My personal opinion is that it isn’t really possible to do no harm. The price of our lives and ambitions are harm. At a very basic level we will harm other organisms for food and such and we are constantly harming microorganisms.
We harm other people even when we don’t mean to just by virtue of being ourselves. It isn’t intentional usually, and isn’t always direct- but there is only so much if anything, what we take others can’t have. It may not matter much- the air you breath is a drop in a bucket and no one will suffocate from it, but the water you drink or food you eat may be taken from another somewhere. The phone or the lamp you buy may be the result of harming another or end up harming another when you dispose of it. Harm is built into life and into our systems. We can mitigate the harm, try not to harm by intent or unduly, but the weight of a life is the suffering of others. We have to act in a way we can feel reconciles the costs of our existence.
I’m sorry you find it depressing but I’m
Glad you found some new insight in it.
As best I know it to be, that’s just the way it is. If you don’t believe we harm animals plants to exist or microorganisms; or any of the rest- I’m happy to go through it, or just hear your take off you care to share.
Personally I don’t find it depressing- maybe not my “dream” way of things working, but it’s just nature. The world isn’t all butterflies and to ignore the things we would rather not be true… for me I would find that more depressing than facing unpleasant realities.
I’m not sure how that offended you? I asked if you could please expand on your statements- what you question or what insights you find here.
I also replied to the comment you made. That’s all we can do here- reply to the comments made. I do not know why it is depressing to you, and you can explain if you like, I explained that I personally don’t see it as depressing. That’s usually how these things work- people share an opinion and discuss why they think what they think so the other can get insight to their point of view. nothing I have said hasn’t been earnest.
I personally believe that life doesn’t have to be a kind of zero-sum game, as it sounds like you’re describing it to be. While I can’t deny that we can’t avoid harming others, intentionally or otherwise, I firmly believe that we’re slowly but steadily doing less harm, and enacting more positive change in the world.
@guest_ I suppose it depends on what you define as harm. When you get a job, logically someone else didn't, and they're sad about it. Does that classify as harm? It could in reality be a net gain because they might go on to find a job that fits them better. When you step on grass and crush some bugs, you didn't mean to harm them, it just sort of happens as a result of your existence. This I see as a sort of balance, a natural cycle. Where I do see real harm is us messing up whole ecosystems and causing extinctions or consuming things made by slave labor. I'd say we should all be more mindful of our choices but even that is a privileged statement, not everyone would be able to make ends meet if they only shopped from local farmers or bought ethically made clothes. But as @promanchild said, I have been seeing some positive change lately, so I'm generally somewhat positive about the future. Let's hope it's enough, I guess?
@promanchild- I certainly didn’t want to imply it was a zero sum game, quite the opposite in fact was my point. We can’t wash away” unpleasantness on one side of the “scale” with good deeds or intents on the other. There isn’t even a “scale” to weigh things on since we can’t universally draw equivalencies when we talk about harms- for practical reasons we have to try, what is the punishment for a given crime; what is the option of “least harm” etc. Some things just are until or unless we find a “better” way. We don’t have the means to survive off rocks or sunlight alone as humans- so we must eat. I guess a better way to put the idea would be “mindfulness” “accountability” and “gratitude.” I acknowledge and accept the cost of my decisions. I won’t ignore the costs or pretend they don’t exist nor attempt self platitudes. I do agree that given time we at least try to do better, small steps and steps back at times- but it starts with a desire to do better for sure.
@ewqua- it is an interesting concept to think about- defining harm. Funny enough I considered using the job example too lol. I didn’t because as you point out- it is ambiguous and opens doors to long thought I didn’t want to have to type out as a tangent. I largely agree with you and perhaps my phrasing was off. I see it as natural too. It’s just how the universe works in our current understanding of it. My point wasn’t that we are all villains- just that reality is as it is. I believe a person that says they DESIRE to do no harm or TRY to do no harm, but a person claiming they do no harm I not only disbelieve- but I question their mindset as the statement would show a disconnect from reality or a lack of fundamental empathy or understanding of nature.
The reason I see it this way is for the reason you’ve said- how do we define harm? If a person can believe they do no harm- we have a person who has defined harm in a way that they can justify what benefits or supports their desires.
In over simple terms- basically a sociopathic narcissist type at some level. I agree that people largely try to good and that as a species we have come very far in morals and behaviors to try and be better. The sort of thinking that ignores the costs of our ambitions, needs, and desires isn’t conducive to that development. If we already believe we do no harm- what reason would we have to try to mitigate or prevent harms we do? The future isn’t clear- losing a job or home etc. may work out best in the end, but I suspect that even if a sweatshop worker one day is a wealthy philanthropist and accepts those hard times as the catalyst to their success and ability to help others, in that moment they were being harmed and exploited and likely would still carry traumas or scars. A pig that goes to heaven is still a pig that was killed- so good can come from harm- like a murderer saving a prison guards life because they were in jail or a burglar saving a home owner who had a heart attack alone-
But as promanchild says as well- I don’t see it as a zero sum game. In the end we as individuals can say “alls well that ends well…” but that doesn’t rewrite history, it’s just a sign we’ve accepted things as they are- which I think is largely healthy and is basically my point- to accept things we can’t change and work to change those things we can.
I also agree most people and for the most part societies are trying to do better. We have to. We are facing the consequences of the harms of so many billions of lives on our world. Airplanes have increased over 50% in efficiency and cleanliness since the 1950’s, but more people than that have taken to flying. Cars become cleaner but the number of people driving cars offsets the gains and so on. Doing less harm is good though- had we not made this things less harmful and the scale had increased things would be far worse- but it’s a dangerous trap if we let it be.
That is what I mean in part by the weight of our harm- being mindful of it.
Trading a 1967 V8 for a hybrid or EV might have a person feeling free to drive more or drive without thought if they don’t accept there is still harm there.
If you must drive or choose to drive, it is much better overall to drive the cleaner vehicle- but we can’t consider that “job done” or “no harm done” when we turn the keys. As more people fill the planet, the “small harms” of each become part of a larger total.
I don’t advocate going back to caves and sticks- and not everyone can drive an EV or go without every little comfort or luxury so easily- so we all hopefully do what we can and stay mindful of our harms, try to mitigate what we can. Each life has value beyond the value of life- an investment of resources- so we have this opportunity and can’t get those resources back- may as well do our best.
We harm other people even when we don’t mean to just by virtue of being ourselves. It isn’t intentional usually, and isn’t always direct- but there is only so much if anything, what we take others can’t have. It may not matter much- the air you breath is a drop in a bucket and no one will suffocate from it, but the water you drink or food you eat may be taken from another somewhere. The phone or the lamp you buy may be the result of harming another or end up harming another when you dispose of it. Harm is built into life and into our systems. We can mitigate the harm, try not to harm by intent or unduly, but the weight of a life is the suffering of others. We have to act in a way we can feel reconciles the costs of our existence.
Glad you found some new insight in it.
As best I know it to be, that’s just the way it is. If you don’t believe we harm animals plants to exist or microorganisms; or any of the rest- I’m happy to go through it, or just hear your take off you care to share.
Personally I don’t find it depressing- maybe not my “dream” way of things working, but it’s just nature. The world isn’t all butterflies and to ignore the things we would rather not be true… for me I would find that more depressing than facing unpleasant realities.
K.
I also replied to the comment you made. That’s all we can do here- reply to the comments made. I do not know why it is depressing to you, and you can explain if you like, I explained that I personally don’t see it as depressing. That’s usually how these things work- people share an opinion and discuss why they think what they think so the other can get insight to their point of view. nothing I have said hasn’t been earnest.
The reason I see it this way is for the reason you’ve said- how do we define harm? If a person can believe they do no harm- we have a person who has defined harm in a way that they can justify what benefits or supports their desires.
I also agree most people and for the most part societies are trying to do better. We have to. We are facing the consequences of the harms of so many billions of lives on our world. Airplanes have increased over 50% in efficiency and cleanliness since the 1950’s, but more people than that have taken to flying. Cars become cleaner but the number of people driving cars offsets the gains and so on. Doing less harm is good though- had we not made this things less harmful and the scale had increased things would be far worse- but it’s a dangerous trap if we let it be.
Trading a 1967 V8 for a hybrid or EV might have a person feeling free to drive more or drive without thought if they don’t accept there is still harm there.
If you must drive or choose to drive, it is much better overall to drive the cleaner vehicle- but we can’t consider that “job done” or “no harm done” when we turn the keys. As more people fill the planet, the “small harms” of each become part of a larger total.
I don’t advocate going back to caves and sticks- and not everyone can drive an EV or go without every little comfort or luxury so easily- so we all hopefully do what we can and stay mindful of our harms, try to mitigate what we can. Each life has value beyond the value of life- an investment of resources- so we have this opportunity and can’t get those resources back- may as well do our best.
Take no shit
And above all
Look human.