# Doing vs. Allowing Harm

> 【EN】Is there a moral difference between doing harm and merely [ 1 ] allowing harm? If not, there should be no moral objection to active euthanasia in circumstances where passive euthanasia is permissible; and there should be no objection to bombing innocent civilians where doing so will minimize the overall number of deaths in war. There should, however, be an objection—indeed, an outcry—at our failure to prevent the deaths of millions of children in the third world from malnutrition, dehydration, and measles. [ 2 ] Moreover, it seems that the question is pertinent to whether consequentialism is true, as consequentialists believe that doing harm is no worse than merely allowing harm while anti-consequentialists, almost universally, disagree. But is there a moral difference between doing harm and merely allowing harm? We might divide approaches to this question into two broad kinds. … 【中】造成伤害与仅仅容许伤害发生之间是否有道德差别？若没有这种差别，那么被动安乐死被允许时主动安乐死就不该被反对，为减少总死亡而轰炸平民也不该被反对；但那样一来，我们未能阻止数以百万计儿童死于营养不良、脱水与麻疹，就该同样受责难。词条区分相关区分，讨论电车难题与作为/容许之分、反事实说明与安全网案例，以及实验哲学的研究。

- ID: m13192
- Category: culture
- Domain: 哲学

## Definition

造成伤害与仅仅容许伤害发生之间是否存在道德差别？若没有，被动安乐死被允许时主动安乐死就不该被反对；若有，那我们未能阻止数以百万计的儿童死于营养不良、脱水与麻疹，就理应招致同样的抗议。 脚手架作用：- 责任划线：区分亲手造成与未能阻止，明确自身的义务边界。 - 政策评估：检验制度是否把可预防伤害包装成自然结果。 - 直觉检验：用成对案例对照，看道德判断是否前后一致。

## How it works

其直觉机制是：造成伤害者使世界比若无其行动时更糟，容许伤害者只是没改善本已糟糕的进程，阻止恶与不制造恶的义务因此被认为不对称。反事实分析把差别还原为因果结构的差别，而批评者指出基准线选取本身受规范判断影响，这一区分未必能独立承担道德分量。

## Practice

1) 先问若无该主体的行动结果会怎样，确立反事实基准。2) 判断主体是使事态变糟，还是未阻止已发生的事态。3) 检查基准线本身是否隐含道德判断。4) 把权利、意图、义务一并权衡，而非单靠此区分下结论。

## Use

- 责任划线：区分亲手造成与未能阻止，明确自身的义务边界。 - 政策评估：检验制度是否把可预防伤害包装成自然结果。 - 直觉检验：用成对案例对照，看道德判断是否前后一致。

[Read the web page](https://thinkingmodels.site/en/entries/detail/m13192)