Do what you want just as long as you dont hurt anyone?

Do what you want just as long as you don’t hurt anyone?
Have you every heard the saying which tries to establish an ethical foundation that “You can do what you want just as long as you don’t hurt anyone.” I used to think that this claim was pretty hard to fault until I looked at the deeper motivations of those who proclaim this ethical stance. The first question that has always jumped into my mind has been “How does one define hurt”. Is morality just based on what reactions happen with physical actions or is morality a little deeper. Is the “hurt” defined from the physical, emotional or motive or all three? And who defines here?

In our society today many hold on to the ethical system of relativism. That there is no absolute moral standard that exists for all people. For many if this did exist it would imply God’s existence. So ethical relativism with its claim that nothing is ultimately good or evil has tried to make a moral system that is livable in a community of people.
But the problem seems to be that every time a relativist tries to live as if they have absolute freedom they slip in some universal moral standards refuting there relativism.
For example, look at the universal, which is implied at the end of these claims,

“People can do what they want, just as long as they don’t hurt anyone.”
“You can do whatever you want, as long as its between two consenting adults”
“You can do whatever you want, as long as its in the privacy of your own home.”
“People can believe and do whatever they want, they should just be tolerant of others views.”

The problem with all these statements is that they start of giving every one absolute freedom, due to their relativism. But because relativism is unlivable they impose an absolute universal claim that every one must abide by, as if it was a universal moral claim independent of any one’s subjective views. We see again that when you try and tinkle with reality, you will be brought back to it. This is the same with rejecting God, try and deny him, you will affirm him. Let’s try this standard and see if it works,

“A man slips a drug in to a women’s drink and she falls a sleep (date rape). He takes precautions so that there are no consequences to his violating her. He does all this without hurting her or even without her knowing what has taken place. Hasn’t the man been able to do what he wants without harming the women. Is this act ok with us? While the man does not physical hurt the women or psychologically harm her because he is gone before she wakes up, we all know this is wrong!” We know that her universal rights which cant be grounded from relativism have been violated. Rape is universally wrong!

Another example, if we were to work in a mental ward with patients who have lost their minds, would we consider it ok to mock them even if they couldn’t understand or relate to reality. To most of us we know our words wouldn’t physical hurt them or mentally hurt them, but it would still be wrong to degrade some ones universal rights of dignity and worth. In our conscious we just seem to know that is wrong and mean.

Another example, you can do whatever you like, between two consenting people. So would agree to having pedophiles play with your kids?

My last example is if absolute freedom is ok, can one commit suicide? They would not be hurting any body else, but they would be hurting themselves and their friends. I think bringing harm to us is just as bad. We are killing life and a person, ourselves.

As I have shown relativism even when it tries to form an ethical system to deny an absolute moral standard independent from our opinions fails as it refutes itself. In trying to be individualist, they assume that they are part of a larger community, which we should take seriously.