Just out of curiosity ...

[resonant]

[Poll #243904]

Comments

[mz-bstone.livejournal.com]

Apparently I took the road less travelled.

Interesting.

B

[neeteeus.livejournal.com]

...that one has me completely conflicted. I can't pick either. Both are good, but either to the exclusion of the other would be useless as a strategy for bettering the world.

You need a third option. =D

[larue916.livejournal.com]

This really doesn't have to do with your post, but I've been reading through some of your stories (okay, so today I finished the last one of yours that was posted to the due south archive, but thats okay).

I just wanted to tell you that I think you are very good. Very talented. Thats it. Keep up the good work.

-K

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Aww. Thanks!

[dargie.livejournal.com]

That really is an interesting poll. I chose "as much good" after some consideration simply because I know that once you get into the "as little harm" mode, you can turn yourself inside out trying to decide if something might have harmful effects you can't ever know about, and thus end up accomplishing nothing. But if you try to do simple good, like telling people they look nice, or asking someone if they can use some help, or volunteering to work at something which helps people, you can just about guarantee you'll help someone.

[ellen-fremedon.livejournal.com]

I chose 'as little harm,' because doing good on a small scale is frequently ineffectual, and large-scale good-doing schemes tend to involve a great deal of collateral damage. Not doing harm makes a better guideline; it leads to living lightly on the earth and staying out of other peoples' business.

All IMHO, of course.

Re:

[lobelia321.livejournal.com]

That's what I thought. The 'doing good' could lead to 'meddling'. And then it's difficult to define 'good' -- what's good for one is not good for another. Doing little harm seems more achievable although it is, in a sense, a cop-out.

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

I chose "do as little harm as possible" because it seems to me that lots of the most heinous evil ever done has been by people who believed that they were doing good.

[mark356.livejournal.com]

Someone who does as much good as possible may well do a good deal of harm, but his or her net good and harm will probably come to a lot more good than someone who just tries to do as little harm as possible. That said, it's probably easier for most of us to avoid doing massive amounts of harm than it is to do massive amounts of good.

[persephone-il.livejournal.com]

I chose "as little harm as possible", because people have conflicting values of good and so everyone would try to undermine each other; "do as little harm as possible", however, is my current philosophy and religion.

[halimede.livejournal.com]

c) All of the above. Or possible neither. Definitions of good and harm varying so much, and all.

above all else, I shouldn't be a doctor

[iamsab.livejournal.com]

I picked "as much good" because it seemed more active than the other, more revolutionary and progressive, while doing "as little harm" could conceivably amount to just sitting still.

And while doing good could absolutely have harmful side effects, at least it's something, you know?

[aethereal-girl.livejournal.com]

I picked "do as much good" because it's pretty much impossible to avoid doing harm, so you might as well try to balance it out.

I have to agree with what other people have said about your being an extremely good writer. And I don't even like slash.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Thanks! (belatedly) -- sorry it took me so long to comment, but I do appreciate it!

[aethereal-girl.livejournal.com]

I'm just impressed that you really do reply to all comments on your stories.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Well ... eventually ...

[tikiberry.livejournal.com]

Little harm.

Road to hell and all that...

[julad.livejournal.com]

Niiiice question. One of the big questions. And the first thing I remembered was a philosophy lecturer talking about utilitarianism (do that which brings about the greatest good for the greatest number of people) which had an immediate proviso: "First, do no harm."

Ultimately I think it's a false dichotomy, as good and harm seem to follow some kind of Newtonian law-- equal and opposite reactions or somesuch. But I think "First, do no harm" is not a bad first principle, and forces one to consider all effects of an action, not just the desired effects.

[nestra.livejournal.com]

Little harm. Because I don't trust other people's definitions of "good".

[byob-kenobi.livejournal.com]

Hm. My initial response was to choose "as much good as possible", with the argument that being proactive helps *you* become a better person.

But...

Then I realized that my definition of "do good" is not the same as everyone else's, so "do no harm" would be more likely to include positive things. Like leaving people the hell alone.

(Oh, and hello. I cam over here via bethbethbeth.)

Re:

[bethbethbeth.livejournal.com]

Hi, byob! (*g*)

btw, res...the breakdown of the people from my friends list who answered this question (yes, I counted. *g*) came out a little differently from yours. The totals of your poll have been 75 (as little harm)/25 (as much good) almost from the beginning. My f'list breakdown is 81.5/18.5

I have no idea what this means, however. :)

Good 'un!

[smaragdgrun.livejournal.com]

Perhaps an interesting corollary would be to ask people how they actually live their lives.

In my vast (and getting rapidly vaster) years of experience, I find that trying to do good often backfires, and letting others make their own choices often has the best results. And I find this rule is triplified (tm) in slash fandom.

Excellent poll!

[jenna-thorn.livejournal.com]

I had to think about it, which is a compliment, I suppose. I finally came down in favor of tread lightly, because 'doing good' really does impose my moral code on others. I am perfectly willing to do so, of course, but resent anyone else attempting to do so to me, so I'd best take the least hypocritical route. 8-)

[darthrami.livejournal.com]

Wow, that was hard. I spent a long time thinking about it before I answered, and I'm still very torn up (yes, I realize this is over a little lj poll, I get conflicted over what to eat for lunch - this is killing me). I really REALLY wanted to put "do as much good" but then I started thinking. And you know, not everybody has the same idea of what is "good" - for other people, for the earth, for whatever have you, and thought back on history and pondered on how many people who did horrendous things did them because they thought they were doing "good." It bothers me to put "as little harm" because I feel like, once you get in that mindset of limiting damages as opposed to going out and actively doing good, you start to slide down a hill.

So, yeah. Still torn. But I picked "do as little harm as possible." :-/

But really interesting! Thanks. :-D

[liaison27.livejournal.com]

The actual Golden Rule is "Do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you." Or something like that. The reasons behind this being: in trying to determine what might harm another, you're likely to put more thought into it -thought being basically a *good* thing.

Too many people are apt to have a pro-active bias about what is good for others. Examples: Historic Christian proselytizing which destroyed so many native belief systems and cultures and ditto the current conservative political climate in the good ol' USA.

[simmysim.livejournal.com]

if EVERYONE did one of those things, the world would be in chaos, and it probably wouldn't matter either way.

Interesting thoughts along these lines

[jelazakazone.livejournal.com]

I'm quoting from Ken Macleod's blog which can be found here (http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_kenmacleod_archive.html#107573079725777874).

The writings of a great amoralist - a de Sade, a Stirner, a Nietzsche - can inspire a handful of murders in two centuries. Over the same period, the writings of a great moral philosopher - an Aquinas, a Kant, a Bentham, a Mill - can justify, if not indeed incite, the deaths of millions in just wars and just revolutions. Morality is an immensely dangerous and destructive force, which must be restrained by the strongest human passions and sympathies if it is not to break all the bonds of society.

This was basically why I chose do as little harm as possible. Sorry to weigh in so late with this comment.

Interesting poll

[starwatcher]

And I had to give it some thought. My first instinct was "do good". But, as others have pointed out, the definition of "good" can vary widely. And, it could be possible that the mass murderer could help out in the hospital children's ward, convincing himself that he "does good" most of the time, and his victims "deserve it". So I have to go with "do little harm". This would do away with theft, rape, murder, war -- shooting at someone is definately "harm". Simplistic, I know, but it seems that "no harm" will ultimately be more beneficial than "do good".