Libertarians, prove me you are not degenerates

Ok, just found out you libertarians cling so strongly to the harm principle when evaluating how moral something is that you are perfectly okay with the most outrageous things.

Tell me if you'd be okay with the following scenarios. These are all unlikely hypothetical situations but please assume they could happen. Feel free to ignore some if tl;dr:

1. A priest masturbates to gay hentai porn of small kids and nobody knows about it. He never harmed and will never harm a kid;

2. Your best friend is dying. A few hours before dying he asks you to take care and (at least try) to adopt his child. The kid no longer has a mother because she died and there’s nobody else to take care of him (no grandfather or aunt or anything). You lie to him and you say you’ll do it to make him feel better. You have no intention of keeping your promise and you don’t know what happens to the kid in the end;

3. A guy is at her friend's house. She's sick but it’s nothing contagious. She asks him to grab her meds and he gives her a drug that lets him rape her. She feels nothing, there are no side effects to the drug and he effectively prevents her from knowing it ever happened by claiming she fell asleep due to the meds, by wearing protection, etc. She'll never know about it and they'll continue to be friends. Assume all of this is possible;

4. Considering GTA, a guy puts 3D models of his close family inside the game and proceeds to massacre them all in every possible way imaginable in the game. His family doesn't know about it;

5. Same as 4, but he does it in front of his family;

6. In war, consider a soldier and the corpse of his enemy. He did not kill him. The whole platoon of this dead soldier died with him, he has no close friends or relatives at home. He joined the military to turn his life around. Evaluate separately the four cases: the soldier cuts the tongue of his enemy and keeps it as a prize, defecates on him, rapes him or eats him. Nobody will ever know about it;

7. Same as 6, but now the dead guy is a comrade of the soldier. They were in the same platoon and everybody in it is dead except for the soldier in question;

8. A mother, after her child dies, throws him the dumpster. She hid her pregnancy from relatives and she lives far away from them. The father doesn't even know she was pregnant because he abandoned her beforehand. He does not care about her at all and she knows it;

9. A father fantasizes about raping his baby child. Nobody knows about this;

10. A father masturbates next to his sleeping 3 year old child, whilst fantasizing about raping him. Nobody knows about this and the kid does not wake up (he’s a heavy sleeper);

11. A father watches his 20 year old son taking several doses of heroin every day and does nothing about it. His son is addicted and physically weak. The father pays for everything without complaining. His son started doing it on his own;

12. A guy visits his father’s grave and, when he is completely alone, spits on his photo. He cleans it afterward so nobody finds out what he did. He does it because his father was sick and he had to take care of him for several years;

13. Think of two academics who are close friends. One of them is old and sick, never had kids and no longer has a family, but is currently writing a potentially groundbreaking paper. After he dies, his colleague finds out about the paper and publishes it without giving him due credit. He becomes worldly acclaimed as a result;

14. Two single siblings (guy and gal) voluntary engage in incest in secret. Think of nastiest thing you could find in a porn site. They do that to each other whilst cursing their parents. She’s infertile.

How much of a degenerate are you?

I never considered myself a libertarian but I see no problem with most of this stuff besides the ones which actually could cause harm. If you tell your dying friend you don't intend to take care of his child your friend at least has the possibility of finding someone who will. Killing your family in a GTA mod while they watch would probably cause them to try and find you help or at least separate themselves from a violent person. The rest in your first post I don't really see what the big deal is. The rape situation is kind of fucked but it's essentially the same thing as being able to reverse time.

I reread OP and actually yeah morally a lot of this stuff would make you a fucked up individual but I need a good definition of "moral" to say for certain if these are immoral acts.

You don't feel anything at all or just some repulsion which you control by claiming "Meh, noone was harmed.".

Also, you do realize most people would react very negatively to most if not all of these, right?

I just asked you if you would morally condemn a person who's doing this. I don't think you need a definition for that. They are not close to you and you don't know many details, as to prevent a contradiction in the cases where nobody knows about anything.

Also, if you suspect someone is doing any of this, is there any case where you would support someone using force to find out and prevent him?

OP, all your points basically boil down to "if you commit a crime while nobody's watching, its still a crime?"
Yes, it's still a crime, you don't need a magical fairy to know that.

I only have people not watching to prevent people from saying "oh, but their friends or family were harmed!". The most striking exception is point 4. And many instances here are not crimes.

I'm not reading all of that. You have made a grave mistake here by assuming we should legislate morality.

There are many things I would consider immoral that I would never want to see legislated. The state exists to defend basic rights like property and such. Issues of personal conduct which do not harm others are for you to do deal with on your own.

Are you saying that these things are simply immoral or that they ought to be illegal?

What if any of these cases is found out and people actively shun that person from society. Would you want the state to do nothing?

The state has no business forcing association between people. You do not have a right to people's time or social interaction with them.

To me, they are all immoral. Some should be illegal, some shouldn't. The ones that shouldn't are mostly because of unfeasibility.

Still, my main goal here is to argue that you do not use the harm principle when gauging the morality of people's actions. There are many people here who would find most if not all of these points ok morally.

So people in point 14 (the incest case) are caught, shunned, and they have to leave the city they live in? If they want to keep their relationship and everybody shuns him, they die?

You are an idiot. The harm principle is help discern where the state should get involved. Legality is not morality just as illegality does not equate to immorality.

If you want to discuss ethics why don't you start by laying out what fundamental price you base your views on. So far all you have provided is your feefees getting hurt by various hypothetical scenarios. Feelings aren't a basis for morality.

Depends on the libertarian you talk too. Many are deontologists and wouldn't care about these situations. I'm a consequentialist so I can concede that some of them are immoral. I can't find many here that ought to be illegal.

Some of these situations are just silly though. I guess that you are a Christian and have some metaphysical notion of "purity" within your world view and live under the idea that God is always watching.

Stop making up fictional scenarios and start discussing ethical principles.

I would think they were a shitty human being if I knew they were doing any of these things but I wouldn't do anything to them especially out of suspicion.

Maybe crimes wasn't the best description. I mean negative things. If something negative exists, but nobody knows it, it's still something negative?
Yes. Individuals with violent tendencies are negative. Priest with pedophilic tendencies are negative. Soldiers with brutal tendencies are negative. But you are cheating, because you're starting that they will never put their tendencies into practice. The reason why these things are considered negative in the first place is because of the latent danger of the individual acting them out.

>I'm a consequentialist
Kek. Please leave and come back when you have grown up and adpoted a legitimate ethical theory.

Feelings/intuition are not everything but they are a pretty good gauge, especially because most people would agree that these cases are immoral.

There is no principle for morality. It is irreducible. When you attempt to derive morality logically, you will always arrive at solutions which you yourself or at least most people would find abhorrent. Our intuition is the only gauge you can test your principle morality against and there is no system which will never contradict it. Instead, it is defined case by case.

1. A ok
2. degenerate
3. degenerate
4. A ok
5. A ok
6. All 4 cases are A ok
7. A ok
8. letting the kid die is degenerate, but throwing it away is A ok
9. A ok
10. Degenerate, but A ok.
11. No human would ever do this, but a ok.
12. A ok
13. degenerate
14. A ok.

Would I personally do any of the things you listed, no.

Well no one forced them to leave. They put others in a position to not want to acquaint themselves with them and there's nothing illegal about that.

>Instead, it is defined case by case.
Kill yourself.

>hay guys, check out THESE hypothetical situations!

Such as what?

That's how people writing about ethics gauge what they are doing. They write out the principles and they see if everything checks out. If you delineate a moral theory that goes wildly against people's intuitions on important scenarios, you'll be alone and people will think you are an immoral degenerate.

Why does everyone hold libertarians to such a retarded high standard to be socially acceptable? Everyone literally gets cucked by the government on a daily basis and that is just accepted if you are a R or a D. No R or D has to answer for it. But libertarians have to answer for the priests jerking off to anime. Fuck you OP.

Are you saying none of these things ever happened? I find that implausible.

You have no idea what you are taking about. The whole point of testing theories is to see if they are rationally consistent. Feelings have little to nothing to do with it. If your theory doesn't hold up across a range of scenarios then it is shit.

What you stated is moral relativism which is universally shunned by anyone who takes philosophy seriously. It is the product of cultural Marxist attempts to undermine the field.

Fine. Your solution is probably more punishing than what a state would do, though.

There are your feelings again. Jesus Christ. Are you on the rag this week or something?

I am not supporting moral relativism, no. It's very easy to make rationally consistent theories. You do need people to accept them, though. That's the impossible part and why it is irreducible.

You cannot separate emotion/feelings from reason, ever. You need emotion to evaluate the tiniest thing in your life. Reason is just a tool for you to act according to your emotions/feelings.

>It's very easy to make rationally consistent theories.
How much time you spent studying this topic? I am guessing none.

Did you read the rest of the post?

Yes I did Satan. Now I understand why you are shilling so hard against sound ethics. Praise kek for revealing you.

>sound ethics
Fantasizing about raping your kid is okay.

>Putting words in my mouth
>Challenging people to an ethical debate and then refusing to put forth any arguments

I did. You don't agree with them on principle because you believe morality should be treated as:

1. Here's X. This is undeniable.
2. Here's Y. This is also undeniable.
3. to 100. Now these logically follow from 1 and 2 (and from each other).
In the end, you either ignore or accept some conclusions in a way people find abhorrent. Then, you don't understand what's going on with people and why they are accepting of many things you find immoral. And it's all because your system is forcing principles upon people.

Who builds the roads?

if there is physical contact then that is the a crime. however, #1 is not a crime and other stuff without physical assault. something like #3 you should be charged with. i didn't read the rest cause it seems pretty retarded. as a libertarians, economic freedom is first priority

Lolbertarians are just flowers yet to blossom into authoritarian/fascist.

I'm kind of asking you if things are moral or not, not if they are a crime. For many cases here, you could legislate but you wouldn't be able to do anything with the law.

if there is physical harm done then it is not immoral. And i also believe in patents yes.

I always thought that libertarians were against rape on the principles of ownership, not the principle of harm. After all, they believe rights can be violated without harm being dealt.

Only true for ancaps in my experience.

no, we actually have values and high IQ

There is nothing inherently wrong about victimless crimes.
Btw, are you that guy who always spams ancap memes and such? If yes, what's your political ideology?

...

I am not. That guy is on the other thread, I think. He has a username, I don't.

excise your bizarre child and babby rape fetishes elsewhere

shoo, shoo

I purposefully chose points that people find universally wrong. Many have to do with the purity and dignity of children. Go figure.

Fucking hell Portugal.
You scare me.