I’m Not Hurting Anyone. What’s the Harm?
At first glance this moral stance appears reasonable, axiomatic, even. But unfortunately, the hippies and the anarchists aren’t correct on this one. This maxim is not one to live by. Here’s why.
Hurting yourself is unethical
When the phrase ‘I’m not hurting anyone’ is uttered, there’s usually one person not considered. That person is you.
It is often thought that causing harm doesn’t count as amoral if that harm is directed at ourselves. After all, who’s to say I’m not entitled to do what I want to myself?
In many parts of the world, we tend to view ethics as relating to how we treat others. We understand that it is unethical to hurt other people and morally virtuous to show kindness and charity. But we rarely view ethics in terms of how we treat ourselves.
This could be that the ethics of the Western world are largely built on the golden rule: treat other people how you’d like to be treated yourself. As moral rules go, this one’s hard to argue against. However, it does have the limitation of focusing solely on the other, and not the self.
As with the golden rule, our legal system cares only how we act towards others; it rarely cares how we treat ourselves.
This approach contrasts with Buddhist philosophy, in which treating yourself with love, kindness and care is not only a good idea, but a moral imperative. For this reason, Buddhists view drinking alcohol or taking drugs as unethical, because it causes harm to oneself.
There are good reasons why we should entertain this approach to ethics more than we tend. It might even be more important to care about the harm we’re causing ourselves than the harm we’re causing others.
Consider it this way. You have some influence over the happiness and well being of your close friends and family members. But ultimately, it is they who must make themselves happy by living wisely and listening to their consciences. Your influence over their happiness has limits.
And when it comes to peripheral friends, acquaintances, and strangers, your ability to influence their happiness is even more limited.
However, there is one person for whom you exert an enormous amount of influence, whose happiness and wellbeing lies under your immediate control.
That person, of course, is you.
You have direct control over one person in this world and only one. So why wouldn’t it be a moral consideration to enhance the lot of that person as far as your powers allow? You’ll have far more success improving the lot of your own life than you would trying to better anyone else’s. So give it your best shot.
From a utilitarian perspective, if increasing the sum total of human happiness is the ultimate moral good, your best chances atimproving that total is by attending to your own happiness as vigorously as possible.
Put another way, if you want to increase human happiness, you must first ensure you are not hurting yourself.
Not hurting anyone? Are you sure?
Another problem with this moral maxim, is that it isn’t always clear when you’re hurting someone else, or when you’re risking harm.
Often, for example, we believe that we alone reap the consequences of our bad habits, failings, and fall outs. For this reason, what we choose to do habitually is not usually deemed a moral consideration.
But this is overlooking one important aspect of humanity: we are a social species. We do not live in isolation.
Being a social species means that what we do affects those around us, even if our actions don’t cause immediate physical impact.
Take smoking as an easy example. We all know that smoking is unhealthy. But because our smoking only directly hurts ourselves (excepting of course for second hand smoke), most don’t consider giving up a moral decision.
However, bad habits, smoking included, are contagious. Whenever we act in ways that are suboptimal for our health, we are increasing the likelihood that others around us will take up that habit, too.
Thus, it is not always clear how far our actions cause harm to others.
The risk of causing harm should be taken into account. Our actions might not harm us or others immediatly. But there’s a risk they could lead to harm further down the road.
If we decide to take recreational drugs, for instance, it might be tempting to classify this behaviour as harmless, particularly if we have a pleasant experience. However, upon engaging in this behaviour, we cannot know with certainty that a pleasant experience is all that will result. There is risk bound up in such behaviour that events will unfold to cause tremendous hurt.
It’s just a bit morally flabby. Come on, now. Is that the best you’ve got?
The attraction of buying into the ‘I’m not hurting anyone ergo it’s fine’ maxim is obvious. It classifies all actions, bar wallopping someone in the gut, as morally sound.
Armed with such moral standards, viewing yourself as a good person could barely be easier. You don’t have to do anything, make any commitments, or sacrifices. To be good, you just need to refrain from pushing people down the stairs and stealing old ladies’ handbags.
No moral code could take the sting out of mediocrity more effectively.
And not only does subscribing to this maxim encourage moral flabbiness, it obscures an important moral truth: the righteous path is difficult to tread, and you will often find yourself falling off it.
We need to be reminded that being good is not something that can be achieved overnight and then forgotten about forever after. It is a constant, often painful process.
Dreary as it may sound, rather than shrugging off our actions as harmless, it is important for the health of humanity for us to consider what share of misery we are contributing to the world. For it is only through taking responsibility for the negative impact of our actions that progress is possible.
Finally, let us not forget that all our bad habits, as well as infecting others around us, erode our potential. The more we allow ourselves to give in to our vices, the weaker we become. And the weaker we become, the more potential for good we sacrifice.
We might not be doing harm by routinely skipping class or opting to spend our weekends binge watching trash TV, but through these actions we are harming our ability to be a force for good.
So perhaps it is time that we put aside this adage, and focus on how we can live better rather than excusing vice.
We might not be doing harm by routinely skipping class or opting to spend our weekends binge watching trash TV, but through these actions we are harming our ability to be a force for good.
