Question 2

What would be the fallacy of something like:

I’m not hurting anyone, therefore what I’m doing is ok? 

I would say this is jumping to conclusions .

One of the big questions in philosophy is how to determine whether an action is ethical or not. Whether or not that action caused harm is only one consideration, but there are certainly others. For instance:

• Did you intend to cause harm? For instance, you gave someone a poisoned drink intending to kill them, but instead they set the drink down and forgot about it.
• Did your actions have a high probability of causing harm? You drove home drunk from the bar, but arrived without causing an accident.
• Would your actions cause harm if many people did it? You picked a flower from a nature preserve. If 1000 more people did that, the preserve would be destroyed.
• Are you failing in your duty to prevent harm? You let the serial killer escape from prison because you knew he was unhappy there.
• Are you enabling someone else to cause harm? You work in a factory that builds bombs, some of which will be dropped on schools and hospitals.

The claim "I’m not hurting anyone, therefore what I’m doing is ok," can be analyzed through several logical lenses, and it may embody a couple of potential fallacies or poor reasoning approaches:

### 1. **False Dichotomy (Fallacy of the Black-and-White Thinking)**
This reasoning simplifies the moral landscape to just two possibilities: actions that harm others are wrong, and actions that don’t harm others are okay. However, ethical considerations can be more nuanced. Not causing direct harm is a significant but not exclusive criterion for moral acceptability. There are actions that might be morally problematic or socially unacceptable for reasons not directly tied to harm (e.g., dishonesty or environmental degradation).

### 2. **Moral Relativism**
The argument may reflect a kind of moral relativism that assumes individual autonomy and victimless actions are inherently permissible. Ethical principles often require more comprehensive evaluation beyond the scope of immediate harm. What is considered "okay" can depend on broader social, cultural, or environmental contexts that the argument fails to acknowledge.

### 3. **Appeal to Consequence**
An implicit appeal to the consequences of one's actions on others is present here. While consequentialism is a valid ethical frame, stating that non-harm alone justifies an action is a simplification. Consequences must also be examined in terms of indirect harm, societal impact, and other longer-term considerations which this statement neglects.

### 4. **Hasty Generalization**
This argument generalizes ethical acceptability based on a single criterion (non-harm) without considering additional context-specific factors. Ethically evaluating any action usually involves more than one dimension, such as intent, broader repercussions, and duties or societal norms.

### 5. **Neglect of Legal/Social Norms**
Certain activities might not harm others but could still be subject to legal restrictions or societal norms that define them as wrong or unacceptable (e.g., certain illegal but seemingly benign activities). Thus, legality and societal consent are additional layers of consideration this argument overlooks.

In summary, the statement "I’m not hurting anyone, therefore what I’m doing is ok" involves several logical oversimplifications and ignores a comprehensive ethical evaluation. The moral acceptability of an action often requires more than just the absence of harm to others.