"The traditional approach has tended to obscure the nature of the choice that has to be made. The question is commonly thought of as one in which A inflicts harm on B and what has to be decided is: how should we restrain A? But this is wrong. We are dealing with a problem of a reciprocal nature. To avoid the harm to B would inflict harm on A. The real question that has to be decided is: should A be allowed to harm B or should B be allowed to harm A? The problem is to avoid the more serious harm" (Coase, 2)

In this passage Ronald Coase introduces the notion of reciprocal harm. can you please explain the conception of harm held in the 'traditional approach and how it differs from the reciprocal approach. How would mainstream economists make determinations about the seriousness of harm? What criteria might judges use to make determinations about the seriousness of harm? Are we satisfied with Coase's reciprocal approach? Why or why not? Are there forms of harm that cannot be captured within this framework?