We traditionally invoke factors such as long hours, demanding patients and unending bureaucracy as the cause but perhaps it is worth asking what role doctors play in harming each other, however unintentionally.
In other words, I believe intervening, short of keeping the boys from really harming each other, would have made the conflict worse by adding my energy to the fight, while blocking the boys from settling it themselves, which ultimately is how children learn most: from their peers more than from their parents.
For this good to be realized, it is argued, there must be the bona fide possibility of persons harming each other.
This means that irrespective of the varying capacities of the economies of the two countries, they have been able to create the image of comrades in arms who are not harming each other.
Generally speaking, it refers to things that are different in nature coexisting at the same time, each thriving on its own, each in the correct place, in order to achieve balance and unity, embodying the spirit of "nourishing a myriad things growing up without harming each other, and following their course simultaneously without interfering with each other" in traditional culture.
"Fair conditions for interaction" may be taken to be an environment in which individuals are free to make deals on mutually agreeable terms and contracts are enforced, individuals are prohibited from deliberately harming each other by physical assault, extortion, coercion, fraud, theft of property and the like.
They help and gravely harm each other.
What gives us such cause to harm each other?
That said, they don't mean to harm each other.
Both U.S. & the Soviet Union appear to have harmed themselves with their interventions more than they have harmed each other.
Serious injuries are rare, since camels can usually harm each other only by biting, and during fights they are muzzled.
