harm to the other within the community. Or, in the government one could point to the federal military policy towards gays and say it is unethical to treat them differently than strait soldiers and to do so causes the gay community in and outside of the military harm. To be unethical is based upon the group weighing or measuring ethics verses in government a democratic acceptance or a republic ruling of ethics. To me ethics is judged as fairness and if you differ please point out what you understand ethics to be.

So if we agree ethics belong to a particular group then one can assume another group will have differing ethics. For example if someone told me to remove my solar collector panel or paint my house a certain selection of colors I would be harmed. To accept ethics you must agree with the group you associate as it associates with harm to you or others. Almost every debate subject from war to abortion, youth abortion without parents consent, punishment verses rehabilitation for child molesters and the list goes on is based on the community it exists.

Everything from personal relationships to whether my 13 year-old kid may have an abortion without my permission is up to whom? Well in the case of personal relationships it is the values you learned in advancing to adulthood, yet in the case of the child’s rights verses your parental rights is based on ethics of the majority of the community. Or is it? Maybe the latter is based on a judge’s interpretation of the will of the community as he or she views it and in the former based on the immediate family and community where you were reared.

To me common law, the law America adopted is the community’s law as willed by the community or at least the largest community or majority. Our problem now is the ethics of principals we see laws and constitutions to hold. On one hand a large group is anti war and would rehabilitate a sex offender even though he or she may violate your child or even kill her or him in case of recent events in FL. I read today over 40 million people in America are child abuse victims and find it hard to believe the ethic of the majority is for rehabilitation of child molesters, I say the majority would rule to castrate or spay them.

I think judges and laws fail to represent the masses ethics in many cases from women rights, racial, gay and many other rulings. Harm and ethics may only be measured democratically in the government and lawmakers should assign specific rulings for judges to use to measure the will of the community. I know judges would rule otherwise based on the constitution but I see no case where if a judge found a law or the constitutional right not being applied fairly had presented it to the congress to rule on the law more peace and less harm would prevail among the community today. Judges should not define the intent of what a law or constitution represents, judges should identify flaws in clarity within the law and notify lawmakers who represent the community, or the majority of the community to write a clear law the judges may rule decisions on.

There are many ideas on what constitutes ethical behavior. Some of them even include the possibility of harming others, while the most famous (Kantian ethics) doesn't concern itself at all with causing harm, or not. End results be they good or bad are not moral in and of themselves, but rather the desire to do good is moral.

I'd say that the only basis for ethics is the intersubjective belief that good and bad subsist. How this shared belief translates in terms of behavior is the only variable.

Eeyore

Yes, but can't impropriety be construed as harm, albeit in a broader and more impersonal sense. In your examples, the judge's behaviour would cause harm to the reputation of the judicial system, the boss's sexual relationship would lead other employees to suspect favouritism and so harm the boss's standing etc.

Harm, help, they're the same thing looked at in different ways. Why would you need anything more?

"Is there a basis for ethics other than harm?" Yes. Justice is one, and different constructions of justice will result in different ethical structures. Justice does not concern itself with harm explicitly, but rather with what one deserves. Thus, if one deserves harm, it is ethical for another person to deliver that harm.

Another consideration is the vast gulf between the purity of a Kantian model and the real world where perfect knowledge does not exist. Into this gap step imperfect foundations for ethics, such as tradition. While it is fashionable in the post-modern era to dismiss tradition whenever it is in opposition to the "progressive" vision of the moment, a great deal of tradition boils down to the distilled experience of hundreds, thousands, millions, even billions of people interracting with one another over the course of millenia. As such, it embodies such a massive body of knowledge that all the knowledge added by all the Nobel prize winners alive today is as a single drop of rain into the Pacific Ocean. So tradition is a basis of ethics. Imperfect, yes, but no more so than "do no harm" when the impact of one's actions is at best apprehended through the glass darkly.

"Is there a basis for ethics other than harm?"

I agree with others that ethics are not merely based on whether or not someone is harmed.

A consistent practitioner of sound ethics possesses integrity. Personal integrity is still valued in some circles and is seen as intrinsic to one's self-esteem. A person who does not compromise his values while striving to treat others with dignity and justice is seen as an ethical person.

So it means consideration of others while not abandoning one's core values, i.e., not doing harm to oneself either.

I would like to add that in addition to harm, Kant, justice, and tradition as bases for ethics, there is religion, which provides the ethical foundation for over half the world's population....

It's generally difficult to find a single guiding principle to serve as a basis for moral judgments. Taking the case of harm, expressed as "minimize harm to others," (aka, negative utilitarianism) we have several difficulties. For one, the notion of what constitutes "harm" isn't as easy to define as it might appear to be at first glance. Is harm equivalent to causing pain? If I have to give you an inoculation for a disease, the shot might hurt, so at least in the short run, I'm causing you harm. But in the long run, it may prevent certain harm. How do we evaluate that tradeoff? The critical case would be if we had to forcibly give the shot against your will.

Or, let's say that I provide for someone from birth a life as free from pain as possible: no need is ever unmet, no physical or mental discomfort is ever suffered, no obstacles exist. Although we've gone out of our way to prevent "harm" (in the form of pain or perceived discomfort) in the short run, it's pretty clear that an individual raised in such an environment would be tyrannical at best, and in fact *would* be harmed -- psychologically, morally -- by such an upbringing. Already the notion of what constitutes "harm" has become problematic, because now we're forced to choose between short-term and long-term harms.

Although it seems that the principle the above cases might suggest is "favor the long term," alas, it's not that simple. For example, it may be in my long term best interest to save every penny of income I make to insure a secure requirement. But making these tradeoffs can be problematic. What if the future never arrives? Or, how much present suffering should we endure in hopes of a future payoff? Should I eat Ramen for the next 5 years in order to eat steak for the 5 years after that? Or should I just eat something in between all the time? ("In the long run, we're all dead." -- John Maynard Keynes). These questions are essentially psychological, but if we have difficulty answering them even for of ourselves, one can imagine that it'll be even more difficult to answer them for others.

Is coercion an option? We may agree that it's morally justified to force a child to be inoculated against a serious disease against his will. Or, we feel it's justified to make dangerous drugs illegal in order to prevent people from harming themselves by using them. In both cases, we favor the long run. But what about forcing an adult to, say, eat a healthy diet? Doing so could prevent the damaging gastronomical effects of donuts and fries, but yet, most of us would probably balk at that level of coercion. What's the distinction, and where is the line drawn?

A second problem arises when we consider competing harms. A classic example: your mom and Mother Teresa are both in a burning building, and you can save only one of them. Classical utilitarianism requires that you save Mother Teresa, since doing so will bring about the greatest long term happiness for the greatest number of individuals. Yet few of us accept that conclusion. Or similarly, should I be allowed to own a dog? The resources I devote to my pet could easily prevent someone in Africa from starving. I *could* send off a check to Unicef instead. That would alleviate more suffering, thus cause less harm, and thus by the principle of negative-utilitarianism should be the one that's morally correct.

The problem, generally speaking, is that utilitarianism (or negative-utilitarianism) appeals to certain moral intuitions, but fails certain other moral intuitions. Typically, we turn to some notion of individual rights to provide some sort of counterweight to the (possible) oppressiveness of the utilitarian machine.