Harm as the default

[Unassuming Local Guy]

I'm sure this isn't a new idea because it's so simple, and if so feel free to link me to the Wikipedia article and rate me late, but I've been thinking of ways to get important concepts out in the age where everything has to fit on a bumper sticker or Twitter bio and I think I might have something.

More or less, it's that harm can come from two things - action or inaction - and harm coming from inaction is never just.

To elaborate, let's compare the warning, or threat, or whatever you want to call it. Harm from action sounds like this: "I will harm you if you harm me". Or perhaps "I won't harm you if you don't harm me", but the difference between the two is purely semantic. The negatives cancel each other out. The point is that unless you do something, you will be safe, which is the entire idea behind a society. Safety for everyone who chooses to participate in good faith.

Harm from action isn't always just; that's not the idea. "I will harm you if you worship a god other than mine" is a pretty violent and unjust thing to say, obviously. The point isn't that it's always okay to threaten violence given a certain condition, it's that it can be.

Harm from inaction, however, implies that the default state of being will bring you harm. "I will harm you unless you do [thing]". Existing is sufficient to have harm come to you. This is never just, and anyone who says it should be considered dangerous.

Those of you following recent trends probably already know what I'm talking about. There's a push to get "do as I command or be destroyed" seen as not only acceptable but ultimately good, and it's gaining traction because people are too stupid or naive to see where it's going. "Say you hate white supremacy or die" is barely distinguishable from "say you love Jesus or die", and people really need to realize that. An inquisition is an inquisition no matter the form.

The biggest flaw I can see in my own reasoning here is taxes. Yes, to some people taxation is theft, but most would agree that properly applied tax is a net positive for a society. It's also, however, a "harm by default" statement. Pay your taxes or go to jail. Failing that, go to jail or die. I can't really reconcile my own thoughts with the assertion that taxes are okay, but I really do think that taxes are okay in the proper form. For the record, bleeding the country dry for more welfare money is not proper form.

I'm also not a philosopher or even particularly eloquent, so I'm sure someone here could retool what I said into a more universal statement.

 

[BlueSpark]

and harm coming from inaction is never just

It can be just as "just" as active harm: you see someone about to "justly" cause harm, you could stop them; you don't.

 

[SIGSEGV]

What's your answer to the trolley problem?

 

[Fascist Frederick]

What's your answer to the trolley problem?

The only reasonable solution to the trolley problem is to kill whoever isn't killed by the trolley yourself, and then blow your own brains out.

Bonus points if you kill any observers as well.

 

[Sperghetti]

I think I get it. Maybe another way to summarize or phrase it is that harm theoretically has two states: There is “active harm”, where you have to go out of your way to do something to earn it, and “passive harm”, where it happens unless you go out of your way to prevent it.

Ideally, human society should lean toward active harm being the predominant state: You should not be punished for minding your own business. The debate is just over what does warrant harm, and how much.

Advocating for passive harm, on the other hand, is inherently authoritarian.

 

[TFT-A9]

What's your answer to the trolley problem?

 

[Unassuming Local Guy]

What's your answer to the trolley problem?

My answer, or Unassuming Local Guy's Bullshit Theory of Whatever's answer?

Assuming the latter, I don't think there is one. It's not meant to be a philosophy, or even a code of ethics. It's more of an axiom to be applied when necessary. It's a shortcut to determine how likely it is that someone's being malicious. It's like the golden rule. You can adapt it into your personal world view, but you can't live solely by it.

Namely, you can't rephrase the trolley problem as "I will harm X if Y does or does not do something". Y isn't doing anything except being glued to some train tracks. For that matter, neither is X. There's no default option because no action is being taken by anyone except you.

It can be just as "just" as active harm: you see someone about to "justly" cause harm, you could stop them; you don't.

"Harm" in this case isn't an absolute good or bad. It's just a thing that people do to one another. If I kill someone who's about to kill me, I've harmed that person, but I did so justly. That's why I'm specifically talking about why harm might come to someone, not simply that harm is happening period. Pragmatism vs. pacifism, I guess.

A third party observer doing nothing doesn't apply to this situation because they're not harming anyone. I'm mostly concerned with two things here: the intent of the harmer, and the agency of the harmed.

In fact, that may have been a better way to put it in the first place: the problem is when there is no acceptable alternative to compulsory action, including inaction.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

For normal people the question of harm from inaction is very much dependent on the risk and/or price involved with acting, so if you don't save a kid from drowning in a pool then you are a monster but not saving a kid from a burning building is reasonable. But when it comes to politics, the risk and price become extremely subjective - saying "I love the gays" is easy for a socialite but humiliating for a religeous person. Right now it became a gotcha where the price/risk from inaction (specifically one that is dependent on minimal effort and economic price) is labeled as "helping oppression" but in actuality it's an economic risk from cancel culture.

 

[No Exit]

I don't really understand what you're trying to say. It sounds like you're asking if being active or reactive is the better option, with neutrality being a non-option(except for cucks).

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

i disagree because there are scenarios when forcing somebody to do something is beneficial for most people. One example you brought up is tax, but another more justifiable example is war. If you desert your post then you're executed and I would consider that to be justifiable. imagine you're a small child living in fear of your town being crushed by the German menace in WW1, obviously you couldn't fight because you're ten so you're counting on the frontline soldiers to defend you and you wouldn't want any of them leaving because that puts a direct threat on your life. The military needs to operate in this way lest people stop fighting. And you might say "20-30% of the army wouldn't consider leaving their post." In WW1 people stuck their legs out of the trenches for them to get wounded and sent back, I imagine more people and the average person will consider leaving their post if they could

 

[Positron]

Existing is sufficient to have harm come to you. This is never just

Who ever said that you have a warrant to be protected from harm just by existing? The greatest harm, according to many, that can fall on a human being is death, and death is part of our existence. Can you say that death is never "just" and that human is morally entitled to live forever?

"Say you hate white supremacy or die" is barely distinguishable from "say you love Jesus or die", and people really need to realize that. An inquisition is an inquisition no matter the form.

I cannot see how these are legitimate cases of "harm through inaction"; in both cases there is an external agent who interpretes your inaction (failure to say something) as the opposite action.

It's also, however, a "harm by default" statement. Pay your taxes or go to jail. Failing that, go to jail or die

But you are not taxed simply by existing; you are taxed when you perform certain action, such as earning a certain level of wage or purchasing certain goods. You cannot argue that making money or spending money is "my default state of being", because these involve conscious decision on your part.

 

[Slap47]

So the only moral person is one who dedicates their whole existence to serving others in regard to every social problem imaginable?

That seems like an absurd proposition.