Nonmaleficence vs Beneficence vs Rules

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 7
Topic's author
#1
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Nonmaleficence is a moral law that says how you shouldnt do evil. You shouldnt do actions that cause more evil than they remove. It is also known as negative consequentialism.

Beneficence, on the contrary, says that you must act in a way that is good, or best. You must act in a way that your action brings good or brings more good than evil. If you can do good, you must.

The difference between Nonmaleficence and Beneficence is that Nonmaleficence tells you what you musnt do. Beneficence tells you what you must do.

For example, donating your kidney would likely save someone's life. By the law of Nonmaleficence, you dont have to donate your kidney. You are allowed to do it, but you dont have to. Nonmaleficence commands you not to do evil, but it does not command you to do good or to do whats best. You can do no good, but also do no evil. Or you can do no evil, and only do a little bit of good.

However, by Beneficence, you would have to donate a kidney, since Beneficence commands you to do the greatest good.

Of course, this depends on how good and evil are defined, but you get the idea about the difference between Nonmaleficence and Beneficence.

Now, there is also a third idea, which is Rules. 
Unlike Nonmaleficence and Beneficence, which are consequentialist theories that weight good and evil, Rules are moral absolutes that say how you must follow them even if following them produces evil.

For example, if you say "I will always tell the truth", then by that rule you would have to tell the truth even when doing so causes nothing but harm.
Rules, also known as deontology, do not weight good and evil. Rather, they maintain that certain actions are wrong in all circumstances. For example, "it is wrong to lie" means that you shouldnt lie even if it can save your life.

There are advantages to Rules over consequentialism, since Rules are in most cases easier to understand and follow.
For example, if I accept that lying is wrong, then I wont lie in any situation, even when lying would result in something good.
If I accept that violence is wrong, then I will not commit violence in any situation.

Rules dont require us to weight good and evil. Weighting good and evil may seem good and desirable, however the truth is that most people arent capable of weighting good and evil in complicated situations. Therefore, Rules are more suitable for most people.

Rule consequentialism is a form of combination of Rules and consequentialism, where we dont do things that are famous for having bad outcomes, and do things that are famous for having good outcomes. Therefore, Rules would be made according to that which is good in great majority of cases.

For example, "Do not kill", "Do not lie" or "Do not steal" are rules that are good in great majority of cases, therefore should always be followed.

Kant's Categorical Imperative is a way of making rules by simply asking what would happen if everyone did certain action.
For example:
1. Would society be horrible if everyone was stealing things from others?
2. Would society be good if no one was stealing things from others?

Since 1 and 2 are answered with yes, it follows that stealing is wrong. Therefore, the rule "Do not steal" is a universal law that we should always follow, according to Categorical Imperative. Even if stealing would result in good, for example stealing to donate to charity, it is still wrong.

I think this pretty much covers these three moral theories.
#2
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
Huh? 🥸
#3
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Nonmaleficence is a moral law that says how you shouldn't do evil. You shouldn't do actions that cause more evil than they remove. It is also known as negative consequentialism.
Beneficence, on the contrary, says that you must act in a way that is good, or best. You must act in a way that your action brings good or brings more good than evil. If you can do good, you must.

The difference between Nonmaleficence and Beneficence is that Nonmaleficence tells you what you mustn't do. Beneficence tells you what you must do.

For example, donating your kidney would likely save someone's life. By the law of Nonmaleficence, you don't have to donate your kidney. You are allowed to do it, but you don't have to. Nonmaleficence commands you not to do evil, but it does not command you to do good or to do what's best. You can do no good, but also do no evil. Or you can do no evil, and only do a little bit of good.

However, by Beneficence, you would have to donate a kidney, since Beneficence commands you to do the greatest good.
Of course, this depends on how good, and evil are defined, but you get the idea about the difference between Nonmaleficence and Beneficence.
I'd like to point out a few nuances, though your explanation captures the gist:
Non-maleficence and beneficence are two ethical principles that guide the actions of professionals who work with others, especially in healthcare. Non-maleficence means that one should not harm or allow harm to be caused to others through neglect or intentional actions. Beneficence means that one should act in a way that promotes the well-being of others. Both principles require one to consider the potential risks and benefits of any course of action, and to aim for the best interest of the person or people involved. Non-maleficence and beneficence are often considered as complementary principles, but sometimes they can conflict with each other or with other ethical principles, such as autonomy or justice. In such cases, one has to balance the different values and interests at stake, and use ethical reasoning to decide what is the most appropriate action.
Cited by the following:

Non-maleficence is not the same as negative consequentialism. Negative consequentialism is a type of moral theory that says that the right action is the one that minimizes the bad consequences, regardless of the good consequences. Non-maleficence, on the other hand, is a more specific principle that says that one should not harm others, even if it means sacrificing some good consequences.
Cited by the following:
#4
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
A moral structure is a set of moral beliefs and practices that are shared by a group of people, such as a society, culture, or religion. A moral structure defines what is right and wrong for that group, and often influences their laws, customs, and values. A moral structure can vary from one group to another, depending on their history, traditions, and worldview. For example, some moral structures may forbid eating certain animals, while others may allow it. Some moral structures may value honesty above all, while others may value loyalty more. Some moral structures may be based on divine commands, while others may be based on human reason.

Ethical principles are general rules or guidelines that help people make ethical decisions and actions. Ethical principles are often derived from philosophical reasoning or scientific evidence, and they aim to promote the well-being of individuals and society. Ethical principles can be chosen by the person himself or herself, or they can be adopted from an external source, such as a professional code of conduct or a universal declaration of human rights. Ethical principles can apply to different fields or situations, such as medicine, business, education, or politics. For example, some ethical principles are autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and honesty.

The main difference between a moral structure and ethical principles is that a moral structure is more specific and fixed, while ethical principles are more general and flexible. A moral structure tells people what they should or should not do in a given context, while ethical principles help people think and choose what is the best thing to do in any context. A moral structure is often based on authority or tradition, while ethical principles are often based on reason or evidence. A moral structure is usually accepted without question by the members of the group, while ethical principles are usually open to debate and revision by anyone.

The above is cited by the following:
#5
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
There are advantages to Rules over consequentialism since Rules are in most cases easier to understand and follow.
For example, if I accept that lying is wrong, then I won't lie in any situation, even when lying would result in something good.
I agree that Rules are closely related with Deontology if not a complete match. However, it's important to note that the Deontology can sometimes align with Consequentialism. For example, if a rule would lead to the best outcome.

If I accept that violence is wrong, then I will not commit violence in any situation.
This is not an example of Deontology, but rather of Consequentialism, as it bases what is right and wrong on the outcome of the situation. rules could be set in place that are general preventatives towards violence in which case the rules could be considered both Consequentialist and Deontological, though they may not always match. For example, A rule generally prevents violence and therefore it is a rule however in a certain context or situation the rule is no longer applicable as it would obviously lead to the worst situation a deontologist would believe what is right is following the rule no matter what whereas a consequentialist would recognize the utility of the rule in the first place and base their actions on what the rule is meant to be. I see Consequentialism as more consciously aware the intended purpose, which is the wellbeing of everyone, whereas Deontology as being simply rigid minded without thought.

I believe that both have their intended purpose. In a situation where the outcome is unforeseeable it is often best to follow what works most of the time, in other words, the rules based on the Deontology, even though this may be seen as a form of predictive Consequentialism. Whereas in a situation that is known and predictable, it would be best to follow a Consequentialist moral structure in active pursuit of creating a better future for everyone.
Topic's author
#6
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
Negative consequentialism is a type of moral theory that says that the right action is the one that minimizes the bad consequences, regardless of the good consequences.
Well, I guess that definition would be different than my definition of nonmaleficence.

Minimizing bad consequences is kinda different from "you shouldnt cause more evil than you remove".

However, whats important is that lack of action doesnt get included in "wrong", to make moral law easier to follow.
#7
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
As I said, you captured the gist, and it may have been sufficient for your intents and purposes. However, I wanted to address the nuances so we could be more accurate in case we delve deep into the topic.