Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigmocracy
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.
|
Not in itself it doesn't, but that's just overlooking the cause of poverty. Consider what 'poverty' is; Lack of wealth. In a capitalist system, i.e. a non-interventional economy, resources are allocated where they are needed and not where politicians decide them to be. One thing the poorest countries in the world today, mainly in Africa, have in common is lack of property rights and isolation against the rest of the world as well as corruption among the politicians in said countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigmocracy
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.
|
In other words, a sacrifice of the individual for a greater cause? If that's what you're proposing I'm simply gonna claim it to be plain wrong and thus not to be taken into account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigmocracy
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.
|
Noone is obliged to come to his/her aid, correct, but if such was the case then it would be necessary to send someone to point a gun at
your head in order to force you to take action. That in turn does not seem reasonable to me.
However, you remark implies that you yourself would have no problem in coming to his/her aid voluntarily so the moral implication lies within you and noone else.