Do you whatever you want as long as you do't hurt anyone

>Do you whatever you want as long as you do't hurt anyone

This is the single greatest moral system ever devised and you cannot dismantle or disprove it

Other urls found in this thread:

telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1552482/Missing-girls-body-put-into-kebab.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Fags and muslims hurt my eyes

Define hurting someone and explain how your individual actions do not have any greater affect than on yourself. You make the claim, so you answer the questions.

thats no different that saying
>do good
except that any society that fully accepts yours will surely be destroyed.

>never hurt anyone for any reason
>muslims move in next door
>rape daughter
>kill dog
>beat you in the street

wow great

>a behavior is incorrectly labelled as non harmful and its negative affect is both slow building and hard to identify

latinas are superior to other women in every way

>guy fucks your wife
what you gon do about it, fight me?

>Do you whatever you want
Teenagers man

...

This is a stupid platitude that pseudo intellectuals and brainlets love to parrot because it sounds watertight and smart but isn't

I've seen faggots like you use it, for example, as a justification for smoking copious amounts of weed, but what you fail to realise is that when your money changes hands with weed dealers, those funds usually go towards unknown and usually nefarious causes as drug dealers (even for marijuana) are generally criminal people.

If you were to live your life by this stupid pseudo maxim you would literally get nothing done. Your moral outlook has to extend much further beyond what brings you pleasure and doesn't hurt others. Especially because a retard like you can't be trusted to understand the ramification of his own actions.

How do you handle omissions?
>letting someone drown
>managing perceived harm like regulating monopolies?

jews take over banking system. Millions hurt financially. jews get the gas

>Do you whatever you want as long as you do't hurt anyone
>make a contract you cant keep, but its okay because you didnt physically harm anyone
Either lrn2freedom or fuck off

What if the muslims didn't do those things, what if we had an agreement not to be aggresive to eachother. what could of a world like this entail?

I hate women like her, literally every man they encounter will be dying to please them because of big titty and they will be entitled as fuck because they have so many choices. Meanwhile I'm an average guy working hard to get people to notice me and even talk to me

Why so unfair ;__;

causing them physical or emotional harm. They don't im an individual and you are an individual as long as you leave me alone i'll leave you alone

Welll he heart so therfore im justified in hurtin him back, but if a muzzie lives next door and doesn't harm me, I cannot complain

name a behavior that's like that.

He harmed me first so I must harm him back

this

*forms a white-only proprietary community*
not hurting anyone

No. I'll leave her because she's a degenerate whore. If you touch me I'll shoot you and be protected under castle doctrine.

That's a fucking man.
That adam's apple is the size of my scrotum.

Or include in the marriage contract that you get to rape/kill/torture her if she cheats

WTF I LOVE ANCAP NOW

Everything hurts someone. Alternatively, deciding what does and does not constitute harm is completely arbitrary. It's an empty shell with rhetorical force but no logical substance, like all libertarian talkingpoints.

>cannot disprove it
That is because it is prescriptive.
>can not dismantle it
Who decides who or what is hurting who?
What if you need to perform a smaller evil (hurt a single person) in order to salvage a greater good (not hurt a lot of people)?
That moral calculus of which good takes precedence whether it be quantity (we should hurt less people) or quality (we can not make a descision that hurts anyone/we would stick to a principle and allow a thousand men to die justly than one man to die unjustly)

That is the same moral cancer as "You have an obligation to help others if it doesn't hurt you more than it would hurt the other if you didn't help them."

It is self-refuting. In logical terms, it equates to:

You can do whatever you want

AND

You cannot hurt anyone

---
Clearly, these are conflicting statements.

Second hand smoke is one example

Emotional harm has no objective metric like physical harm. Sone people are babies and will consider any slight emotional harm.

>What if the muslims didn't do those things
what if they groom thousands of underage girls for sexual slavery (rotherham) or rape them then grind them up into kebab meat
telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1552482/Missing-girls-body-put-into-kebab.html

I can smell your tay sachs and crohns from over here, OP

he didn't harm anyone, your wife liked it cuck boy
exactly, thats why op is dumb as fuck

This was meant for

Do whatever you want while making the world a better place and learning

V O L U N T A R Y
A S S O C I A T I O N

>Muuuh feelings

Your daughter will belong to a Muslim man

Shuckin and jivin

>Welll he heart so therfore im justified in hurtin him back
lmao did you type this by slamming your face into your keyboard?

this allows for usury

No it's not.

For example, how does having gay sex hurt anyone? Yet Sup Forums is obsessed with telling people faggots are immoral. Fags do not hurt ANYONE by doing fag shit

that's why he said as long as you fucking retard

>allow a thousand men to die justly than one man to die unjustly
Come to think of it, this is nothing short of a refutation of your moral system because within the very existence of your system is a self contradiction which implies the existence or the operational existence of an underlying morality or moral principle.
The moral system you put forth is more like an adage as the result of an actual moral system, rather than a system itself.
>causing them physical or emotional harm
what do you mean by "cause"?
Do you mean directly or indirectly?
Suppose I tell a man to charge at the police and he gets shot, did I "cause" his death? Suppose I am the police and I shoot the man myself, did I "cause" his death?
Did the doctor who couldn't save the man "cause" his death?

He violated the contract that me and my wife have , to only have relations with each other. That's harm

He caused his own death

>how does having gay sex hurt anyone?
Undermines the fundamental suppositions of Western Society by actions which in practice are the result of a social undermining and continue to perpetrate such undermining.
For instance it undermines the family unit.
This in turn hurts literally everyone in the nation/society/tribe/whatever.

Usury would fall under the concept of hurting someone financially.

how does it undermine the family unit?

Why is the family unit worth preserving if it can be so easily undermined?

Ok, why?
Suppose I shoot a man because I was having a bad day and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, did I or the man cause his death?
please answer

If you do things better than your neighbor it hurts their feelings.

Your wife violated the contract
he can't have violated it because he never entered into contract with you

You don't have to borrow money from the jew

Some people need to be hurt. For example, the autistic pacifists who bloviate about libertarianism while their nation crumbles around them

You have not refuted my position through asserting my position is false.

You are trying to utilize OP's argument to justify homosexual actions. I am merely saying the foundation of that argument is self-refuting. There may be more convincing ways to justify homosexual acts but OP's argument is not one of them.

Wait a second my guy.
Here's another question, your moral system is prescriptive, not descriptive. By what authority do you say "It is morally just to not hurt others."?

>BANG

now you are dead and your system is irrelevant.

not trying to be edgy, that is why individualism always falls to collectivism, because the group is stronger than the individual.

additionally, your wording is extremely vague. everyone hurts everyone by existing because they consume resources. The vast majority of the industrialized world consume more than they create therefore they hurt the minority that produce. What should be done about them?

your retarded 10 second 'system' was just falsified twice in 10 seconds.

faggot

>he can't have violated it because he never entered into contract with you
this
OP btfo

it's good, but how do you know when you don't hurt someone?
Is letting someone jump off a cliff hurting them, or is it tackling them to prevent it?

>I am only trading
>Ruining millions of people's life
>WTF CALM DOWN

Nigger.

OP BTFO

Anyway:
Good moral systems are ones that promote stability in society even if everyone DOESN'T follow them.
This is why your system is a failure... It doesn't encourage the good to suppress the bad.

Counterpoint: Does that not still fall under the system? Since you are hurting people by buying weed, you shouldn't buy weed. Your attempt to discredit this presupposition is rooted in an ad hominem on weed smokers, who do not connect to the principle other than that they use it to justify their own actions. Your argument is not an attempt to dismantle the principle, but simply is an insult to a minority of believers in this principle.

>Your wife violated the contract
>he can't have violated it because he never entered into contract with you
>>he can't have violated it because he never entered into contract with you
>this
>OP btfo

Wouldn't this mean rape can't be immoral to the husband who's wife was raped?
Also if the wife enjoys it then no one was hurt.
thus it is a moral (or at least not immoral) action.

of course i can
it fully allows all hedonism
and just about everything that went on in sodom and gommorah
but most vitally:
it doesnt include Christ
game over

It is still self-refuting. The latter statement (You cannot hurt anyone) restricts the former (You can do whatever you want). Therefore, I cannot do whatever I want.

p.s. you havent reduced that to its very fundament

to its very quintessence

which is:
"do not initiate force"
i.e. the NAP

that's retarded. just because an action doesn't directly hurt someone doesn't mean it can't indirectly hurt them. this is literally the concept of the Butterfly effect. kill yourself you libertarian scum

no
go be retarded somewhere else

The group might kill the individual, but it's never managed to conquer that individual's mind.

Ours is an empire of the mind, whereas your empire consists of fucking rocks. Enjoy.

While you're at it, help humanity conquer the stars. I really want to go.

wrong
it is a universal with one condition, one caveat

a condition that restricts part of a universal is perfectly logically OK (by the logic of math)

just because part of it is not allowed, is rescinded, does not mean it all is

*tips fedora* *teleports behind u*
pshh

So people can steal from you all they want so long as you're not physically hurt?

> doesn't directly hurt someone doesn't mean it can't indirectly hurt them.

though op is not very bright, i think he meant that to be an included condition by implication

It's only a good moral system if the whole world adopts it. Most cultures don't, and some are aggressive.

>>Do you whatever you want as long as you do't hurt anyone

You forgot the "Without their permission" part at the end, there....

Also, you didn't mention property crimes.

literally not a single flaw in what I said.
If it's not hurting anyone, then it isn't wrong. If a rape doesn't hurt anyone, than a rape isn't wrong. No contract between any party is willingly breached.

of course there is
for one small thing:
it doesnt allow for surgeons
it doesnt allowed for parents to protect their children from otherwise lethally risky behavior

and many more

the NAP beats your platitude entirely and infinitely hands down in every and all scenarios

You caused his death. You pulled the trigger

>Who decides who or what is hurting who?
Each individual decides that for himself

>That moral calculus of which good takes precedence whether it be quantity (we should hurt less people) or quality (we can not make a descision that hurts anyone/we would stick to a principle and allow a thousand men to die justly than one man to die unjustly)That is the same moral cancer as "You have an obligation to help others if it doesn't hurt you more than it would hurt the other if you didn't help them."

MUH KANTIAN ETHICS MUH PRINCPLES

Everyone acts in the own self interests in the end. Subscribing to a restrictive and oppressive ethical theory only makes your life difficult

>Do you whatever you want as long as you do't hurt anyone
Good job surviving your liberal college cuck

woops
sorry
though you were op

>>Who decides who or what is hurting who?
>Each individual decides that for himself

no, reality TELLS, no one "decides"

This. This ancap bullshit is just an attempt to ignore long-term consequences, ignore actions that are harmless when one person does it but deadly when a thousand do it, and ignore tragedy of the commons.

Agreed. Nu-Sup Forums doesn't realize they're the exact same as the SJWs. Old-Sup Forums was vehemently ancap libertarians who supported ron paul. Nu-Sup Forums will sperg out if they see a white guy with an asian chick or a white girl with a black guy. Nu-Sup Forums will sperg out if a private company wishes to fire someone for posting nazi shit online. Nu-Sup Forums likes to dictate every action and thought you have else you're not part of the "club".

the entirity of your statement is predicated on OP's idiotic flawed nonsensical statement
i say again
No
Go be retarded somewhere else.

> mfw I'll never recover

if you take it to that extreme, humans are taken back to the stone ages

so..... if the world was RESET and all masses of people allowed to start fresh civilizations, the choice is yours, but if you follow the "logical extreme" of the NAP then you will be quickly eclipsed in progress in every way by just about everyone

>Each individual decides that for himself
Well, I think Bob is harming me when he puts a fence up and it interferes with my morning jog and he thinks my morning jog is harming the nature trail he likes to hunt by. Since we are each deciding for ourselves, we decide to shoot at each other until one of us is 6 feet under.
If each individual decides what is moral for his or herself, it makes way for egotistical "might makes right" philosophy that is completely supported.
>Everyone acts in the own self interests in the end
That is a terrible fucking theory user. It can't be falsified at all and a good theory needs to be able to be proven false. How can you prove why someone does something?

It is rescinded due to the conflict. Better wordage of the argument should be made to correct it.

Perhaps

"No one can hurt other people"

But, the current form of the argument is self-conflicting.

Your existence is hurting me you cis-gendered white male. How offensive.

*entirety

:)

It's actually a pretty weak system as it's predicated on the idea that initiating violence is morally wrong but hurting someone can be the moral choice.

>But, the current form of the argument is self-conflicting.

no, it just states that one set of things has but a (one) subset that is a special case (and the only one) that is excluded

you are misusing the word "contradict"

I don't think you know what an Adam's Apple is.

sorry, meant you are misusing the word "conflicting"

The only requirement for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Not picking a side is still picking a side. Not picking a side is for beta cucks.

>The group might kill the individual, but it's never managed to conquer that individual's mind.

how the fuck would you know? any idea that was erased would be unknown by definition, and you have no way of knowing it. Also, groups conquer peoples minds all the fucking time. Now, do you think that over the history of humanity NO idea was ever ground into oblivion entirely, or are you extraordinarily naive?

you think your logic is so air-tight but you fail to realize that there exists a null condition and you can not prove that the null condition had not been met several times over.

Also, you never refuted or attempted to refute my other critique of your retarded system, a critique that leads you directly to communism.

>Do you whatever you want as long as you do't hurt anyone

Except the human mind can come up with excuses in order to justify and rationalize their behavior.

Pedophile:
>the child liked it and orgasmed. I didn't really hurt her!

Drug user idiots:
>I don't hurt anybody when I get high! Just forget about the news of drug addicts eating people when stoned out of their minds or raping women in their 90s because he thought she was a beauty when high! I'm not hurting anyone!

Pro-abortionists:
>My body, my choice! I'm not hurting anyone! What's inside me isn't a living human being! It's just a clump of cells!

So fuck off satanist. Your ideology is solely the reason why the world is shit today and going towards a downward spiral.

your scrotum are small

more evidence/substance of why the NAP wipes the floor with OP's platitude

>your mansplaining is hurting me wtf even

deheheheheheheheeh

In his defense the actual claim is not you can do whatever you want, the person who wrote that is an idiot. The whole libertarian/ancap project is defined negatively, as in Isaiah Berlin's concept of negative liberty. You are not free to DO (this will inevitably lead to contradictions) but you are free FROM things.

It is the greatest moral system, it allows all men to be kings of their own lives. The great evolution of man will come from a free society.

Communist degenerate.