I'm trying to understand you and I'm not being critical. :read2:
It would seem that without "Doing No Harm's" sister "Doing Good" there is no substance to the former. What I mean is if I see you starving and I do nothing, I am "Doing No Harm", and I'm still a righteous person by your rule, is that what you mean?
Consider. It would seem DNH is a rule for prevention but not a phrase that inspires action, nor a phrase that itself describes the completeness a just moral rule would require. But DG is a definite requirement. That is why the former seems missing something. DNH on it's own seems to connote isolationism, (egotism, antisocialism?), and seems to imply that one can live an entire life in isolation and ignore the plight of others.
Also, it should never be forgotten how we have benefitted from the DG's of the world, as we could not even survive without them from the moment of birth.
I can Accept the two in entirety, "Do No Harm and Do Good Always".
Sorry if this clutz doesn't get it. :grommit:
AndyF