Do No Harm

[cckeiser]

Greetings,


We wish to share with you an essay we co-authored. You will find it at donoharm.us and we have attached a link to our web site and the entire essay below.
We are asking your support for the Do No Harm movement by placing the words "Do No Harm!" on your web-site. It is not necessary to link to our web-site or even mention our movement. Of course, we would be pleased if you did, but it is not necessary for the movement to succeed.
Our only objective is to facilitate the creation of a more compassionate world.
If you have any suggestions, wish to offer any assistance, or merely participate by passing on the message, "Do No Harm" we would be grateful.

We thank you in advance for your support. We all need it.
All we stand to gain is a kinder world.

Chuck & Clyde

From: http://www.donoharm.us


Do No Harm!

This is the start of a new movement, the "Do No Harm" movement.

We seem to be living in a world that is getting meaner every day. We are either oblivious of the harm we cause or we ignore the harm we cause. Could it be because no one taught us otherwise?

Could it be because no one ever asked us to do no harm?

If we look at just about any endeavor our species has engaged in, it would seem we are unaware of the harm we do to others, or we intentionally do harm for our own gain, and sadly in some cases for our own pleasure and enjoyment.

Since we haven't been taught otherwise we see no harm in doing harm. We cause harm and shrug it off. We cause harm and laugh about it. We cause harm and brag about it.

Worse, our children bear witness to our actions and never learn to do no harm. Above all else we must teach our children, by example and instruction, this simple philosophy of life.

If we are to become a more evolved species we must begin to make better choices and treat each other with more respect, and that includes the other creatures who share this planet with us, and this planet we call home.

We believe that the first and most basic moral law is, "Do no harm." Why? Because we can feel pain and suffering, we can imagine the pain and suffering of others. Because we can imagine the pain and suffering of others, we can act accordingly.

What does "do no harm" mean? For some it means arbitrary restrictions of action (not to strike or kill), speech (not to lie or insult), and thought. But what it ultimately means is thoughtful consideration. "Do no harm" simply means to consider how our actions may affect the world we all share, to be compassionate in our dealings with all creatures, and not to despoil our planet.

Doctors are asked to "first do no harm," why not lawyers, businessmen, religious leaders and politicians? Why not us? Why not now?

The very least we can do is to attempt to do no harm, and leave the world no worse than as we found it.

It sounds like a simple idea, because it is a simple idea, but it just may be effective over the long run. Will "do no harm" solve all the problems in our world? Perhaps not, but this is an effort to decrease the nastiness in the world and to increase the kindness.

We hope that "do no harm" becomes that little voice that guides our actions.

And we hope you will join the movement and pass on the message "Do no harm."

Show everyone you care and use "Do no harm" to sign-off in your correspondence in place of "Best Wishes", "Yours" or "Regards."

If you have a web site, be proud of your support and add the words "Do No Harm" to the top of your home page were everyone will see it.

Be bold and creative in thinking of ways to expose as many as possible to the "Do No Harm" message, but please, do no harm in doing so.

It is not necessary to link to this web page or even to mention the source of the message. This is surely a case where the message is far more important than the messengers. All we ask is that you practice do no harm and take every opportunity to pass the words "do no harm" on to others.

If you wish to include this essay, or the link to the "Do No Harm" web page, that's fine, or if you wish to change the wording or write your own, that's equally fine. But if this movement is to succeed, and if we are ever to change our world for the better, we simply must pass the "Do No Harm" message on.

You can sign our guest book, or if you wish, send us your own thoughts or comments and we will add them to this web site.


Sometimes, all you really need to do is ask:

Do No Harm!

c.c.keiser & clyde grossman

updated July 28, 2006

[David Quinn]

Given that love is the biggest source of harm in the Universe, I take it you are advising people to abandon love?

-

[Dan Rowden]

Hmmm, I wonder how many of the rest of the "Actualism" crew are going to end up here...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But what it ultimately means is thoughtful consideration. "Do no harm" simply means to consider how our actions may affect the world we all share, to be compassionate in our dealings with all creatures, and not to despoil our planet.

Following above definition, I'd propose to change the catch phrase into: be considerate or be thoughtful or be mindful. Being more attentive is the call of many teachers of enlightenment. So the whole idea of doing no harm doesn't need to enter the picture at all. Actually it's hurting or side-tracking the whole idea because there is no necessary relation between being considerate as a mental state and the effect of harming others; we pay more attention to hurt than to words - this is how we grow up for example.

And the phrase "all creatures" looks conflicting as well. It doesn't need much imagination to conclude from common observations that most creatures do not care much to prevent 'hurt' to people or other species. And the very existence of a human being or any other creature already 'hurts' others in terms of living space, environment, battle for resources and so on. The phrase 'do not harm' looks therefore very unnatural and also doesn't work in an environment defined by struggle and strife, which appears to be the way things develop and change in this world. It will turn away many people who will interpret the phrase as some idealist unpractical whining of someone who is very afraid of what life is about.

Summarizing: a call for more thoughtful consideration is fine but why instead of going to the core of unconscious behavior, would one use the totally unfit concept of 'harm' to make a case? It seems to distract and delude the whole topic. And thereby harming yourself and the other even more, without realizing it!

[Ankit Gupta]

Doctors are asked to "first do no harm," why not lawyers, businessmen, religious leaders and politicians? Why not us? Why not now?

And do the doctors, not do any harm since they are asked to?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

cckeiser wrote:

The very least we can do is to attempt to do no harm, and leave the world no worse than as we found it.

That's closer to the one and only wiccan "commandment" -

In at least that thee harm none, do what thou wilt.

which (pun noted) is easy enough to remember, although correct application requires much more thought than most people are willing to put into it. I particularly like the "In at least" part, as it indicates that one ought to do more.

[Rhett]

.

Some people reckon its harmful to tell people the truth. This can seem true, some people's karma is so bad the truth can bring out a lot of hate from them.


.

[cckeiser]

Given that love is the biggest source of harm in the Universe, I take it you are advising people to abandon love?

-

“Do no harm” does not provide ready-made answers, but requires mindfulness and consideration. Mindfulness is awareness and attention. Consideration is understanding and empathy, wisdom and compassion. In some measure, our answers demonstrate the intensity of our mindfulness and the depth and breadth of our consideration.

Do no harm,
clyde

[cckeiser]

But what it ultimately means is thoughtful consideration. "Do no harm" simply means to consider how our actions may affect the world we all share, to be compassionate in our dealings with all creatures, and not to despoil our planet.

Following above definition, I'd propose to change the catch phrase into: be considerate or be thoughtful or be mindful. Being more attentive is the call of many teachers of enlightenment. So the whole idea of doing no harm doesn't need to enter the picture at all. Actually it's hurting or side-tracking the whole idea because there is no necessary relation between being considerate as a mental state and the effect of harming others; we pay more attention to hurt than to words - this is how we grow up for example.

And the phrase "all creatures" looks conflicting as well. It doesn't need much imagination to conclude from common observations that most creatures do not care much to prevent 'hurt' to people or other species. And the very existence of a human being or any other creature already 'hurts' others in terms of living space, environment, battle for resources and so on. The phrase 'do not harm' looks therefore very unnatural and also doesn't work in an environment defined by struggle and strife, which appears to be the way things develop and change in this world. It will turn away many people who will interpret the phrase as some idealist unpractical whining of someone who is very afraid of what life is about.

Summarizing: a call for more thoughtful consideration is fine but why instead of going to the core of unconscious behavior, would one use the totally unfit concept of 'harm' to make a case? It seems to distract and delude the whole topic. And thereby harming yourself and the other even more, without realizing it!

Thank you for your insightful analysis. If you prefer “be mindful” that is fine with us, but, as you noted, it lacks the relationship to action, which is why we prefer “do no harm”. To “do no harm” one must first be mindful. But then requires that one’s actions conform to one’s understanding. This is what we mean by “thoughtful consideration”.



You write, “The phrase 'do not harm' looks therefore very unnatural and also doesn't work in an environment defined by struggle and strife, which appears to be the way things develop and change in this world.” In what way does being aware of the world and considerate in one’s actions “not work”?



Yes, “do no harm” will not appeal to everyone; nothing does. The question is: does it appeal to you? If it doesn’t, it doesn’t and, while I appreciate the opportunity to explain my view, I’ll not convince you otherwise.


Do no harm,
clyde

[Greg Shantz]

It is impossible to do no harm.

[Tomas]

-G Shantz writes-
It is impossible to do no harm


-Tomas-
I think in some ways that when walking on a sidewalk, avoiding the ants is a bit tricky (especially at night) :-|

With George W. Bush, spreading some depleted uranium dust solves the problem altogether :-(

I feel a bit sad to see the worms on a sidewalk, especially after a heavy downpour ... the sun appears and they die a slow death ... ol' George'll think a somethin' :-)


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

[Kevin Solway]

I've been earning my own income for about the last eight years, but only because I've been able to do it with only a tiny bit of work. My good fortune probably won't last forever, and then I'll go back to being on a government benefit.

Not everyone in society is the same. Not everyone is made to go out and earn an income. Different people have different skills, and some skills are valuable even though nobody wants to pay for those skills in the marketplace. It is important to recognize this, and not be swept along by the religion of capitalism, where worth is measured only by what other people are prepared to pay.

[David Quinn]

Clyde wrote:

“Do no harm” does not provide ready-made answers, but requires mindfulness and consideration.

But the very idea - "Do no harm" - is itself a pat, ready-made answer, which rests on the simplistic premise that one is somehow capable of ceasing to do harm. As Greg Shantz points out, this is a pipe-dream. No matter what we choose to do, or how mindful and considerate we try to be, we will always be creating harm for someone or something.

Thus, if we are going to be serious about this kind of thing, the goal should not be about trying to cease doing harm altogether - which, again, is impossible - but rather, choosing which kind of harm best serves the cause of wisdom in the world.

Mindfulness is awareness and attention. Consideration is understanding and empathy, wisdom and compassion. In some measure, our answers demonstrate the intensity of our mindfulness and the depth and breadth of our consideration.

I think that, deep down, what you really mean by "do no harm" is in fact: "do nothing significant". If you're honest with yourself, that is what it all boils down to. Do nothing significant, don't place your own goals above anyone else's, don't step on anyone's toes, merge harmlessly into the crowd, become a non-entity, disappear altogether.

I love the irony of it. The crusade to foster the ideal of "Do no harm" is, when all the inessentials are boiled away from it, really a crusade to promote mass suicide.

-

[Rhett]

.

Clyde: Mindfulness is awareness and attention. Consideration is understanding and empathy, wisdom and compassion. In some measure, our answers demonstrate the intensity of our mindfulness and the depth and breadth of our consideration.

David: I think that, deep down, what you really mean by "do no harm" is in fact: "do nothing significant". If you're honest with yourself, that is what it all boils down to. Do nothing significant, don't place your own goals above anyone else's, don't step on anyone's toes, merge harmlessly into the crowd, become a non-entity, disappear altogether.

I love the irony of it. The crusade to foster the ideal of "Do no harm" is, when all the inessentials are boiled away from it, really a crusade to promote mass suicide.

This is very significant. There is a very prevalent attitude nowadays that to not act is a moral safe ground, and any action is morally dodgy from the start.

Men of the past held high ideals and acted in accordance with them to create the civilisations in which we live, but over time this has been forgotten and civilisation taken for granted. Current ideas are trading-on, degrading our civilisation fast, but with most in ignorance this is not being seen.

.

[cckeiser]

It is impossible to do no harm.

Greg;



Yes, I agree. This is from the web-site (reflections: http://donoharm.us/_wsn/page3.html ):



It is impossible not to do harm, not perfectly. But that is not what is required. To require perfection and then surrender because it is not possible is simply to find an easy escape and excuse oneself. What is required is that we practice “thoughtful consideration” and do the best that we are presently able to do.


Do no harm,
clyde

[clyde]

I think these two paragraphs from the web-site (reflections: http://donoharm.us/_wsn/page3.html ) address the concerns raised by David and others:

And there is no “perfect” response to satisfy “do no harm.” This is always the case and our actions and even our inaction will inevitably cause some harm. We cannot know the consequences of our actions (or inaction) in their fullest. “Do no harm” challenges us to exercise “thoughtful consideration”, which requires us to apply mindfulness, wisdom and compassion to the process of determining the best possible outcome for all concerned.

“Do no harm” is not, as some have suggested, a call “for good men to do nothing,” certainly not for inaction in the presence of a great harm, nor an expectation to forgo self-defense and the defense of innocents. Its meaning is “thoughtful consideration”, so that each of us must bear the burden of determining the proper response to a given situation.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

[Tharan]

I want to talk to Chuck. Would this be Chuck Norris? He certainly did no harm to Bruce Lee in Return of the Dragon.

Chuck Norris uses ribbed condoms inside out, so he gets the pleasure.
Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
When Chuck Norris has sex with a man, it is not because he is gay, but because he has run out of women.
Macgyver can build an airplane out of gum and paper clips, but Chuck Norris can kill him and take it.

[Tharan]

Chuck Norris once roundhouse kicked someone so hard that his foot broke the speed of light, went back in time, and killed Amelia Earhart while she was flying over the Pacific Ocean.
Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.
If you ask Chuck Norris what time it is, he always says, "Two seconds till." After you ask, "Two seconds to what?" he roundhouse kicks you in the face.
Chuck Norris only masturbates to pictures of Chuck Norris.

[Matt Gregory]

Only pussies masturbate. Chuck Norris squeezes his balls like lemons to make the sperm come out.

[Kevin Solway]

And there is no “perfect” response to satisfy “do no harm.”

It is a necessary fact that you will always do just as much harm as you do good.

For example, if you value truth and peace, and another person values untruth and violence, then every truthful or peaceful thought you have will do harm to that other person.

Or are you saying that your own values are more important than the values of other people, and therefore the harm you do to others is not a great concern?

[David Quinn]

It depends on which illusion he chooses to adopt, Kevin. You should know that.

Personally, I prefer to adopt the illusion that nothing I do causes harm. After all, this is just as real as any other illusion. The issue is thus resolved. I definitely don't harm anyone with my actions.

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Thank you for your insightful analysis. If you prefer “be mindful” that is fine with us, but, as you noted, it lacks the relationship to action, which is why we prefer “do no harm”. To “do no harm” one must first be mindful. But then requires that one’s actions conform to one’s understanding. This is what we mean by “thoughtful consideration”.

The phrase be mindful lacks verbal relationship to 'action' for a good reason. As you write yourself: mindfulness comes first. Just thought comes before just action. The word 'harm' however is not very universal, unless you equal it to causing suffering. But don't you think it's a bit, well, dumb to advice not to cause suffering when the stated problem is that there is something like suffering in this world. It doesn't address anything of the core problem, what for example the idea of 'attachment' could.

In what way does being aware of the world and considerate in one’s actions “not work”?

In the same way the phrase don't breath does not work, while mind your breathing could work. Someone will always feel harmed while delusion is present. The ego sets itself up in a certain way to be harmed. And if awareness is your message, why dumbing it down to an unsound, impossible to achieve advice? This only increases unawareness.

Yes, “do no harm” will not appeal to everyone; nothing does. The question is: does it appeal to you? If it doesn’t, it doesn’t and, while I appreciate the opportunity to explain my view, I’ll not convince you otherwise.

Are you saying this cannot be reasoned out? That it's just about appeal and feelings? Explaining your view is a fine start but do you allow your view to be debatable? Do you consider yourself to be open to new understandings, carefully reasoned out ones, or are you here to preach?

I propose a new phrase for your group: "mind the gap". Snappy, thoughtful, appealing and has some philosophical merit to boot.

[clyde]

I apologize for the "empty" post. I am still learning this interface.

Thank you for your insightful analysis. If you prefer “be mindful” that is fine with us, but, as you noted, it lacks the relationship to action, which is why we prefer “do no harm”. To “do no harm” one must first be mindful. But then requires that one’s actions conform to one’s understanding. This is what we mean by “thoughtful consideration”.

The phrase be mindful lacks verbal relationship to 'action' for a good reason. As you write yourself: mindfulness comes first. Just thought comes before just action. The word 'harm' however is not very universal, unless you equal it to causing suffering. But don't you think it's a bit, well, dumb to advice not to cause suffering when the stated problem is that there is something like suffering in this world. It doesn't address anything of the core problem, what for example the idea of 'attachment' could.

Diebert;

Chuck and I co-wrote the essay that he posted at the top of this thread. I wrote the replies, but he posted them until I joined the forum. To respond to your post:

Yes, harm, which is the suffering we cause, is a problem. No, I don’t think its dumb advice. Contemplation of “do no harm” leads to an understanding of the inter-relatedness of all things, as has been noted in this thread. This understanding of inter-relatedness leads one to an understanding of the impermanence of things which inevitably leads one to non-attachment.

In what way does being aware of the world and considerate in one’s actions “not work”?

In the same way the phrase don't breath does not work, while mind your breathing could work. Someone will always feel harmed while delusion is present. The ego sets itself up in a certain way to be harmed. And if awareness is your message, why dumbing it down to an unsound, impossible to achieve advice? This only increases unawareness.

No, awareness alone is not the message. The message is awareness and actions that conform to awareness.

Yes, “do no harm” will not appeal to everyone; nothing does. The question is: does it appeal to you? If it doesn’t, it doesn’t and, while I appreciate the opportunity to explain my view, I’ll not convince you otherwise.

Are you saying this cannot be reasoned out? That it's just about appeal and feelings? Explaining your view is a fine start but do you allow your view to be debatable? Do you consider yourself to be open to new understandings, carefully reasoned out ones, or are you here to preach?

I propose a new phrase for your group: "mind the gap". Snappy, thoughtful, appealing and has some philosophical merit to boot.

No, that is not what I wrote. No, it is not “just about appeal and feelings”. Of course views are debatable. No, it is not new, and I am not here to preach. My point was simply that argumentation alone does not convince others. This is not like arm wrestling where there is the victor and the vanquished.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hello Clyde, thanks for chiming in.

Yes, harm, which is the suffering we cause, is a problem. No, I don’t think its dumb advice. Contemplation of “do no harm” leads to an understanding of the inter-relatedness of all things, as has been noted in this thread. This understanding of inter-relatedness leads one to an understanding of the impermanence of things which inevitably leads one to non-attachment.

Could you lay out more specifically how contemplation of "do no harm" could lead to the proper understanding of inter-relatedness of all things? Again, you seem to assume one can prevent (or even wants to prevent) somehow that someone else experiences harm but cause and effect are a bit more complex in my view.

No, awareness alone is not the message. The message is awareness and actions that conform to awareness.

Could you give more examples of actions that in your view "conform to awareness"?

My point was simply that argumentation alone does not convince others. This is not like arm wrestling where there is the victor and the vanquished.

It's never about convincing; it's about allowing oneself to be convinced. And not by someone else but by ones own reasoning, that might be initially triggered and challenged by the one you're debating with.

If a viewpoint can be demonstrated to be delusional, the delusion disappears when understanding arises. If that means that something has to go, then why resist it? Because no conflict or suffering is allowed?

[clyde]

Diebert;

You wrote earlier,

And the very existence of a human being or any other creature already 'hurts' others in terms of living space, environment, battle for resources and so on.

That is an understanding of inter-relatedness. How did you arrive at that understanding? Was it by awareness of things, conditions, and cause and effect? Does that lead you to awareness of the impermanence of things and conditions? That is what contemplation of “do no harm” does, at least for me.

I “assume” that one may choose to act this way or that way and I understand that each potential act will have its own set of consequences. I do not assume that we know or can know all the consequences of our actions (or inaction), but that we can act with our current understanding to cause the least harm.

You wrote,

It's never about convincing; it's about allowing oneself to be convinced. And not by someone else but by ones own reasoning, that might be initially triggered and challenged by the one you're debating with.

Yes, I agree. I’m open to new understandings. I say this based on new insights and understandings occurring with some frequency. Are you?

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde