Do No Harm

Ready? Here's a new word (at least for me): "Nonmaleficence". Nice! Okay, you remember omnibenevolence, right? (Don't worry; we're not going there again.) Well, surely you can see the connection here ... right? Okay, maybe not. Nonmaleficence is the idea of doing no harm. It's a basic component of the Hippocratic Oath for doctors (as opposed to the Hypocratic Oath for others). (That last was a bit of humor.) Do no harm.

Seems to me that a lot of people see this concept as the key element in defining ethics, even if they don't know the word. They ask, "What harm does it do?" This idea is included in the notion of the "victimless crime". "What harm does it do?" The conclusion is "If it does no harm, it shouldn't be immoral." And, of course, that has its own name: Consequentialism. That is, the morality of the act is determined by the outcome (consequences) of the act. "What harm does it do?" If it has a good outcome, it's moral. If not, it's immoral. Simple as that. And, to be fair, if we are going to summarily dismiss religion from the public arena, then this is probably all we have left.

I have a tough time with this because it seems as if we are as incredibly bad at determining "harm" as we are at determining "good". Oh, some things are pretty obvious. Most of us would classify the murder of 6 million Jews as "bad" -- immoral. Child abuse: Bad. Giving to the poor: Good. Saving lives: Good. There, see? That's not so tough. But it's rarely as simple as that in real life.

Take, for instance, the issue of sex outside marriage. In determining the morality of such an act, a young person might ask, "What harm does it do?" And a conscientious parent will offer the standard problems. "It could result in pregnancy or STDs." Those are the big ones, after all, aren't they? Of course, if that's so, then we're at the mercy of the savvy teen who says, "Well, safe sex will prevent those!" and now you have to admit that there is no reason to say that sex outside marriage is immoral. I mean, "What harm does it do?" Well, God (you know, the One whose opinion counts) says that it is wrong (in God's case, "Because I said so" is sufficient) and God gives us a little insight we would surely have missed without His guidance. Paul says, "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, 'The two will become one flesh'" (1 Cor 6:16). The principle? Engaging in sex is somewhat of a mystery. It actually produces an unseen but very real union. Paul's proof of principle? "It is written, 'The two will become one flesh'." God is warning us about something that most parents don't tell their kids (because most parents don't know). Sex creates a union. That's good in marriage, but bad in life. (After all, you end up quite torn when you unite and disconnect from multiple people.) So you see, there is harm in sex outside marriage; you just didn't know it.

And, when you think about it, this idea isn't too hard to see outside of any special revelation from God. We know, for instance, about the law of unintended consequences. For anything you do in a complex system there will potentially be outcomes that are unanticipated and undesirable. We know that the long-term results of some choices are hard to anticipate. Do cell phones cause brain cancer? We don't know. Maybe. We haven't been using cell phones long enough to find out. Is it harmful to marriage in general if we allow no-fault divorce? Well, forty years after the fact, it looks like we can say it surely does.

With that last example, then, if the criterion for "moral" is "What harm does it do?", society would have been calling "moral" something that actually does harm and not knowing it. And therein lies the problem. We like the idea that "moral" is that which does no harm and "immoral" is that which does harm, but we don't seem to be able to tell what harm is until it's too late. What harm does it do if a child's father divorces his or her mother and leaves? For years we would have said, "None!", but the damage is done and it isn't trivial. What harm does it do if we engage in sex outside marriage? Since the '60's we've said, "None!", but the long term, unintended consequences have done serious damage to marriage, to individuals, to sex itself, and we're now left with a society bleeding from its sexual impulses and unaware that we're even in trouble. It seems as if what parents allow in moderation children indulge in excess, and we've reached "sexcess" as the norm.

These are just two examples. They are by no means the only examples. Both are explicitly condemned by God. Both appear to "do no harm". Both are doing extensive harm. I would suggest that, if we want to avoid the law of unintended consequences, it might be wiser to consult with the Maker of this complex system and see what He thinks is moral. He knows the construction. He knows the interactions. He knows what works and what doesn't. And ... He isn't shy about telling us. We seem to think that we're much smarter in today's society and we don't need to pay attention to what He has said. Even self-identified Christians suggest that. I would suggest choosing what's moral based on personal preference and our pitifully poor ability to determine what "good" and "harm" is foolish. This kind of arrogance will get us killed.