It's a conversation we've had several times over the course of a couple of years. What's the difference between harm and pain? The same question figures pretty prominently in the ethics class we offer using the Dalai Lama's book (Ethics for the New Millennium) as the primary resource.

I teach a two hour ethics class specific to my church. Last night I did about half the class for my prison group (for those who don't know ... I volunteer .... I'm not incarcerated...). We started off defining ethics and then moved to different ethical systems from multiple cultures and eras. And then we moved to defining harm vs pain or discomfort.

I tend to teach by asking, expanding, drawing out, and then filling in whatever is left. So guys were going around the circle giving thoughts on what constitutes harm. Two were particularly interesting and I thought I'd share.

One said - making a decision or taking an action in anger creates harm. Pretty much what we talk about when we discuss motivation as an indicator of whether an act is ethically negative or positive. Interesting that he came up with it almost immediately. That doesn't happen even in the classes I teach for ministers.

Another said, and this is what I've been chewing on today, a harmful act is one that inhibits growth. An act that causes pain or discomfort, although difficult, creates the space for growth and positive change.

I challenged him -- saying I see lots of people who endure what I consider to be harmful incidents and situations who go on to create positive change. He suggested the positive effects were secondary and could be attributed to the pain of the situation but that the harmful aspects needed to be processed and worked through first.

Very interesting insight. I think I like it but my brain is still turning it around and looking at the different angles. (It's a scary place ... the inside of my brain.)

P

quote:

One said - making a decision or taking an action in anger creates harm

sounds like he's learned from his past actions...

quote:

Interesting that he came up with it almost immediately. That doesn't happen even in the classes I teach for ministers.

...where perhaps often well-intentioned people don't share that same understanding, the same wisdom learned?

quote:

I challenged him -- saying I see lots of people who endure what I consider to be harmful incidents and situations who go on to create positive change. He suggested the positive effects were secondary and could be attributed to the pain of the situation but that the harmful aspects needed to be processed and worked through first.

I agree about the positive effects...healing -- understanding harm differently...

quote:

a harmful act is one that inhibits growth.

I find this very interesting -- is it the intent? ie. if the intent is to inhibit growth -- deliberately inhibit growth -- then it is a harmful act?

or if the act inhibits growth (outcome, result), it is then defined as a harmful act?

in relation to the other, this is quite fascinating to explore...for example, over what timeline?

quote:

An act that causes pain or discomfort, although difficult, creates the space for growth and positive change.

wonderful! well said...it sounds like you have a very thoughtful group...

I'm curious: do you consider these conversations to be healing for the guys? (do they?) do these conversations provide a safe space to be vulnerable?

quote:

(for those who don't know ... I volunteer .... I'm not incarcerated...)

...ahem...

awed

Bump to ponder.....

Pain and discomfort are usually necessary for significant growth, so we are in agreement there. I like the analogy used by Ellen Cannon Reed in "The Heart of Wicca: Wise Words from a Crone on the Path" (discussing Wiccan ethics/The Rede). She says that pain is sometimes necessary (like lacerating a boil or having your appendix removed), but it is momentary and you eventually feel better. Harm causes damage, and doesn't lead to better long-term health. I think you generalize this better with "growth", because it encompasses mental and emotional damage.

Sooo .. lemmee ask you this: Is it possible, within the illusion we have created on this plane, to avoid harm in any instance?

No, it is not possible to completely avoid harm. If my website is still up, it particularly goes into this subject. Causing harm is unavoidable in some situations, particularly if you recognize the Divine in everything. Eating certainly harms the plant or animal, but to not eat harms yourself. It is a fact of life that we sometimes have to choose between two evils (least harm). That's pretty much what I do when I vote.

I think that there are circumstances in which you can find a win/win and avoid harm, but the more complex the situation, the more difficult it becomes - especially with close emotional relationships.

The best way to avoid (or limit) harm comes from acting from a place the Dali calls "compassion" and Stosney calls "core value". You can disagree with someone, or even hate their actions. It isn't always easy, because sometimes that is the same place from which our anger comes (such as when we see a child being harmed).

I came up against some really hard things during my divorce, and I had a lot of advice to lash out and retaliate. Yet, I took the steps necessary to protect myself, and I think I avoided arbitrary crap-slinging. It is really hard to do when it is coming at you. There were (and remain) many who think I should have been more cut-throat, but I came through it having protected myself as best I could. That protection includes protecting myself from living with the knowledge of any ugly actions on my part. Any time I was tempted, I did some breathing exercises I learned in India and focused on my highest goal - extracting myself from the situation. Thus, I was able to avoid any action that would drag out fighting, and to absorb a lot of hits. (Some of it, like the fight over the entertainment system, ended up being about using whatever was possible to hurt me, as he proved when he subsequently failed to pick up said entertainment system. It wasn't really THAT he was fighting for.) I ended up giving things that I did not ethically or practically believe I should, but which were not (and never were) worth fighting over. Learning this level of detachment (to the point of my house and almost all belongings in it) is a very difficult thing to do, and being separated from the situation by 9,000 miles while spending your time with meditating Hindus certainly doesn't hurt.

Reaching a point where your Taker no longer wants anything - including justice (which is often used in place of the more accurate vengence) and to 'be right' or prove a point - is necessary, I think. I also think that we tend to cause a lot of unnecessary harm and damage (usually to ourselves if you look at it in hindsight) by clinging to transitory things that really have little relative value.

It is only when I got to the place of focusing on the highest goal (protecting myself and extracting myself from the situation) and not wanting anything but that...well, that was the point that I was able to not just survive but thrive. That's where the emotional equalibrium came from, and from that equalibrium and emotional detachment I was able to make choices that moved me toward my highest goal (which didn't include causing harm or even hurt).

I agree with AR.

I am reminded of the saying "Choose your battles"... some things are WORTH the potential for harm... most are NOT.

quote:

Originally posted by *Antigone Rising*:
That's pretty much what I do when I vote.

You and me both, sister!

quote:

I am reminded of the saying "Choose your battles"... some things are WORTH the potential for harm... most are NOT.

Absolutely. It also involves questioning yourself and your thought processes a lot. My signature line is all about that. We have an amazing ability to rationalize what we want. Timothy Leary said, "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves." What he meant is that what we think (our thinker) we have an amazing ability to search out information that proves it and disregard information that does not (the prover).

*****"You must be willing to see beyond your pain and take logical and systematic steps to undermine the affair and increase the stability and security of your marriage. That takes courage above pain. It takes the peacefulness of knowing you are strong enough to lose a self indulgent and unrepentant spouse or recover with a flawed, but motivated one.

Don't let your fear take back a spouse who isn't ready to do the hard work recovery after infidelity entails. It is an invitation for misery.

If you don't believe you CAN survive without your WS....you cannot do what you must do to ensure success.

Stop being fearful of their threats...they are just excuses to leave or be selfish.

Stop being fearful of their reactions....their reactions arise from their guilt...not your boundaries.

Stop being fearful of taking a stand....it's the only way to gain respect or trust.

Stop being fearful of being alone.....until you can stand on your own and risk losing them, you will NEVER know if they remain with you by choice. And you will never know if you want them or you NEED them.

And if you need them....even if they return....you are in trouble chere."*****

This was the story of our first infidelity go-around. I believed, because of the faults I brought into this marriage, that I that I had to sacrifice. But I was really acting on fear.

This left open the door to this current infidelity. The simple act of making choices based on fear, which looked loving, actually was very harmful, in the long-run; to myself, my children , and, perhaps, most of all to my H.

I was unwilling to face the pain/fear, and allowed actual harm, in.

I've been pondering, and I don't think it's possible to make compassionate choices from fear, or ANY negative emotion. You can disguise in any justification you choose, but if it springs from a negative, the results will, necessarily, be negative.

Conversely, choices made from, as AR pointed out, compassion/core values, may look harsh to some, but actually, be the only compassionate way avaliable.

Great point. Any choices or actions made from a place of fear are little better than having been made from a place of anger. It is the fight or flight response, which basically comes from the same centers of the brain. The way our brain reaches conclusions and weighs choices is very different when this portion of our brain is active than when we are coming from the reasoning centers of the brain.

Daniel Dennett helpfully puts all the biochemical jargon into the word "stance". We basically have different 'stances' that we adopt in evaulating and predicting the behavior of things around us (and thus formulating our response). When our brain is in fight-or-flight mode, it bypasses reasoning centers to these instinctual stances for the time benefit (which in a real fight or flight circumstance will often save your life). However, these mechanisms are not particularly useful in evaluating other life circumstances. More often than not, they are actually detrimental.

To evaluate these from a reasoned, compassionate stance, we must first get rid of our anger and fear.

A really good book to help understand how our brain works in response to various situations, and which responses bypass the reasoning centers can be found in Al Gore's book The Assault On Reason (no, you don't have to read his political conclusions if you do not want to), and it is written in prose for the average reader.

I might try to get some more information on this out here shortly.

It also reminds me of an anecdote I often think about when it comes to ethics. I will post that out here on a separate thread.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: *Antigone Rising*,