The Harm Principle

For those of you who know who "Dan" is, you'll likely be surprised to hear this. There is something that he and I agree on. Seriously. Dan argues that morality is based on harm. Without quite agreeing with that, I believe that harm is a principle that is involved with morality. Unfortunately, at that single point of agreement ... we diverge. Dan believes, next, that we can reliably figure out what "harm" is so we can reliably determine what should or should not be moral. I don't.

Generally, people think that "immoral" is a violation of some rule or another. I don't think so. I think that the rule documents what is immoral, but it was immoral before the rule was given. It's like the conscience. Sometimes we know things are wrong somehow without even being able to quote the rule or reason. Scripture talks about how Gentiles "show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness." (Rom 2:15) Adam and Eve ate from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen 2:17) which meant that from hence forth, with or without "Thus saith the Lord," we would instinctively know before the law was ever given. Now, we can sear our consciences (1 Tim 4:1-3), so conscience is not foolproof, but neither is it absent. Sin, then, is a violation of what is good or bad, not "harmful or harmless."

So how am I agreeing about sin and harm? Because I'm absolutely convinced that what is moral and immoral is either helpful or harmful to us. I am certain that God's "Ten Commandments," for instance, weren't some sort of morality game He was playing. They were more of a user's guide to the human being. "Don't do these things; they will hurt you. Like "You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me." (Exo 20:5) "Do those things; they will be good for you." Like "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you." (Exo 20:12)

This leads to an alternative to "judgment." Some people point to Scripture and say, "This says what you're doing is sin." And others wail, "You shouldn't be judgmental" If the aim was to try to eliminate sin in the world, it would be judgmental. If the goal was to squash evil wherever you find it, it would be misguided. But if I believe -- and I do -- that God commands what He commands for our best interest, then my intent would not be to kill sin where I find it. My intent would be to help people wherever I find them. "You know, if you do that or don't do this, I have it on good authority that it will hurt you." It's not judgmental. It's not even my own idea. It is concern for others.

Dan and I both believe that morality and harm are interlinked. The difference is that Dan is absolutely certain that he has the ability and wisdom and far-reaching understanding to determine what constitutes harm, and I'm just not that good. So I tend to rely on the Manufacturer, the Maker of humans. If He says, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? ..." (1 Cor 6:9-10) (for instance), I'm not going to castigate Him for saying so. I'm going to warn those I love. "Watch out! This will hurt you!"