/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13129096]

>Do anything as long as it doesn't hurt others
What can you say against it, anon? What led this statement to be the ultimate moral axiom of modernity?

[Anonymous No.13129100]

Everything has the potential to hurt others, even if only indirectly.

[Anonymous No.13129103]

>>13129096
>What led this statement to be the ultimate moral axiom of modernity?
You can make money on it.

[Anonymous No.13129104]

>>13129100
Bingo

[Anonymous No.13129113]

>>13129100
Came to post. Setting oneself up as one who can even know (what hurts others) is to play God.

[Anonymous No.13129114]

this is literally Coke commercial morality
marketing companies plaster this message everywhere so you feel justified in spending your money on the bullshit they're trying to sell you

[Anonymous No.13129238]

>>13129100
>>13129113
My internal strawman asks:
>But what is wrong about trying to minimize that harm?

[Anonymous No.13129326]

>>13129096
Civilization is dependent upon order and permanence. A lifestyle of decadence and constant flux will send us back to the dark ages. Soon people will grow bored and begin to beg for their own destruction.

[Anonymous No.13129374]

>>13129326
>"In those days there was no king <...>: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." -- Judges 21:25

[Anonymous No.13129387]

>>13129326
>>13129374
100%

[Anonymous No.13129431]

>>13129096
*post-modernity

[Anonymous No.13129448]

>>13129096
I’m dtf. But I ain’t tryin to play games
I think God wants us to enjoy and love each other, but I don’t think the way we go about it is at all honest, loving or joyous and it’s because we don’t really want to fuck, we just want to get fucked, like a death wish. Real fucking involves two people, that way no one gets hurt. I think the problem with concerning consent revolves around this hidden situation where girls look for guys to fuck them, and find someone who wants to do just that, and they realize all too late that they were raped, used, humiliated by someone who was there to do exactly that. The confusion sets in, and it’s already too late. It’s true, a man should not act out on a females insecurities, whether it would bring him ultimate pleasure or not, but a girl should do well not to put herself in a situation where she’s basically a sex doll. I mean, real sex, the really good kind that you see in porn, those are two consenting people fucking each other. If it gets rough, it’s still consensual. There aren’t any games being played, no hidden contracts with the devil, who is actually using the both of you to destroy each other. The woman looses her dignity, but the man also looses his pride in being a man. Good fucking happens when two people come together, and sublime tantric sex, that’s 100% love, it’s holy, it’s godly

[Anonymous No.13129619]

There exist extant individuals who deserve to be hurt.

[Anonymous No.13129633]

>>13129448
you're a consumer of glycine max and you should realize that there is no such thing as consent outside of marriage

[Anonymous No.13129675]

>>13129633
Great response anon. that’s incredible. Wow.

[Anonymous No.13129683]

>>13129675
cope harder slut

[Anonymous No.13129692]

>>13129448
Big cringe.

[Anonymous No.13129695]

>>13129100
OP's maxim might be saved if he were to posit that 'harm' must only apply in matters of the soul. If I harm someone (physically) by accident, I have not done it deliberately (I have not harmed their soul). Suppose I am trying to save someone and I end up doing damage to them--morally, if I have acted right, I am not culpable for harming them. Legally I might be, but we are speaking of matters of morality. In morality it is intention that counts, for with the soul, I can only harm someone with bad intention, with malicious thought. What I do to their body matters little compared with this.

But you will say, "so that means if I perform violent acts upon another person but my intention is good, that makes it ok?" Yes, that is what I am saying. You may vainly try to imagine some scenario where a vicious act might be performed with good intentions, but if in fact it is a vicious act, it cannot have proceeded from good intentions. Murder is morally indefensible, not because it is wrong to physically harm someone (which might as well happen by accident), but because I have carried out an action with intention. Otherwise there is really no such thing as the concept of murder, since it is the activity of the soul (motivation) which counts.

If you do not believe in the soul, then there really can be no such thing as murder or morality--since flesh cannot transgress against flesh (it is all the same anyway). Only with the concept of a soul, which I posit both of myself and the other person, do I posit the notion of lawful and unlawful behavior. For in the realm of causality, in which every movement might have an unforeseen consequence which proceeds according to physical laws, it is absurd to think of moral accountability. Only in the realm of free will and agency do I put myself in a position where I can exercise responsibility over something which is entirely my own (my will) and therefore choose whether or not I forfeit that responsibility.

[Anonymous No.13129696]

>>13129683
I’d say there’s no such thing as consent outside of love. That’s as far as I’m willing to agree with you

[Anonymous No.13129703]

>>13129692
Yea sorry to pop your bubble

[Anonymous No.13129712]

>>13129448
Nothin personnel

[Anonymous No.13129721]

>>13129696
love and marriage are one and the same in this context
if you love someone, why would you not swear a lifelong oath to them? because your love is conditional, obviously, and conditional love is like a doorknob on a rotating door, that is, fucking worthless
there is no consent outside of marriage

[Anonymous No.13129746]

>>13129696
So do you think porn stars love eachother, lol.

[Anonymous No.13129767]

>>13129374
This is a Greek board.
"The father will not agree with his children, nor the children with their father, nor guest with his host, nor comrade with comrade; nor will brother be dear to brother as aforetime. Men will dishonour their parents as they grow quickly old, and will carp at them, chiding them with bitter words, hard-hearted they, not knowing the fear of the gods. They will not repay their aged parents the cost their nurture, for might shall be their right: and one man will sack another's city. There will be no favour for the man who keeps his oath or for the just or for the good; but rather men will praise the evil-doer and his violent dealing. Strength will be right and reverence will cease to be; and the wicked will hurt the worthy man, speaking false words against him, and will swear an oath upon them. Envy, foul-mouthed, delighting in evil, with scowling face, will go along with wretched men one and all. And then Aidos and Nemesis [shame of wrongdoing and indignation against the wrongdoer], with their sweet forms wrapped in white robes, will go from the wide-pathed earth and forsake mankind to join the company of the deathless gods: and bitter sorrows will be left for mortal men, and there will be no help against evil."
- Hesiod, Works and Days

[Anonymous No.13129771]

>>13129721
I see where your coming from but human relations are lit so cut and dry. I agree with the ideal, but in practice you gotta improvise. “Marriage” comes with all these phony notions, whereas love is cross cultural and doesn’t need a handbook and yet remains in virtue I believe. I think you can love someone and fuck them without being married and without hurting people is my point

[Anonymous No.13129777]

>>13129746
Absolutely. When they don’t you can tell and it’s awkward and boring

[Anonymous No.13129819]

>>13129767
And then he came

[Anonymous No.13131266]

>>13129819
Reminder that he came not to save society, but to show the path of salvation to an individual.

[Anonymous No.13131271]

>>13129096
You can't say anything against it.

[Anonymous No.13131302]

My main problem with it is that most of the people who say this do not live up to it. They may say so, but then they obsess over enforcing their own personal tastes and values on each other. Also, differing groups have differing ideas of what harms others. For instance, many urban Americans think guns inherently hurt others and should be banned despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the fact that such laws would result in harm to the livelihoods, culture, wallets, property rights, and general liberty of many Americans. Most populations have these sorts of biases that prevent them from living up to this ideal. It's also technically impossible because we must consume resources to live at the expense of others, but that's just economics and everybody knows that there is no possibility of true morality in either economics or politics.

[Anonymous No.13131341]

Humans are incapable of living truly moral lives because survival depends on consuming resources at the expense of other beings. To live a life in which you survive and help others without ever harming others is the highest ideal, but it is impossible. We need assistance from outside this material world to break free of our pitiful lives and the suffering of this kind of existence. Amida and Jesus are good guys, and they will help you out.

[Anonymous No.13131345]

>>13129096
oooh ooh madotsuki oh yes yes mmmmm

[Anonymous No.13131377]

>>13131341
>To live a life in which you survive and help others without ever harming others is the highest ideal
WRONK!
https://youtu.be/VwUDD5xaxfg

[Anonymous No.13131411]

>>13131377
It is, though. It's the highest ideal possible in a world without God. Since we live in a world in which this highest ideal is impossible, we have to serve those who make it so. What is the highest ideal if this isn't true, then?

[Anonymous No.13131441]

>>13131411
Define help and harm.
And who are we serving in the face of this impossibility of the ideal?
The highest ideal is to make fools serve you, while taking their women and turning them into twitch thots.

[Anonymous No.13131458]

>>13129777
That's called acting

[Anonymous No.13131463]

>>13131441
Please read the Pure Land sutras.

[Anonymous No.13131465]

>>13129100
Ouch

[Anonymous No.13132561]

>>13129096
Because its babby tier philosophy that enables people to be hedonistic scum while remaining guilt free.

[Anonymous No.13132627]

>>13129096
It's basic bitch milquetoast liberal ethics that makes hedonism and degeneracy like gay marriage and the legalization of drugs permissible. On the flip side, the "don't harm anyone" ethic can also be used to censor some provisions of free speech by defining it as hate speech.

[Anonymous No.13132652]

>>13129326
>Now what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?
Those people were a kind of solution.

[Anonymous No.13132656]

>>13131463
Why not just answer my questions?

[Anonymous No.13132677]

>do anything as long as makes the world a more aesthetic place
Argue with this