What is the highest principle?

[Skepdick]

Shouldn't it be called "do the least harm" principle?

Sure. That's just semantics. The least harm possible is no harm whatsoever.

I mean, we all do small amounts of harm to others at times.

The point is that you recognized it and you could do better next time.

And so "no harm" guides the direction of that improvement. Next time you will do less.

And then less.
And less.

I don't know if it's even possible to live and do "no" harm.

It isn't. Principles point the way - you never get to the destination.

When I go and interview for a job, presumably I'm there to beat out other people, even if some of them may need the job more than I do--for example to support their kids. Saying "do no harm" seems like a bit of a misnomer to me. Unless we all become radical Jains or something.

It's not your fault that there are 10 candidates and only 1 job. It's out of your power and control.

But somebody who is in a position of power/control ought to realize that there is a high rate of unemployment and low job supply.

So the "no harm" choice forward "how do we create more jobs?".

[Gary Childress]

Shouldn't it be called "do the least harm" principle?

Sure. That's just semantics. The least harm possible is no harm whatsoever.

I mean, we all do small amounts of harm to others at times.

The point is that you recognized it and you could do better next time.

And so "no harm" guides the direction of that improvement. Next time you will do less.

And then less.
And less.

OK. Well maybe that works, then. It sounds like a good principle to live by.

[RCSaunders]

You can't harm "the environment", Gary. The environment has been taking care of itself since The Big Bang.

No harm is about humans. It's the environment will do to us what it did to the dinosaurs ...

We don't often agree, Skepdick, but I certainly agree here.

[Gary Childress]

I don't know. When I think of species facing extinction and stuff like that, it seems like we can harm the environment. If we do go the way of the dinosaurs it may very well be by our own overpopulation and its effects on our environment, our habitat. That seems like us doing harm to the environment to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

You don't think categories exist. You said so.

No, I didn't.

Of course categories exist. They are in your head!

Exist in reality. Of course, anything can "exist" in one's head. Even unicorns. And the bizarre idea of universal mutability, asserted by someone who thinks his "mutable" assertions can count for anything.

[Skepdick]

Exist in reality.

Of course, anything can "exist" in one's head. Even unicorns.

I am really struggling to understand. You seem to be applying some double standard for 'existence' here.

Your head exists in reality.
Therefore EVERYTHING that exists in your head necessarily exists in reality.

If you are "rational" and "logical" and "immutable" (as you claim to be) then it's impossible for you to reject this conclusion.

So I am having trouble understanding why you might say that the Unicorn in your real head DOESN'T exist in reality.

Surely that's a contradiction? But you said you were "rational" so I don't know what to make of it.

Help?

And the bizarre idea of universal mutability, asserted by someone who thinks his "mutable" assertions can count for anything.

Well, don't take me on my word. Take me on your word.

I am holding you accountable to your own rules for "rationality".

[Sculptor]

Do no harm???
LOL

https://truepublica.org.uk/united-state ... uk-silent/

[Skepdick]

Do no harm???
LOL

https://truepublica.org.uk/united-state ... uk-silent/

It sounds like you are outraged. Why?

Are you saying that people losing limbs due to landmines is harmful? e.g it SHOULD NOT happen?

Because if that's what you are saying, then we are going to have a great time raking you over the Philosophical coals for having jumped over the gap that you are NOT ALLOWED TO JUMP OVER (didn't you read the sign!?!?!) **rubs hands**

P.S What is the principle which mandates that one OUGHT NOT jump over the is-ought gap?

[Skepdick]

You can't harm "the environment", Gary. The environment has been taking care of itself since The Big Bang.

No harm is about humans. It's the environment will do to us what it did to the dinosaurs ...

We don't often agree, Skepdick, but I certainly agree here.

Great! We've ended up on solid ground. And it's the best solid ground possible - Objective Morality. Everything else follows...

The Future Extinction of the Human Race is the Worst Possible Evil (we say nothing about the Greatest Possible Good).

By the "no harm" principle what is moral then becomes any action which helps move humanity further away from The Worst Possible Evil.

Doctors and scientists create and use knowledge to increase the longevity of human life - moral!
Scientists and engineers trying to make us multi-planetary and reducing our dependency on Earth (e.g avoid the Dinosaur-Meteorite problem) - moral!
Stable societies allow for more and more people to acquire useful knowledge and become doctors and scientists (who help increase the longevity of human life) - moral!
Domestic worker helps running your household, while you are off becoming a doctor, scientist and engineer (who. helps increase the longevity of human life) - MORAL!

Philosophical debate which steals precious time and casts doubt on the morality and effectiveness of science and medicine, leading people away from becoming doctors and scientists reducing humanity's chances of survival etc... immoral.

Introducing too many rules (like the ones above) and forcing people into boxes they don't want to be in thus causing social instability - immoral (e.g allowing for some, tolerable level of dissent). Moral.

[surreptitious57]

The Future Extinction of the Human Race is the Worst Possible Evil

The extinction of the human race is inevitable as is the extinction of life anywhere in the Universe
And so it cannot be described as evil if nature is responsible since it has zero comprehension of evil
Only if we are to become directly responsible for our extinction through malicious means can it be evil
And so it all depends on what exactly is going to cause our extinction - nature or us - only time will tell

[Sculptor]

Do no harm???
LOL

https://truepublica.org.uk/united-state ... uk-silent/

It sounds like you are outraged. Why?

What a stupid question.

[Skepdick]

What a stupid question.

What a stupid statement.

[surreptitious57]

Doctors and scientists create and use knowledge to increase the longevity of human life - moral

Not exclusively so as it may create new problems such as how to sustain a larger population
For there will be greater demands on infrastructure and resources as a consequence of this

[Skepdick]

The extinction of the human race is inevitable as is the extinction of life anywhere in the Universe
And so it cannot be described as evil if nature is responsible since it has zero comprehension of evil

Nature doesn't care about ANY of our labels, definitions or distinction.

ALL of those things are for us, humans!

Only if we are to become directly responsible for our extinction through malicious means can it be evil
And so it all depends on what exactly is going to cause our extinction - nature or us - only time will tell

This is the harmful Philosophical perspective that I am talking about.

Your *ONLY* goal in this entire endeavour/conversation is the ability to classify/label things. But classification/labeling is after the fact!

In practice what you want to do is, grab a chair and some popcorn, wait for humans to become extinct, figure out who did it then wave your Philosophical finger and declare:

Humans were responsible for it - therefore it's EVIL!!!
The Universe was responsible for it - therefore NOT EVIL!!!

But.... a posteriori distinctions, declarations and definitions don't matter to extinct Philosophers.
You are still stuck in the declarative mood, whereas ALL principles and real-world decision-making are imperative.

Sorting/categorizing/labelling and putting things into boxes is what toddlers do in the early stage of development.
It seems that's where most of Philosophy is still stuck - in the mind of a 2 year old.

Time will be telling nothing. Time is just a concept, a useful idea we USE to understand the universe. In so far it helps us stay alive - it's useful.

[surreptitious57]

Stable societies allow for more and more people to acquire useful knowledge and become doctors and scientists - moral

Stable societies do not let themselves become overpopulated due to advances in science
So is it not better to use the science to improve the health of the pre existing population