There is a fair challenge to make. Is "do no harm" setting the bar too low? Should we not demand something bolder, more visionary?
And the answer is: yes, and that is precisely the point.
When movements have shifted power, they have done so by insisting on standards so basic that violating them becomes indefensible. Stop the war. End apartheid. Black Lives Matter. These were not modest demands. They were moral floors. They named what should never have needed naming.
And the answer is: yes, and that is precisely the point.
When movements have shifted power, they have done so by insisting on standards so basic that violating them becomes indefensible. Stop the war. End apartheid. Black Lives Matter. These were not modest demands. They were moral floors. They named what should never have needed naming.
WHY CALL FOR NO HARM
The fact that we must now remind the state not to harm the people living within it is not an argument against the demand.
It is an indictment of the moment that makes it necessary.
The fact that we must now remind the state not to harm the people living within it is not an argument against the demand.
It is an indictment of the moment that makes it necessary.
There is a fair challenge to make. Is "do no harm" setting the bar too low? Should we not demand something bolder, more visionary?
WHY CALL
FOR NO
HARM
And the answer is: yes, and that is precisely the point.
When movements have shifted power, they have done so by insisting on standards so basic that violating them becomes indefensible. Stop the war. End apartheid. Black Lives Matter. These were not modest demands. They were moral floors. They named what should never have needed naming.
The fact that we must now remind the state not to harm the people living within it is not an argument against the demand.
It is an indictment of the moment that makes it necessary.
The fact that we must now remind the state not to harm the people living within it is not an argument against the demand.
It is an indictment of the moment that makes it necessary.
Do No Harm does not meet cruelty with a softer version of the same logic. It refuses the terrain entirely. It asks one question, and it has no middle ground: are you prepared to harm people, or are you not?
Do No Harm does not meet cruelty with a softer version of the same logic. It refuses the terrain entirely. It asks one question, and it has no middle ground: are you prepared to harm people, or are you not?