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.
Conversation
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.
1
1
1
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
The obliteration of many of your personal rights is often the price you'd pay for the greater good. And not just *your* personal rights.
The obliteration of other people's personal rights might well be too high a price to pay, even if it achieves something phenomenal, though.
1
After all, you're then in a position where their improved position has only been achieved through tyranny. What have you created?
1
Show replies