Neither initiate nor tolerate harm

Originally, "First, do no harm in civic connections."

            Many people are aware of the moral: first, do no harm (FDNH). About FDNH, people think medical care, but this human mandate may be applied to every human’s individual moral judgment and behavior. After several experiences and discussions, I modified the statement to: neither initiate nor tolerate harm. I do not want to explain it here, but I attribute the idea to Agathon, in his speech in Plato's Symposium.

FDNH's first expression may have been in Sanskrit; “One who does not injure others with words, thoughts or acts is named Adrohi,” meaning non-violent.[i] This application invites rules not only against harmful action or words, but against violent thought. DNH is taught in a faith workshop.[ii] It has a powerful expression which may be used to resist the egregious clinched fist of “solidarity”: Jainism’s open palm[iii] for “caution.” The open palm could be used to represent collaboration to discover the-objective-truth.

A related Congressional act, HR 5272, died near the end of the Obama administration.[iv] The proposal is an unfortunate by-product of the failure of separation of church and state.[v] America needs to reform the First Amendment so as to protect human individual integrity rather than religious institutions---either eliminate the religion clauses or reform them to promote personal, civic[vi] thought, leaving religion a private pursuit for adults. Personal civic thought can lead to integrity. Statutory justice refers to written law and commensurate enforcement based on the-objective-truth (actual reality) rather than dominant opinion (democracy). 

           If some humans think there should be no violent thought, how do some defend violent speech? Why do some people extol freedom of speech rather than freedom of responsible speech? Why do some citizens remain silent while America barbarically fosters childhood poverty? Do citizens understand the preamble's word "posterity"?

I would not influence anyone to study all the FDNH-information that is available, but it is worthwhile to form a personal opinion about FDNH. Stanford philosophers discuss the distinction: allowing vs doing.[vii] Perhaps that consideration influenced the addional phrase "nor tolerate harm." Stanford alerts us to consequentialism, which posits that neither intentions nor rules influence evaluation of consequences.[viii] If so, motive is not critical in discovering crime. 

          However, for brevity, I would like to ignore philosophy (meaning, as in Merriam-Webster, a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology). I prefer to review a civic culture as understood in this blog: collaboration to discover the-objective-truth. The object is ideas a person can use for actual living rather than for speculating about better ways of civilization, socialization or arbitrary legalization. In a civic culture:

1.    The human individual may develop fidelity to the-objective-truth (fidelity).

a.     Fidelity cannot be taught.

                                          i.    Experience and observations persuade the individual to develop fidelity.

                                         ii.    Humility undergirds the individual’s private psychological power for fidelity.

                                        iii.    Yet, other people[ix] may coach and encourage the individual in fidelity, especially by practicing fidelity themselves, or by example.

b.    The-objective-truth exists and is increasingly discovered and understood

                                          i.    Humankind continually discovers the-objective-truth, but few individuals benefit.

                                         ii.    Humankind’s noble activity is to increase awareness and understanding of discovery.

                                        iii.    Exploration or research emerges from awareness and understanding.

                                        iv.    Discovery is continually increased; new understanding is expected; as evolution progresses, some discovered facts may change. For example, the earth was gaseous rather than solid over a molten core some 4.6 billion years ago.

                                         v.    The-objective-truth is not subject-to but can be obfuscated-by philosophical reasoning, evaluation, or judgement.

                                        vi.    Belief is no substitute for patience in the quest for awareness and understanding.

                                       vii.    As humankind’s journey unfolds, its work to discover the-objective-truth yields systematic awareness and understanding.

                                      viii.    Understanding empowers trust-in and commitment to the-objective-truth.
                                       ix.    Some discovery is lost upon an individual's death.

2.    The developing human may realize that fidelity extends to all people and things. That is, developing fidelity is a comprehensive, individual practice, but the consequence is collective. Thus, individual infidelity detracts from humankind's potential.

a.     With comprehensive fidelity, the individual may live at the leading edge of beneficial behavior, as the laws of civic morality are discovered. Conversely, the individual may choose to behave badly.

b.    Comprehensive implies all aspects of humanity; physical, psychological, especially the personal---inspiration, motivation, passion, serenity, humility, confidence and commitment.

3.    Only the individual human can choose to collaborate for private liberty with civic morality.[x]

a.     In collaboration, neither individual either imposes or tolerates personal opinion: both parties conform to the-objective-truth yet individually maintain their actual no-harm pursuits.

b.    The consequence may be modified personal behavior.[xi] For example, on discovery that second-hand smoke kills innocent people, the smoker stops smoking.

4.    Civic morality is mutual, comprehensive safety and security (security). The civic culture fosters security by example and coaching more than by coercion or force. 

5.    In private liberty, each person responsibly pursues the happiness he or she perceives, always considering the-objective-truth. For example, citizens cannot evacuate a hurricane without departure from home, which must be managed carefully. Often, I fear the road entrapment more than the coming storm.

a.     Some individuals test the leading edge of the-objective-truth.

                                          i.    If there are no harmful consequences, they may be exploring the-undiscovered-objective-truth.[xii]

                                         ii.    With harmful consequences and stubbornness to proceed, the person may be on an erroneous path that begs woe.[xiii]

b.    The-objective-truth does not exclude pursuit of hope and comfort respecting any unknowns. For example, no one knows if the future is controlled by anything, for example, someone’s personal god. I doubt it, however:

                                          i.    To object to someone’s hopes and comforts against the unknowns seemingly breaks the commitment, neither initiate nor tolerate harm. Believe or not is not different from live and let live.

                                         ii.    The condemned/constrained dissident is entitled to his or her personal hope and comfort.

                                        iii.    A harmful personal god seems incompatible with the-objective-truth.

                                        iv.    Awareness and understanding, so far, do not disprove the existence of God. For example, humankind may discover new perceptions in actual reality that access God. I doubt it.

6.    Some individuals dissent from collaboration for human justice, for particular reasons or none. Dissenters who do no harm enjoy private liberty with civic morality.

a.    Humankind benefits from some seven trillion person-years of development

b.    No person knows all the-discovered-objective-truth

                                          i.    Statutory law according to the-objective-truth may be used to record discovery and acceptance and the paths of accomplished reforms. The journal could start now. Perhaps it weakly exists in Wikipedia and the like online.

c.    Every newborn starts innocent of the-objective-truth, awareness and understanding

                                          i.    Is uninformed but not dissident until error is made habitual

                                         ii.    May develop humility by trial and error

                                        iii.    May develop comprehensive fidelity by experience

                                        iv.    May delight in continual discovery without expecting complete understanding

                                         v.    May develop infidelity to statutory justice

1.    Habitual infidelity fosters dissidence to justice

8.    Habitual dissenters may be constrained by statutory justice, once harm they caused is discovered.

a.     Statutory justice conforms to the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion.[xiv]

                                          i.    Statutory justice includes both the law and law enforcement

b.    When the-objective-truth has not been discovered, evidence that is consistent with discovered awareness and understanding applies.

c.     Some individuals erroneously choose dissension so as to prey on the civic culture.
d.   Silence when harm is known is civic immorality rather than freedom of speech.

9.    The principles stated above can be applied to defend the accused dissident when a civic citizen has erred by imposing opinion rather than applying the-objective-truth.

            I cannot possibly know the-objective-truth much less guarantee more than limited awareness and understanding. But I offer to collaborate in finding words and phrases by which people may converse. That is, the first step is to collaborate on words and phrases for mutual understanding. For example, my "civic" implies collaboration more than cooperation or subjugation.

            In this essay about “neither initiate nor tolerate harm,” it seems clear that collaboration requires consideration of the phrase “the-objective-truth,” and either an improved expression or agreement to use it to express actual reality. 

Copyright©2018 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. Revised June 29, 2018

---

[i] Online at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa#Etymology.

[ii] Online at wvi.org/peacebuilding-and-conflict-sensitivity/publication/do-no-harm-faith-groups-christian-muslim-edition.

[iii] Online at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa#Modern_times.

[iv] Online at govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr5272.

[v] Online at au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/do-no-harm-act-preserving-religious-freedom-and-protecting-people-from-harm.

[vi] “Civic” refers to human justice in public or private connections and transitions more than conformance to a municipality, society, civilization, or institution.

[vii] Online at plato.stanford.edu/entries/doing-allowing/.

[viii] Online at plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/.

[ix] My coaches include my wonderful wife (MWW), my children, family and friends, Emerson, Paine, Jefferson, Einstein, Faulkner, Plato, Chekhov, and many more

[x] Some species communicate, but only human beings record the progress of civic morality in a body of literature.

[xi] In public connections, if one party feels abused, the first requisite is to inform the other party. Thereby, the accused party may clarify the issue and obtain the accuser’s agreement, or the two of them may go to a third party to record the debate and help collaborate a lasting resolution. When there was no true offense, neither party subjugates or compromises: They collaborate.

[xii] Homosexual monogamy is a good example of such exploration. It seems evident that if two people are in love, they may commit to mutual care for life. However, their commitment excludes procreation and perhaps parenthood. To procreate, they must break sexual monogamy by using an adult contract with a third party or more. To parent, they must find a way for the child to experience or observe heterosexual monogamy. The evidence that family building by homosexual partners is civically moral has not been discovered.

[xiii] A good example is slavery. Most people can understand that slavery would not be good for them. Therefore, if they enslave someone, they beg eventual reckoning.

[xiv] For example, U.S. Supreme Court opinion that does not conform to the-objective-truth gets corrected. See Dred Scott, online at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford.