Final answer:
The principle that harming someone is wrong in a particular situation and would also be wrong for anyone in a similar situation refers to the Principle of Universalizability. This principle aligns with Kant's deontological ethics and is reflected in Mill's liberalism and Socrates's belief that harming others also harms oneself.
Step-by-step explanation:
The principle you are referring to is commonly known as the Principle of Universalizability, which is closely associated with the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. According to this principle, an action is morally acceptable if it can be universalized; that is, if everyone could do it in similar circumstances. This principle is a cornerstone in deontological ethics, where the morality of an action is judged based on rules and the adherence to duties.
On Socrates's views, the principle that harming someone is always wrong is part of his broader ethical stance that no one willingly does harm. Socrates suggests that when people commit harmful acts, they do so out of ignorance, believing mistakenly that such actions will bring about good. This is in line with Socrates's belief that the greatest harm is to one's soul or character, which becomes corrupted through harmful actions.
Considering the harm principle, which holds that actions should be free as long as they do not harm others, this is distinctly reflected in John Stuart Mill's liberalism. The principle of not harming others finds resonance in various ethical teachings, such as the Indian concept of ahimsa (non-violence) and utilitarianism, which aims for the greatest good for the greatest number. This broad-reaching idea underscores the significance of moral actions and their implications for both the self and others.