Hence it's pretty unfair to expect good people not to do much harm. Too many involuntary conflicts of interest.
Conversation
We can limit the bad stuff we do within the parameters of which we are aware, though. It may not help much, but at least it gives us a shot>
1
Limiting unnecessary harm is a prerequisite for most or all ethical ways of living, yes.
But you can only limit harm so much. Too messy.
1
As I say, I think a certain amount of offsetting inevitable harm by making an effort to do something good is more realistic.
1
Indeed, but what's less well-understood is that there are cases where doing significant harm on purpose is perhaps the only ethical option.
1
Yes. But it's common wisdom that this is not the case, so a lot of odd ideas about ethics sneak into arguments about the nature of good.
1
1
I think it mostly arises from confusion over scale.
E.g. there are things a state should never do, that an individual could. & vice-versa.
1
1
The concept of the "greater good" frequently requires a phenomenal amount of information to get right, doesn't it?
1
1
That's exactly what I mean, though. There are cases where the greater good is the only valid consideration, and cases where it's not needed.
That's the problem, though. Taking that to its logical extreme places you in personally indefensible situations. That's why I said hellhole.
1
1
1
Show replies