tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post115336830895403983..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Is it always good to prevent harm?Richard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1153956911335691242006-07-26T19:35:00.000-04:002006-07-26T19:35:00.000-04:00Either1) There is confusion "not causing harm" wit...Either<BR/>1) There is confusion "not causing harm" with "this question is incoherent". I.e. you might as well ask if A is bigger than 1. i.e. these actions don’t “cause” harm OR “not cause harm”.<BR/><BR/>Or <BR/><BR/>Forcing it to work<BR/><BR/>2) A) Creating the "real boy" (or preventing that creation) DOES create harm (creating him creates the entire set of harm and benefit of that new being's life).<BR/><BR/>B) Harming the puppet IS causing harm to the real boy (imagine a timeless perspective or “back to the future”).<BR/><BR/>However the question of how that affects morality is not clear cut because you can approach it as a “rights based” thinker (in which as individuals tend towards infinity rights tend to zero) or any other perspective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1153942066945599092006-07-26T15:27:00.000-04:002006-07-26T15:27:00.000-04:00There is no blanket answer to such a question. If ...There is no blanket answer to such a question. If each person on the planet can only honestly be their own experience of themselves then it is up to each individual in the moment of choice/discernment to act or not act to prevent harm.<BR/><BR/>This could all get a little crazy if taken to extremes. Each moment is individual. Believe me, if my child is about to run out into the road, I'm going to stop that action to prevent it. <BR/><BR/>Extreme thought is not always extraordinary thought. What is missing for me here in this discussion is the heart and the soul of the question. It is all intellectual - but that does not offer a whole picture.<BR/><BR/>Lee Travathan<BR/>Author, mentor, consultantLee Travathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277358602225860152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1153468171639918522006-07-21T03:49:00.000-04:002006-07-21T03:49:00.000-04:00Mike, I'm talking about the harm in (1). [I agree ...Mike, I'm talking about the harm in (1). [I agree that (2) is false.] But note that this harm would not occur if Pinocchio was not brought to life. (Bringing to life does not itself harm him. Rather, it is a necessary condition for the earlier act of damage to become harmful.)<BR/><BR/>Will (and perhaps Alex), I don't think "<I>preventing someone from existing</I>" can be a harm. Who does it harm? You can't harm a non-existent entity. That's incoherent: if it doesn't exist, there's no <I>entity</I> there to be harmed! (Note also the crazy moral implications: must we set up "womb factories" in order to prevent the harm of non-existence to all those potential people who wouldn't otherwise get conceived?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1153411527100391542006-07-20T12:05:00.000-04:002006-07-20T12:05:00.000-04:00Richard, I don't see the harm you're referring t...Richard,<BR/><BR/> I don't see the harm you're referring to in the Pinocchio case. Maybe I missed your point. The wood is slightly damaged and he is brought to life. The slight damage affects his life negatively only in the sense of (1).<BR/><BR/>1. P's life is worse than it COULD have been had the wood not been damaged and he been brought to life.<BR/><BR/>But P experiences no harm in being brought to life. (2) is false.<BR/><BR/>2. P's life is worse than it would have been had he not been brought to life.<BR/><BR/>P has no level of well-being before being brought to life, and so his level of well-being prior to being brought to life is not lower than it currently is. Therefore bringing him to life does not harm him (and neither does damaging the wood, so long as he would not have been brought to life without the damage. If the case is elaborated so that he would have been brought to life anyway, then the damage does harm him, but not the bringing to life. If the case is elaborated so that you had a choice about when to bring him to life--before or after the damage--and you choose after, then the bringing to life does harm him).<BR/>Parsons (Josh) does have a few arguments that you can have a well-being in worlds in which you don't exist. But those arguments are not especially convincing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1153409969325936332006-07-20T11:39:00.000-04:002006-07-20T11:39:00.000-04:00Interesting post, Richard!You mention that there a...Interesting post, Richard!<BR/><BR/>You mention that there are "obvious case[s] where preventing one small harm would cause a greater one," and you say that you aren't talking about those kinds of cases -- presumably because it's trivially true that such preventions are not good.<BR/><BR/>However, I'm not convinced that the cases you discuss are <I>really</I> any different. You say, roughly, that we <I>could</I> prevent future harms by preventing the person to be harmed from ever existing, but that "there's nothing good about that."<BR/><BR/>Isn't that just to say that such actions prevent a small harm at the cost of a greater harm (in this case, preventing someone from existing)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1153384523281512872006-07-20T04:35:00.000-04:002006-07-20T04:35:00.000-04:00I would tend to agree with you BTW but I'm not sur...I would tend to agree with you BTW <BR/>but I'm not sure if I could convince you if you didnt agree already (which makes finding out why you think it particularly interesting).Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1153384034409969092006-07-20T04:27:00.000-04:002006-07-20T04:27:00.000-04:00well the assumption would have to be that you only...well the assumption would have to be that you only had one policy instrumentGeniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1153379880132167742006-07-20T03:18:00.000-04:002006-07-20T03:18:00.000-04:00I think it would be a bad thing to prevent humanit...I think it would be a bad thing to prevent humanity's continued survival even if no particular individuals are harmed. (Such scenarios fall under the general discussion <A HREF="http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2006/04/badness-without-harm.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.)<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it could be a good thing to keep the population at moderate levels. But the goodness of this must be weighed against the badness of violating parents' autonomy, etc. (A better option would be to incentivize smaller families, so that more people would freely choose the desired outcome.) That's another topic though...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1153379768973467742006-07-20T03:16:00.000-04:002006-07-20T03:16:00.000-04:00I have a question on this too.I don't understand w...I have a question on this too.<BR/><BR/>I don't understand why you can't see the prevention of harm that you talk about as pro-tanto good, but hugely outweighed by the positive quality of life of the individual that results? Wouldn't this approach get the results that we want, with a little bit more parsimony?<BR/><BR/>In this case the benefit to failing to bring Pinnocchio into the world is still present: There's less pain or suffering in the world. Of course, as good consequentialists we're interested in maximising the amount of good minus bad, and Pinnocchio brings in enough good to outweigh the harm he brings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1153377207944840552006-07-20T02:33:00.000-04:002006-07-20T02:33:00.000-04:00(actually the people do it in order to help humani...(actually the people do it in order to help humanity ie prevent the stage where human population gets really large and human welfare drops throug hte floor so to speak.<BR/>In this case is it a morally good thing to do?<BR/>Maybe even one of the most morally good thing you could possibly do?Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1153377088636731102006-07-20T02:31:00.000-04:002006-07-20T02:31:00.000-04:00I read an interesting book about a group who relea...I read an interesting book about a group who release a disease on the world that prevents any more children.<BR/>I guess the harm is desire thwarting for SOME potential parents (and of assistance to others of course) but is it neutral?Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.com