MOGO is short for Most Good, which is short for the principle of doing the most good and least harm to ourselves, other people, animals, and the environment. Recently, someone asked me why I used the term “MOGO,” which excludes the concept “least harm.” My flip answer was because MOGOLEHA sounds too silly and affected, but there’s another reason, too. The term MOGO is unabashedly positive, and focusing on what’s most good means putting our energy toward what is wisest, healthiest, most humane, and most sustainable.
Many movements for change are accused of being too negative. Environmentalism began to be perceived by some as a big downer, replete with deprivation and hostility toward progress. And many activists who are working to right wrongs, stop atrocities and destruction, and create peace are often angry, embittered, and even despairing, perpetuating a negative image of activism and changemaking.
I wrestled with the title of my book, Most Good, Least Harm. Did I even want “least harm” in the title? Would it perpetuate that negative stereotype? In the end I chose to keep the title and use the term MOGO to push the positive further into the light. But “least harm” is a crucial concept. Even if we are able, some day, to live lives that do virtually all good and no harm, the process toward such living will necessitate many steps along the way in which we attempt to maximize the good and minimize the harm, because we will continually be faced with existing less-than-MOGO systems. It is unrealistic to imagine we will never cause harm, but it is eminently reasonable to bring a clear and committed eye to our choices and do the most good and the least harm. In fact, it makes the MOGO principle practical and meaningful, instead of being pie in the sky.
I find the concept “least harm” soothing. It reminds me that we are imperfect and we need not berate ourselves or suffer unduly from lack of perfection in ourselves or the world. I also find it opens doors to dialogue and bridge-building. We can teach each other more easily when we recognize that everyone causes some harm and does some good. The door is open to learning from each other how we go about achieving this. And finally, it diminishes our self-righteousness when we pay attention to how to minimize the harm we recognize that we cause.
~ Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.
Filed under: changemakers, citizen activism, Least Harm, MOGO (Most Good), Most Good, positive choices, systemic change Tagged: | activism, balance, changemaking, Least Harm, MOGO principle, Most Good, perfection, social systems, systemic change

The Power and Promise of Humane Education
Above All, Be Kind: Raising a Humane Child in Challenging Times
Claude and Medea: The Hellburn Dogs
So, You Love Animals: An Action-Packed, Fun-Filled Book to Help Kids Help Animals

IHE offers online courses for educators, activists, parents & concerned citizens seeking the tools, knowledge & motivation to align their actions with their deepest values & to become more effective leaders and changemakers. Sign up now for an upcoming session.


Hello Zoe,
CONGRATULATIONS on your latest book!
I’m the guy from Toronto, and we meet now and again over the many years.
In case you are interested, my framework of “best caring” has complete affinity with most good and least harm. It was introduced in 2006 in the Journal for Critical Animal Studies (then called the Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy journal) and is also available on my website (address above). In the article I also talk about doing the most good and least harm, a common enough theme in philosophy, but one that has been monopolized by utilitarians who have a tendency to rationalize medical vivisection. It’s great to have a philosophical affinity with someone as inspiring as yourself! You were always one of my favorite speakers.
Cheers and best wishes,
David
Thanks for this David! Great to hear about what you’re doing and how sympatico it is!
P.S. I have a two part article appearing in the Journal for Critical Animal Studies in which I spell out the justification for most good and least harm even more. The current issue features part 1, and I would be happy to send you an advance copy of the draft for part 2. It is much more rigorously set out than in the 2006 article.