I have espoused the precept 'Do No Harm' in 20 different posts throughout this site; that is more than 10% of my weekly posts. This week I have returned to and read these 20 posts and maintain that in context 'Do No Harm' is valid as an overriding principle that every individual should consider with every decision / choice made. The reality though is that in some decisions there is harm done and (I believe) typically this harm is (and/or should be) a conscious choice to inflict short-term harm for long-term gain. Following are questions that should be answered before harmful action is implemented:

1. (a) What is the long-term gain and the short-term harm, (specifically)? (b) How does the long-term gain trump the short-term harm? (c) What (specifically) is meant by long-term and short-term? and (d) Have we considered potential unintended consequences of the harm being done and their potential for further (short-term or long-term) impact?
2. Are the individuals (or is the individual) being harmed also included in the set of individuals that will reap the long-term benefit?
3. If I were the 'inflictee' instead of the 'inflictor' would I understand this decision and agree with it?
4. Would a majority of those being harmed understand this decision and agree with it?
5. Would a majority of those who would benefit understand this decision and agree with it?
6. Would a majority of the remaining world population as neutrals not impacted by this decision understand it and agree with it?
7. Would your Mom - (Dad, Grandmother, Grandfather, or other highly-influential, close, personal, ethical role-model) - understand this decision and agree with it?

I believe that after careful consideration of #1 and #2 above, if any of the remaining questions can still be answered 'No' further examination of questions 1 and 2 is required.  And ultimately, after this further analysis, if there still remains a 'No' answer for questions 3 thru 7, (possibly excepting #4), perhaps the plan for action should be restructured.

For many this process may appear cumbersome and inconvenient (particularly the analysis in #1); and granted, we cannot be expected to foresee all (butterfly effect) potentialities, but some effort must be made if we are to progress.

Additionally I acknowledge that considerable subjectivity goes into this analysis of harm, yet I maintain that we can (and should) rein in the subjectivity while optimizing objectivity. In the post Humble Happiness from September 2012 I differentiated between the subjective realms of spirituality and emotion, and the more objective realms of fact and reason. These seven questions are helping us to think through the Wisdom of harm, and to answer as objectively as possible. Ideally we would check our heavy cloaks of spirituality and emotion with the coat-check attendant and go into this experience scantily-clad in only our ability to reason through facts and argument; many people are not comfortable with this.

Above I stated that "in context 'Do No Harm' is valid as an overriding principle that every individual should consider with every decision / choice made." And the context thus far has been individual choice. I have not previously differentiated between an individual decision and a decision made and/or invoked in the name of a group. Apparently we are wired to cooperate within our group and compete against other groups; so this differentiation must be made. When I speak of groups, I refer to anything from a family unit of two to a powerful nation of millions or billions, and all manner of organizations, corporations, and bureaucracies between and beyond that can readily identify an out-group (Them) to contrast with their in-group (Us). Group decisions are often made by leaders, or committees, or other governing bodies (elected or otherwise). Many decisions made in-group are made by individuals who are given the power to do so in the name of the group. When an individual (especially an inexperienced individual) makes a decision for a group, if they have not been given instruction, training, or guidelines to follow, ego and politics can influence to create unintended harm. As a group becomes larger, the complexities intensify, and the bureaucratic result increases the potential for harm; a harm that may then become invisible to the decision maker(s).

But I digress; ...somewhat.

The issue at hand is to minimize harm, and as previously stated each individual one of us should take responsibility for doing so whether we are making a decision for our self, individually in the name of a group, or as an individual voice within a larger decision-making body. This can and should be done by asking the seven questions previously listed and objectively considering potential results. But how do we utilize these ethical guidelines within a larger group to ensure objectivity? Or in the face of two smaller groups within that larger group? The self-defeating dynamics of divisive competition within planned or expected volitional cooperation are...well...self-defeating. An obvious example is our own government in which conservatives and liberals (and a myriad of other even smaller special interests) compete to cooperate within the larger context of the government of The United States of America. For groups this large (and bureaucratic, and confused, and chaotic) emotional, ego-driven, dogmatic, bias will always trump reasoned debate and analysis. Though much more colorful and entertaining these security blankets of subjectivity must be removed before a productive examination of ethical decision-making can occur.

So what? I'm not saying anything we don't already know. Though I believe it is a fairly concise and workable matrix for individual decision, there is nothing magical in that list of seven questions to simplify the ethical decision-making within a large group. I cannot point to #5 (for example) and say this is the key question that will allow competing groups to cooperate in a larger context. It has taken me 3 painful paragraphs to say "So What?"

In this post I have encouraged individual responsibility for ethical decision-making that will minimize harm. In previous posts I have encouraged narrowing the playing field to create a common ground to aid in minimizing harm (most notably in The Spirit of Happiness), which requires considerable objectivity; (an objectivity also strongly encouraged in this post). Additionally in previous posts I have advocated for education (most notably in Global Happiness and Apprehensive Happiness) to speed the evolutionary process (which I believe at some point in future generations to be inevitable) of recognizing that the shrinking of this planet (due to technology) dictates a change from a priority of 'Us over Them' to  primary consideration for a 'Global Us'. We have made (some) progress on Racism so why can't we fast-forward past all manner of Themism? Instead of Conservatives and Liberals, why can't we be Liberatives on common ground? Why can't we recognize the Goodness preached in a large, large majority of religions and let go of the divisive dogma, intolerance, and hate of indoctrination? I could go on...

...and I may.

But for now I am seeing that to minimize harm we need:

1. Individual Responsibility for Ethical Decision-Making.
2. Objectivity.
3. Common Ground.
4. A Global Us.

We cannot have objectivity without first taking individual ethical responsibility. And we cannot find a common ground subjectively. And we will never recognize and act in accordance with a 'Global Us' until we see 'Us' (or at least visualize 'Us') together within that common ground. There are some who believe competitive groups can learn to cooperate; and these efforts are valuable because subjective thought will always create competition, and subjective thought will never (and should never) go away. But by definition these efforts to simultaneously compete and cooperate will be a struggle. Yet if we are able to learn and grow into the aforementioned shrinking planet mindset, perhaps we can eliminate some of this competitive struggle by seeing the preeminence of the Global Us, thus encouraging the ethically responsible objectivity of a common ground.

It is a nice picture.