Forums.BeyondOneWorld.com

[Shawn]

This thread is to discuss and explore the principle of 'every person to be protected from harm'. It is an interesting phrase that gets used in many organisations that is loose conceptually but is one at face value a person would value as an idea and was picked up by Peter Brand commenting in the blog at http://blog.beyondoneworld.com/2009/08/ ... we-can-be/. His statement to kick off any thoughts was as follows:

One problem you face when setting common goals and principles, is that you need consensus. Even a simple principle like “every person that exists within be protected from harm” is faced with issues like: what about potential people not yet existing (abortion), or exiting persons not within (exclusivity, elitism), or what exactly constitutes ‘harm’ (suffering for your ultimate, but unknown future benefit, or the benefit of the group) and what degree of harm is acceptable.
...

[Shawn]

I am going to start this by throwing a lot of questions and stones at it to try and break it. Peter picked a few but I realised after a while of thinking about it that there are loads of ways to treat it and I became interested in what methods I was using to do it. For the purposes of it being a principle that we can uphold then it should never be broken, so if there are holes in it we need to know why. It is valid as a starting point because it is something at face value I believe in and currently one of the principles I would say at this moment in time should be upheld. This is going to be an interesting journey so just for now, just the random questions, I'll try to keep them simple or they will need to be broken down later...

Now I am no expert in any of these matters and my opinion should be treated just as a single viewpoint. I will be searching the Internet for any related material that I find that helps and make sure they are noted - this is important.

Also if anyone has any other questions or thoughts on this then please feel free to jump in and post. None of this is set in stone and I would welcome the opinions of anyone to work this all out.

• Why should every person be protected from harm?
• What is the real purpose of this principle?
• What does the principle achieve?
• Who is 'every person'? Are there limits or boundaries to this?
• What is the definition of protection? Are there boundaries to this?
• Should the concept of every person and person be treated separately or differently?
• What if the person is outside of this system? In other words, not the responsibility of it but requires protection. Peter mentioned the terms exclusivity and elitism - Is this tied in?
• What if the person is regarded as someone who should not be protected?
• What if there was a choice between who should be protected and the protection of one would mean the absence of protection for the other? Is this a possible scenario?
• What is the definition of protection? Are there boundaries to this?
• What if the protection of the person was extortionate or almost impossible to achieve?
• Is there a tipping point to say that the protection of a person (or group) is too expensive to achieve?
• The person protected could be you, your loved ones, your associates, people that you know of (or not) who are not associated with you? Are there any ways of splitting up this group (every) that makes any difference to its meaning?
• Protection - is this when something has happened or before (preemptive)?
• What do we mean by protection? Can this be broken up into separate concepts?
• There are likely to be numerable ways that this principle will be needed - what ways might cause conflict?
• What is the definition of harm? Are there boundaries to this?
• What if the person did not wish for protection?
• What if the person did not wish for protection but was not sane? By who's definition can this be done?
• What if the person cannot be protected?
• What happens if the principle does not work? What are the next steps?
• What happens if everyone agrees to a principle (ideal) but it gets broken later?
• Are any of the keywords fixed or variable - for example is 'harm' absolute or does it have a degree of 'harm'. Related to this Peter asked if there was a degree of harm that would be acceptable.

That's it for the moment...

[PeterBrand]

I'm impressed Shawn, you've put a lot of thought into this.

Here are some of my thoughts to add to the pot.

Why should every person be protected from harm? Mainly to ensure the system (society) is sustainable. Without that guarantee, the system would tend towards chaos. That is its purpose and what it sets out to achieve, but in effect turns out to be merely a thing we tell ourselves to make life bearable.

Societies normally only offer protection to their own members and feel free to be openly antagonistic to outsiders. Altruism in its purest sense doesn't exist as there is always some benefit in helping others, a spin-off or kick-back or future reciprocation. I don't agree with this as we are all insiders to the group labeled Human, and even the group Living Things On Earth.

Protection is offered as a right coupled with the duty to obey the rule not to harm others. Societies have reserved the right to put murderers to death, but the idea is less popular now ironically because of the perceived harm is does to society's values. This is a can of worms!

Protection could be a competing right. Abortion for instance - the rights of the mother to protect her health and life, versus the putative rights of the unborn child to its life. One person's right to free speech versus another's right to privacy and protection from slander. Taxation mandates the removal of resources (a form of harm) from one group to give to another who claim harm from circumstances supposedly beyond their control. Protection from poverty entails a harm to the economy.

Protection is supposed to be preemptive; the principle of Justice tries to address harm after the fact. I say "tries" because no-one can ever be restored to the position they were in before the harm took place - one would have to reverse time. Another can-o-worms?

Societies definitely take a hit-and-miss, pragmatic approach to protection, ignoring or tolerating certain harms which are too expensive to prevent and yet implementing other expensive controls to protect people from harming themselves. Alcohol abuse is harmful the drinker but not legislated, while drug abuse is legislated against. Addicts could harm themselves to the point where they become a burden on the state, which legitimizes state intervention. But then so do alcoholics. Drug laws have forced supply channels underground, which in turn make drugs so expensive that addicts turn to crime to support their addiction, which puts a load on the justice and prison systems... and puts police members lives in danger... and so forth. All in the name of protecting the poor drug addict from themselves.

I could add more, but it is late and I'd like to hear what others have to say at this point.

[Shawn]

Hi Peter - Thanks
I haven't yet given this the time it deserves due to me canvassing, working through the news and most importantly a 3 and 5 year old who are on holiday at the moment and are very demanding on my time .
I though I would add something else into the mix here and give it a go - the idea purpose all this is to explore our highest ideals. But the intention is to make sure they are in a form where they can be agreed to by everybody, cannot be misunderstood and importantly cannot be corrupted in any way. A tall order - and I am hoping much cleverer people will join in and see the vision.

Let's take a stab at this, knowing I am probably using the wrong terms, wrong idea or simplistic understanding:
Beyond One World is a system that is built on our best and highest ideals - one of which is that every person is to be protected from harm. No one will face harm on their own, we will all be there if an issue takes place. No person will ever get lost or never receive the protection that is their right. We will constantly undertake development, research and utilise resources to ensure that every person is comfortable protected from harmful (groups of) individuals, natural causes, physical and mental health. We will consider this as a universal right, we all protect each other and will freely receive help in times of need.

OK - Everything will probably change on that but it was a quick stab at it.

[Shawn]

Still to work more on this but found an interesting question posted on Yahoo Answers at http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080724134420AA2faIN.

To what extent should our loved ones be protected from potential harm?

The question is interesting because Cathy notes that society is over-protective towards our children and this potentially leaves them unable to cope with it later. I'll take a look later to see if anyone posts anything valuable.

[AlcovaGoatt]

Hi

I've looked a trailer for the "2012". I was interested in this theme.
Please advise me a good site on this topic.
And what do you think about the end of the world 2012.

Thanks.

[Shawn]

My apologies for not replying earlier - every time I came back to the forum I found I was spending all the time I had removing spam...

I am not sure of a useful site but I would look at the skeptic ones ones to get a balance of it. IMHO the date is arbitrary, one that comes out of the long cycles they used for determining ages so I am personally very skeptical about it. I certainly hope I don't think differently towards the end of the year though

I thinks its important to work on the impact this has on you and your life. If the idea that everything everything will end on a certain date in the future affects you or makes you less likely to do things that you want to do then it is something you must get rid off. If the idea fills you with more determination to do better or good then hold on to it.

Sadly, we all expect to end - the difference here is when you think you know the date or not.

Maybe, not that helpful to you but that is my own opinion on it for now.