• brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Indirect becomes nebulous. At what degree of indirect harm do we set that limit. Almost every action we do may cause indirect harm to others. It might be better phrases as “physically” harms someone. I don’t want to get into someone doing something to themselves like taking drugs and restrict it solely on the basis that it will hurt their family and friends to see what happens to them.

    I use it as the core base of my beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think that freedom divests them of any responsibility for their indirect actions. It’s the default position until something convinces me why it should be restricted or outlawed.

    I also limit it to individuals working alone. Once they work in groups and organize the damage that can be done is different. Or doing it for commercial reasons. I believe private businesses can only exist under strict regulation.

    • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      My indirect harm litmus test would fall along the lines of like an OSHA style philosophy of regulation, for example for any kind of ledges we generally require rigid hand railings. If someone got hurt falling off a ledge at my workplace sure I didn’t do anything to cause it, but I’d still be on the hook for their injury because I didn’t take the required steps to reasonably prevent unnecessary injury.