Quote:
Originally Posted by Dotoar
no-harm-principle
|
There are two problems with the no-harm principle:
1. It ignores *systemic* harm. In a capitalist society, billions of people live in poverty "naturally". You cannot point to someone and say "this person is causing the poverty", but the poverty is inherent in the system. The no-harm principle does nothing to alleviate this.
2. It does not go far enough. Ask ourselves - what are our ethical obligations? I would argue they are primarily A. Survival of the species and B. Well-being of the species. Plenty of actions can occur which threaten both of these goals which are not prohibited by the "no-harm" principle. Under the no-harm principle, if I witness a mugger stab someone in the chest, I have no moral obligation to come to their aid, call an ambulance, etc. This does not seem reasonable to me.