Rule No. 1: Do no harm.
Rule No. 2: Do not violate Rule No. 1 unless you have no alternative.
According to the Barack Obama / Joe Biden campaign, as well as the John McCain / Sarah Palin campaign, these are the generally accepted criteria in selecting the U.S. Vice Presidential candidate.
These have got to be the craziest rules I’ve ever heard! Can you imagine choosing a spouse or partner because you thought they would do no harm and were the best option you had? Frankly, I’d rather not be married.
Can you imagine choosing a childcare provider because you thought that at least they wouldn’t harm your children. Boy, your children are bound to get a lot of nurturing and learning from someone like that!
Can you imagine only buying food for your family because you thought that at least it would do no harm? Boring! Nutritious? Unlikely.
Can you imagine running your life so that you would always be safe from harm? If so…
Don’t go out in the rain for fear of catching a cold
Don’t cross the street because you could be hit by a car
Don’t go out in a lighting storm because you could be electrocuted
Don’t be friendly with your neighbors because you could be bitten by their dog
Don’t live in San Francisco because you could be hurt in an earthquake
Don’t learn to swim because you risk drowning
If we lived like this, we wouldn’t leave the safety of our homes and we wouldn’t teach our children to try new things because they risk failing or getting hurt. No one chooses to run their life this way; do you want our country to be run this way?
We have alternatives, let’s choose them.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://www.zoefoods.com/blog/do-no-harm-what-kind-of-rule-is-that/trackback/
October 8, 2008 at 8:04 am
Susan
Hello,
In regard to your comments about the edick, “do no harm”. To begin with part of that is missing. This edick comes from a code of ethics that Doctors are held to. It should read “FIRST, do no harm”.
The point of this edick was meant as a guideline for doctors to, STOP AND THINK BEFORE PROCEEDING. To make sure to evaluate all options before continuing.
It does not preclude all other aspects of a decision process, it simply means to make sure you’ve thought things through as much as possible in whatever time is available before proceeding.
As a mother of four grown kids, I think this is not such a bad idea when so many of us jump to conclusions before all the facts are established, as in the case of this article.
October 8, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Tori
Susan, Thank you for your comment. I believe that the tenet to which you are referring is called the Hippocratic Oath that is taken by medical students upon their graduation and their becoming doctors. One of the first parts of the hippocratic oath as it is translated from its original Greek is:
“I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.”
The problem that I have with the presidential campaign and the media is that they leave out the first part of this tenet which is to “do my best”. To use only the latter part “to do no harm” could get us into trouble as delibertately illustrated by my exaggerated conclusions to make the point that we do have a choice to do good first and foremost, and then to do no harm.
October 20, 2008 at 7:06 am
Storm
Actually the do no harm principle is a moral principle, and one which precedes hippo.. However for anyone in government or trying to be in government to claim to use it is absurd, since the first and only ability of government is to cause harm. It must steal to survive, and the sole purpose of its survival is to control the otherwise peaceful lives of those under its power.
Sadly few people think about this, and even fewer take the time to realize that whenever they choose to vote, they are not only supporting this harm to others, they are endorsing it and embracing it. Imagine if you had to actually walk up to every one of your neighbors and tell them to their face that you have so little respect for them as persons that you will gladly give your support and the illusion of legitimacy to someone who will come over and steal the money of those neighbors, as well as force those neighbors to live according to the dictates of others. Could you do this? I know that I cannot, and would not.
So truly do no harm, stand up for what is right and refuse to vote at all. If you vote you are endorsing the winner because you are endorsing the system which brings that winner to power.
If you still feel a need to control the lives of others by voting, then have the strength of conviction to tell everyone you know that you just do not have any respect for them.
October 20, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Tori
Storm, I admit that I can relate far better to your comments on potable water in China than I can to your comment above that all government is bad. However, controversy is thought provoking and I do not discourage it.
I am not a libertarian and believe that if someone has power over a country, state, city, town, village, school, business, family, child or pet, it is their responsibility to make decisions that they believe to be in the best interest of all within their dominion. It is impossible to please everyone, but as long people do their best to treat others respectfully in the way that they would want to be treated, our world has the chance to be a better place. Life can be filled with joy, and sharing this joy with others makes it even better.
October 21, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Storm
Life can never be filled with joy without the freedom to pursue or enjoy that joy..
Speaking from a basis in logicn and ethics, no action is good which is rooted in evil. Government cannot exist witout claiming ownership (the right to use and dispose of property) over all those it rules. If there is a need for government, I can only assume that you believe it comes from some lack in mankind, however since government is made up of individuals who necessarily have those same failings, government can only amplify the worst in us.
If we try to look at the “good” that has been done by government, we fail to find any examples. Even where monies were given to some, they were stolen from others, and sadly those monies failed to actually help or resolve the issue. Governments cannot give freedom, they can only restrict it.
The main question one must ask whenever one supports any government, is by what right do “I” claim that one person or set of persons is more worthy of deciding how another person should live her life, than the individual is herself? To demand a right to control the life of another, is to simply demand for slavery as a good and moral state of being. In all of the years I have spent studying morality, political philosophy, and logic, never have I seen a justification for such a claim.
It may be impossible to please everyone but it is exceedingly possible to refrain from harming anyone. Simply never do it, and never encourage it.