"It Isn't Hurting Anyone"

The philosophy of moral relevancy is perhaps the crisis of our time. The whole theory is often summed up in the saying, "I can do whatever I want, as long as it isn't hurting anyone."

However, this maxim is wholly inadequate as a guide for making decisions. There are many different ideas about what hurts and what doesn't. Sure, most everyone would agree that physical and pecuniary harm are to be avoided. But, only restricting ourselves from physically abusing other people or their property would be to indulge in gross moral mediocrity. Most American's are people of faith who seek after the character strengths of wisdom, courage, kindness, fairness, temperance, and transcendence among others. When the acts of others improperly hinder us from seeking after such values, we are harmed and offended in ways that are ultimately more profound than any physical harm to our bodies, autonomy, or prosperity. For those of us who faithfully seek after God, we know that sin is the greatest and only lasting tragedy of life.

The main problem I have with those who espouse the view that they can do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else is that they shortsightedly estimate the harm and offense that their actions have on others.

Secondarily, I think it is just callous to allow others to hurt themselves without at least teaching and inviting them to follow another path. To hold that it is none of our business whether others are hurting themselves seems to reflect the undergirding egoism expressed by those living by this philosophy. I am not advocating infringing on others' autonomy needlessly. But, I do think that we are our brother's keeper.

Unfortunately, this amoral axiom is evermore present and influential in American society. It is a fad. But, unlike clothing, if you don't live by this moral relativism, you are labeled as intolerant, bigoted, and close-minded. However, they don't realize that tolerance is not the absence of disapproval, it has to do with the respect and esteem we afford others regardless of our differences. This social pressure to approve of everyone's values diminishes individually held values, even those which have been ubiquitous throughout time and geography. And, this pressure starts influencing our people at continually younger ages.

For example, check this song out by Ben Harper:

My choice is what I choose to do

and if I'm causing no harm
it shouldn't bother you
your choice is who you choose to be
and if your causin' no harm
then you're alright with me.

By the way, he was talking about smoking marijuana. This song's lyrics highlight another problem with this selfish lifestyle: it strips us of our duty to self, others, and God to rightly justify our choices or repent of them. In the song, he doesn't even try to assert reasons smoking pot should be valued, allowed, or acceptable. He doesn't feel he has to. The implication of the "it isn't hurting anyone" theory is that one can do whatever he or she wants and it doesn't matter if it is good or moral at all. By his wholly inadequate estimation, he isn't hurting anyone so it is ok. But, he is hurting people through his influence. I'd like Mr. Harper to explain to the mother of a son whose addiction to pot came as a partial result of looking up to singers like himself.

The late former president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pointed out clearly the effect others' influence can have on us and on society in our quest to become virtuous people:

It is not easy, for instance, to be virtuous when all about you there are those who scoff at virtue.

It is not easy to be honest when all about you there are those who are interested only in making “a fast buck.”
It is not always easy to be temperate when all about you there are those who scoff at sobriety.
It is not easy to be industrious when all about you there are those who do not believe in the value of work.
It is not easy to be a man of integrity when all about you there are those who will forsake principle for expediency.

Nonetheless, we strive to become better and to become better together. We should be weary of approving of other's poor behavior in the name of tolerance. There are most certainly some values that are, I believe, deontologically true and, whether you believe the former assertion or not, are certainly ubiquitous throughout time, geography, and culture. Such character virtues are the bedrock of a strong, purposeful, and economically successful society. To accept poor character in others is to be satisfied with social decline and, eventually, a soft tyranny.

John Donne had a vision of reality when he wrote the following in his 17th Meditation, "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main... because [everyone is] involved in mankind." Our actions build our characters and the strength or weakness of our characters can effect those around us for better or for worse, often dramatically slow. Small and simple things can bring about great changes. When we act, we vote by our feet about what the standards of our nation should be.

Our society is focusing more and more on "me" rather than "we." Living by the saying, "I can do whatever I want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else" is very selfish. Utilitarian philosophies at least determined conduct according to what would give the most happiness to the most people. This is just what gives me the most happiness regardless of other people. Those who espouse this view tend to all too easily reject the values of their community and their parents to do something easier, pleasurable, or more fun. They do it under the false pretense that it makes them happy and "isn't hurting anyone." They go against generations of wisdom who vote for the traditional values of society with their numerous headstones, and they do it on little more reason than curiosity, inertia, and lust. It is true that whole communities can be wrong about certain beliefs or values; but, only deliberate and altruistic motives should have any clout in dissident movements, not the listless whim of an individual "looking for himself" or looking for his next very temporary bout of pleasure.

Ayn Rand rightly noted that happiness may be a goal of ethics and our justifications for our behavior. But, happiness cannot be the standard. The whole point of morality is to determine a code of values that will best give a person the means to achieve joy. But, to say that it is best to value whatever will give you happiness is to say the best values are whatever you value. In so saying, one gives up entirely on the ethical responsibility to look outside himself and further into the future in evaluating the rightness of an act. One abdicates the duty to do not what is the easiest, but what is right.

Let us no more abdicate our duty to others with the empty refrain, "It isn't hurting anyone."