I agree with some of what you say here. For example, from a mental health perspective, teaching yourself to be content ‘regardless of your achievements’ sounds like a good thing.
But I think adopting ‘minimize harm’ as the only principle we can use to make judgements of people, is far too simplistic a principle to work in practice.
For example, if I find out that someone watched a child fall into a shallow pond, and didn’t go to help them (when the pond is shallow enough that that would have posed no risk to them), then I will judge them for that. I am not convinced by your post that it is wrong for me to make this judgement.
On the other hand, if someone does go to help the child, and in doing so commits some other relatively minor harm (maybe they steal some sweets from a second child and use them to help treat the first child, who is now hypothermic), then I would certainly not judge them at all for that, even though they have failed according to your principle.
I’m of course just regurgitating the usual arguments for utilitarianism. And you could easily raise objections (why do I judge the person who leaves the child to drown more harshly than I judge someone who doesn’t donate all their spare income to the AMF, for example?) I don’t have the answers to these objections. My point is just that this topic is complicated, and that the ‘minimize harm’ principle is too simplistic.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, Toby. The problem with judgment in this scenario is that it presumes complete knowledge of all the factors at play in that situation. There are a lot of scenarios that could account for what was seen. Perhaps that person…
doesn’t know how to swim and doesn’t know the pond is shallow and of no risk.
once saw their sibling drown when they were a child and is frozen reliving the trauma of that incident.
is impaired—sight, hearing, developmentally…—in a way where they cannot fully grasp the nature of the situation.
chose to call emergency services because they believed that was the best way they could intervene.
knows the boy has a painful and fatal condition and has chosen to end his life rather than continue to suffer. …
Ultimately, what happened happened and we cannot change that. The question is, ” How will we live together moving forward?” If we suspect someone is not minimizing harm in their actions, I believe we need to have a conversation with them focusing on the harm and suffering caused to us or others: “I” and “they” statements rather than “you.”(If we are speaking for others, it’s very important that we are truly representing their experience.) Coming at someone from an accusatory, judgmental stance does not set a tone for a constructive, healthy ongoing relationship. In fact, many people will get defensive, dig in and even push back.
[It’s worth noting there is another person in this story: the observer. Are they a trustworthy reporter? Do they have all the facts? Why did they also choose to only observe and not act?]
You’ve pointed to a lot of potential complications, which I agree with, but I think they all also apply in cases where someone has done harm, not just in cases where they have not helped.
I just don’t think the act/ommission distinction is very relevant here, and I thought the main claim of your post was that it was (but could have got the wrong end of the stick here!)
Maybe I overcomplexifyed things in my previous response. If they have caused harm, or appear to have, I think the next step is to make that known to them plainly, but in a nonjudgmental way. Then be open and curious to their response. We can’t go through all the scenarios here, but if someone is defiant about it, doesn’t take ownership, doesn’t make amends… then we can exclude them from future participation in the community.
So yes, there is judgment taking place, but it is against the metric of harm and whether they are doing their best to minimize it.
Thanks again for engaging. This is helping me clarify my stance.
I agree with some of what you say here. For example, from a mental health perspective, teaching yourself to be content ‘regardless of your achievements’ sounds like a good thing.
But I think adopting ‘minimize harm’ as the only principle we can use to make judgements of people, is far too simplistic a principle to work in practice.
For example, if I find out that someone watched a child fall into a shallow pond, and didn’t go to help them (when the pond is shallow enough that that would have posed no risk to them), then I will judge them for that. I am not convinced by your post that it is wrong for me to make this judgement.
On the other hand, if someone does go to help the child, and in doing so commits some other relatively minor harm (maybe they steal some sweets from a second child and use them to help treat the first child, who is now hypothermic), then I would certainly not judge them at all for that, even though they have failed according to your principle.
I’m of course just regurgitating the usual arguments for utilitarianism. And you could easily raise objections (why do I judge the person who leaves the child to drown more harshly than I judge someone who doesn’t donate all their spare income to the AMF, for example?) I don’t have the answers to these objections. My point is just that this topic is complicated, and that the ‘minimize harm’ principle is too simplistic.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, Toby. The problem with judgment in this scenario is that it presumes complete knowledge of all the factors at play in that situation. There are a lot of scenarios that could account for what was seen. Perhaps that person…
doesn’t know how to swim and doesn’t know the pond is shallow and of no risk.
once saw their sibling drown when they were a child and is frozen reliving the trauma of that incident.
is impaired—sight, hearing, developmentally…—in a way where they cannot fully grasp the nature of the situation.
chose to call emergency services because they believed that was the best way they could intervene.
knows the boy has a painful and fatal condition and has chosen to end his life rather than continue to suffer.
…
Ultimately, what happened happened and we cannot change that. The question is, ” How will we live together moving forward?” If we suspect someone is not minimizing harm in their actions, I believe we need to have a conversation with them focusing on the harm and suffering caused to us or others: “I” and “they” statements rather than “you.”(If we are speaking for others, it’s very important that we are truly representing their experience.) Coming at someone from an accusatory, judgmental stance does not set a tone for a constructive, healthy ongoing relationship. In fact, many people will get defensive, dig in and even push back.
[It’s worth noting there is another person in this story: the observer. Are they a trustworthy reporter? Do they have all the facts? Why did they also choose to only observe and not act?]
You’ve pointed to a lot of potential complications, which I agree with, but I think they all also apply in cases where someone has done harm, not just in cases where they have not helped.
I just don’t think the act/ommission distinction is very relevant here, and I thought the main claim of your post was that it was (but could have got the wrong end of the stick here!)
Maybe I overcomplexifyed things in my previous response. If they have caused harm, or appear to have, I think the next step is to make that known to them plainly, but in a nonjudgmental way. Then be open and curious to their response. We can’t go through all the scenarios here, but if someone is defiant about it, doesn’t take ownership, doesn’t make amends… then we can exclude them from future participation in the community.
So yes, there is judgment taking place, but it is against the metric of harm and whether they are doing their best to minimize it.
Thanks again for engaging. This is helping me clarify my stance.