Historical and legal evolution of concepts of legal harm

Koroleva Ekaterina Sergeevna Lecturer; Department of Theory of State and Law; Saratov State Law Academy Postgraduate Student; Department of Theory of State and Law; Saratov State Law Academy 410056, Russia, Saratov region, Saratov, Chernyshevsky str., 104, office 212 kor.e.s@yandex.ru

Historically, the evolution of the concept of harm began with the foundations of world creation described in the Bible. The fundamental categories describing the moral state of a person and his relationship with the world around him are the concepts of "good" and "evil". The problem of the correlation of these terms has always been, is and will be one of the most topical in society due to the fact that it extends to all spheres of human life ^{[2, p. 5]}.

The relevance of the topic is determined by several key factors. First, modern society faces many complex moral and legal dilemmas, and it is important to understand how historically established notions of harm affect modern norms and practices. The evolution of harm concepts makes it possible to identify stable patterns and mechanisms that influence the legal system and public relations. Secondly, many modern legal and ethical issues related to environmental protection, human rights, cybersecurity and corporate responsibility arise against the background of blurred boundaries between good and evil, where the concept of harm becomes central. This creates the need to adapt the traditional legal approach to the new challenges of our time, which requires an in-depth analysis of the historical context. Thirdly, the study of the historical and legal evolution of harm concepts contributes to the formation of a more informed and integrated approach to the development of legal norms and control mechanisms. This can have a positive impact on law enforcement and social welfare, which makes research on this topic particularly important.

This study uses an interdisciplinary approach that combines elements of legal, historical, and philosophical analysis. The main focus is on studying the evolution of harm concepts in the context of changes in public consciousness and legal practice at different historical stages. The methodology allows us to identify the relationship between moral principles, cultural traditions and legal norms, as well as to trace how these factors influenced the formation and development of the concept of harm both within specific legal systems and in a broader social context.

According to the Bible, good is associated with mercy and love for one's neighbor, while evil represents sin and deviation from the commandments, which is closely related to the concept of harm, which implies violation of God's will and its negative consequences. Harm can manifest itself in the physical, spiritual, and social spheres of a person's life. It leads to suffering and distance from moral principles.

In the Old Testament, for example, the term "harm" implies punishment for sins and disobedience (harm caused by sin manifests itself in the form of diseases, death, and other consequences). The story of the Fall of Adam and Eve [The Bible. The book of Genesis. Chapter 3.] illustrates how disobedience to the will of God led to expulsion from paradise and consequences for all mankind.

The New Testament, on the contrary, focuses harm's attention on salvation and atonement, as well as on deliverance from sins [Ephesians 1:7, Col. 1:14.]. Jesus Christ sacrificed his life for the redemption of all people at all times, showing how harm can be overcome through his sacrifice and the teaching of mercy and how salvation can be found through faith and keeping the commandments.

The Biblical concept of harm serves as the basis for understanding and overcoming modern problems, teaches careful attention to one's actions and the desire for them to be beneficial. Currently, this is one of the fundamental concepts of legal science, reflecting the negative consequences resulting from the violation of the rights and legitimate interests of a legal entity.

With the advent of the state, the category of harm began to be viewed through the prism of law and public administration, that is, from the perspective of norms established in society. It assumes responsibility for ensuring the safety and well-being of citizens, in particular, it develops laws and control mechanisms to prevent harm (physical, economic, political, environmental, etc.), which is one of the main criteria for evaluating government activities.

In different societies and cultures, the concept of harm and its legal regulation have developed in different ways. Already in ancient times, the critical importance of distinguishing between categories such as "good" and "evil" and understanding their essence was noted in order to ensure morality and morality among the population and the development of statehood.

A distinctive feature of the category of harm in Ancient Rome is its final legal consolidation. If in Ancient Greece harm was interpreted largely as a violation of prescribed virtuous behavior and as an act condemned from the standpoint of morality and morality, then in ancient Rome, harm was an encroachment on legally established values, for which a person would be held accountable.

As in ancient Greece, in Ancient Rome, the principle of justice was the starting point for determining legal and non-legal acts. M.T. Cicero wrote: "there are two principles of justice: to harm no one and to benefit society" ^[13].

The ancient Eastern legal tradition as a whole is based on the religious and moral understanding of harm as disobedience, violation of harmony and one's duty to society. In the East, a person's life and the meaning of his existence are reduced to fulfilling his social role. It is society that embodies a superior value over man, since "it is a reflection of the cosmic order, to which everyone is somehow obliged to obey if he wants to be someone at all" ^{[9, p. 97]}. Those who understand the universal relationship know that if a person violates something, it will affect them, and therefore they try not to harm other people and even objects.

For the civilizations of this period, personality has always been the central good, since it is a free individual who is able to create an appropriate state structure to achieve the common good for all. However, as I.I. Borzova notes, the primacy of social life is characteristic of the East, where the cosmic law determines the place of each individual, which leads to a situation where the legal understanding of harm was not separated from the moral ^{[4, p. 9]}.

In ancient India, the system of socionormative regulation was based on a close interweaving of legal, religious and ethical norms. Social harmony lies in the concept of "dharma" – a person's pre-established behavior; duty to family, society, and God. The protector and guarantor of the dharma is the king-raja. Harm is caused by all violations of the order established by the dharma, for which the king had the right to impose sanctions.

The different views of thinkers on the source of evil also pave the way to understanding the problem of harm. For example, A.P. Shcheglov considered evil as a lack of knowledge and saw it as a secondary manifestation as a result of ignoring ideals ^{[19, p. 80]}. Thus, the concept of hedonism, which the author adheres to, implies the relationship between knowledge and virtue: if a person understands what good is, he will strive for it, and evil behavior will be the result of ignorance. It is also worth mentioning Aristotle, who in his work "Nicomachean Ethics" believed that evil arises from an excess or lack of virtue ^{[1, p. 163]}. He emphasized the importance of social structures that serve as the basis for the moral education of citizens, capable of minimizing harm in society. These philosophical reflections demonstrate that the understanding of the source of evil and harm can vary depending on the historical and cultural context, which emphasizes the need to consider individual and collective aspects in law enforcement practice.

The law of the ancient era is generally characterized by the idea that democracy is based on human morality and observance of ethical standards, including honesty, decency and responsibility. Thus, only self-discipline in relation to one's own vices allowed one to refrain from harm and achieve the good. During this period, the concept of natural law reflected the importance of observing an order based on reason and justice, which implied the need to avoid harm for the sake of the well-being of the entire society ^[16]. The latter also served as the basis for the protection of individual civil rights.

However, this approach has its own lack of flexibility, which leads to potential problems. Strict adherence to moral precepts and generally accepted ethical standards can make individual circumstances less distinct, which require a more delicate approach. For example, the need to respect the public good sometimes becomes a pretext for infringing on the rights of individual citizens, which may ultimately contradict the ideas of justice and respect for the individual. Thus, despite the importance of the concept of natural law in the history of legal awareness, it is necessary to recognize that universal norms are not always able to adequately reflect the difficulties that individuals face in their lives. This highlights the need to find more flexible and targeted solutions in law enforcement practice that would guarantee both the protection of individual civil rights and the common good of society.

In ancient times, the foundation was laid for understanding harm as negative phenomena that harm both the individual and society. In Roman and ancient Greek law, the concepts of guilt, responsibility and punishment were formed, and the concept of harm developed within the framework of a common understanding of justice.

The Medieval era is characterized by the close connection of the concept of good and evil with Christian ethics and morality, which expanded their horizons beyond the limitations imposed by the Old Testament. During this period, Christianity sought to unite people of all nations under "its wing" and turned to all of humanity. This allowed over time to spread the influence of this denomination to many followers. However, there are different opinions about this transformation: some theologians (for example, Thomas Aquinas) emphasize the positive aspect of a more humane attitude towards man. This determines the importance of the individual's obligations to society and the Almighty, which formed the picture of law and order at that time.

However, some other thinkers point to the complexities and conflicts that arise from the imperfections of human nature. An example of this is Pierre Abelard's beliefs that philosophy has the right to be critical of theology and to doubt its truth ^{[11, 127 p.]}.

The polarization of opinions about good and evil, as well as about human nature, highlights how concepts of harm changed and adapted depending on the social context, which already at the stage of the Middle Ages formed a variety of legal systems and approaches to justice. It is also worth noting that the desire to universalize Christian ethics and unite all nations under its sign can lead to conflicts in opinion and culture, which causes sharp criticism of such a one-sided interpretation of morality.

Moving from the period of antiquity to the Middle Ages, it should be noted that during this period there was an intensive development of religious and mythological teachings, the purpose of which was to maintain the monarchical system by "justifying the tenets of faith by means of human reason" ^{[10, p. 11]}. Medieval law was based on customs, since by that time many elements of legal culture and writing had been lost. The regulation of issues of spiritual and secular life was carried out through canon law, which has universality and extraterritoriality.

In the theological Christian concepts of Aurelius Augustine, Pierre Abelard, Thomas Aquinas and Marsilius of Padua, there is a separation of law and law, and the concept of harm becomes formally defined. Thus, Aurelius Augustine in his works attached great importance to the freedom of choice given to a person, by virtue of which a person is endowed with the opportunity to do both good and evil deeds, while bearing responsibility for his choice. In his opinion, the essence of personality lies directly in the ability to consciously control one's body and soul, preferring virtue and rejecting evil ^[5].

Augustine the Blessed adhered to the idea that a person is responsible to God for his actions and should be punished for violating divine laws and harming others. This concept of responsibility is closely intertwined with the doctrine of free will, which, according to Augustine, implies the possibility of choosing both good and evil actions ^{[15, p. 109]}.

It is possible to agree with Augustine's thought, but it is worth clarifying that he considered punishment not as an act of revenge, but as a means of correction and correction. He emphasized that a true understanding of guilt should be supported by mercy and divine grace, which allows a person to change and return to a virtuous life.

Thomas Aquinas associated harm with evil resulting from "the deprivation of good, which is primarily perfection and relevance in itself" ^{[17, p. 62]}. This point of view resonates with the evolution of legal norms, as it focuses on the need to protect well-being and virtue as the basis of law and order. If evil and harm are understood as a lack of perfection or goodness, this can lead to the formation of legal systems focused not only on punishing violations, but also on restoring the well-being of society and the individual.

The Renaissance was characterized by thoughts about the need to assert the self-worth of the individual, to recognize the dignity and autonomy of every individual, to provide conditions for the free development of man, to provide everyone with the opportunity to achieve their own happiness.

The famous philosopher of this period is N. Machiavelli, whose ideas are far from the humanistic tendencies of this time. In his works, along with the influence of theology, the ethical content of the concepts of "good" – "evil", "benefit" – "harm" disappears. Once absolute, these categories become relative. The main value is power, considered as an independent political institution. Therefore, any actions of subjects encroaching on the unshakable foundations of political power are considered harmful. In this vein, N. Machiavelli defines law as a means of the sovereign to keep his subjects in obedience under threat of punishment ^{[18, p. 94]}. There is still a large limit to the arbitrariness of the authorities, which, of course, is not considered harmful, but justified by the need (benefit) to preserve power in the hands of one ruler.

The Age of Enlightenment marked the transition to new values: individual freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the concept of harm is becoming the subject of close attention by lawyers. In the work "Metaphysics of Morals" Immanuel Kant identified harm with violations of laws and believed that any action contrary to duty is a misdemeanor violating individual human rights ^{[8, p. 71]}.

The common goal of all existing laws is the concept of "harm prevention", developed by I. Bentham ^[3]. He was a utilitarian, adhering to the idea of maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering, and, in turn, defined harm as an evil that reduces the common good. Jeremy Bentham expressed the idea that harm is the minimization of human hardships and the maximization of human benefits. In his opinion, the source of harm from the state to the individual was interference in the private life of citizens, since the legislative eradication of such vices as drunkenness and debauchery led to a belittling of moral norms and rules of prudence.

The British philosopher John Stuart Mill became the founder of the so-called "harm principle" or "Mill's principle" ^[14], by virtue of which only harm can be a legal basis for state interference in the personal affairs of citizens. Otherwise, government restrictions will not be justified, because a person has the full right to his own sovereignty. This principle also emphasizes that the need for a safe and orderly coexistence of people, which protects from harm and ensures the achievement of good, determines the existence of any state and legal structures, i.e. is the reason for their existence.

Not only the works of foreign authors are devoted to the study of the essence of harm and related benefits. These questions were of interest to both Russian thinkers and jurists, such as N.S. Malein, N.N. Voplenko, and others. Of course, the works of researchers from the past also became the basis for their reflections. In the process of studying the development of the law of the Russian state, it becomes clear that, starting from the moment the category of harm appeared and throughout the entire period of development, close attention was paid to the protection of the material and spiritual aspects of human life.

The formation and development of institutions of civil responsibility in the XIX-XX centuries. It contributed to the formation of a more comprehensive understanding of the category of "harm".

N.S. Malein insists that harm should not be considered solely from the standpoint of causing material or moral damage ^[12]. The harm, according to the researcher, consists in a broader violation of the requirements of the law, which leads to an imbalance in the life of society: the deprivation of rights and freedoms guaranteed by the state, the diminution of goods and values, and the restriction of individuals' actions. In other words, harm is primarily a social concept.

N.S. Malein's approach allows us to highlight the socio-legal aspect, which takes into account not only individual losses, but also the consequences for society as a whole. This highlights how law enforcement and legislation can serve as tools for restoring justice and maintaining social order.

N.N. Voplenko considers harm solely from the perspective of damage, violation of the integrity and liquidation of objects ^[7]. At the same time, it is noted that only harm and the degree of its severity distinguish between abuse of law and actions that have a moral and ethical assessment. However, such a narrow view may limit the understanding of the concept of harm, especially in the context of historical and legal evolution.

Harm should be considered not only as physical or material damage, but also as a phenomenon affecting the rights, freedoms and well-being of individuals and society as a whole. In particular, modern approaches to law pay increasing attention to moral and social harm, such as damage caused by discrimination or violation of human rights. In addition, in many cases, actions that may seem neutral from the point of view of law have social or emotional consequences affecting the integrity of the individual or community. This highlights the need to develop legal norms that take into account not only physical damage, but also the context of actions and their impact on public relations.

Based on the above, it can be concluded that the concept of harm has undergone significant changes over the centuries, reflecting many cultural and philosophical traditions. From the biblical view of harm as a violation of divine commandments to Roman legal consolidation and the philosophical reflections of medieval thinkers such as Augustine and Aquinas, we see how harm is gradually transformed from a moral category to a legal one. This sequential evolution emphasizes that legal norms have always been in dialogue with morality, and understanding harm necessarily includes ethical aspects.

It is worth noting that the study of the concept of harm also focuses on the importance of balance between the individual and society. As the analysis shows, excessive focus on the public good can threaten the rights and freedoms of individuals, and lack of control over government actions is fraught with violations. This highlights the need for a constant rethinking of the concepts of law and justice in a modern society where the mechanisms for protecting individual and social rights must adapt to new challenges.