Neglect versus Harm

In considering of the notion of "doing harm" to others, harm was considered only as a consequences of action. I have considered the possibility that harm could also be considered to arise from a person's neglect to act - and am led to the conclusion that this is not the equivalent of doing harm.

Primarily, an action is considered to be ethical or unethical by virtue of its consequences. When a person has not taken an action, no consequences have been effected, and there is no basis for the ethical evaluation of something that has no been done. Even so, there remains the argument that harm has been done by an individual's neglect.

This does not stand to reason: in a situation where an individual has neglected to undertake an action for the benefit of another party, harm is not caused. The other party was already in a situation where harm would come to them, and the neglect of another party to render assistance is not the cause of that harm, nor does their choice not to render assistance, in itself, cause the harm to be increased - the harm would befall the other party if the actor were entirely absent from the situation, and his mere presence does not obligate him to act.

This is not to say that neglect is acceptable in all situations: specifically, in the instance where there is a relationship between to individuals, it is generally (though not universally) understood that one of the conditions of a relationship is mutual assistance in time of need.

While this seems a reasonable conclusion, it rests upon a few notions that have not been explored as yet: the notion of a relationship (which has been considered previously 10/5 but in a superficial manner) and the notion that conditions of a relationship may be implicit.

The concept that a relationship exists between any two parties due to proximity is largely a concern of politics - which implies that otherwise unacquainted persons have an implicit relationship with one another as members of a of a given society or community (which are also abstract notions) - and that any member of a society is obligated, under certain circumstances, to provide assistance to other members of the society. But again, political arguments are beyond the scope of the topic of this blog.

While I cannot concede the obligation of one person to render aid to another, I can conceive that a party may feel entitled to grant assistance to others, and that this may in certain situations be entirely ethical. Provided he has sufficient understanding of the situation to be reasonably certain that the other party will come to harm, the decision to render aid is rational. And provided his actions do no harm, the action may be considered to be ethical.

However, this is a digression to another topic - whether it is ethical to undertake action for the benefit of others, which has previously been considered. The present question is whether it neglecting to act for the benefit of others can be considered the equivalent of doing harm - and I am reasonably confident in the conclusion that it cannot.