This approach has a particular attraction when a number of processes (e.g. several fires or pollutants) merge to bring about harm.
Nor, for that matter, does he allow for the possibility that individual members may together bring about harm without having acted in a morally blameworthy fashion themselves.
It is far harder for people to break trust and to let another person down when they are fully aware of that trust and belief and that to break it they must make active choices that bring about harm.
Debates about harm reduction always follow the same pattern.
Any potential consumer benefits should be weighed alongside concerns about harm from reduced competition.
In the West, we think morality is all about harm, rights, fairness and consent.
The idea of risk compensation runs through every debate about harm reduction.
For example, Saletan writes: "In the West, we think morality is all about harm, rights, fairness and consent.
What's more, the reviews' conclusions about harm are based on the servicers' side of the story, not homeowners'.
Liberals and Conservatives both care about harm and fairness – issues that focus on treating other individuals well.
"But in this case we do… What you did was not to send out a message about harm.
