Is There Anything Wrong With This Statement?

[Starwynd]

The statement is:

“Do what thou wilt at no harm to others”.

Also, I’m not interested in the source of the statement, the statement should be argued on its own merits.

 

[vee8]

Yes it breaks the first commandment I am the Lord your God and you shall have no other gods before me. The statement is putting oneself as a god because it is saying it is alright to do as I want as long as Im not hurting anyone that Im aware of. Our lives are to know love and serve God not to do as we want thinking no one is getting hurt.

Secondly the statement presupposes that I may do things that only involve myself as long as Im not hurting others and as we know from Catholic teaching this is not the case. We may do things that cause no direct harm to others but are enjoyable things to ourselves that in reality may be putting our mortal souls in peril of damnation.

Thirdly sin has repricussions that extend beyond ourselves so when we sin even though we dont think of it as a sin nor as hurting anyone even our selves we still actually are hurting people. Examples include artificial birth control and masturbation.

 

[StCsDavid]

The statement is:

“Do what thou wilt at no harm to others”.

Also, I’m not interested in the source of the statement, the statement should be argued on its own merits.

What if the other thou wilt no harm is about to do harm to another and the only way to prevent said harm is to harm the one about to commit it?

How do you know that your will is the end all and be all of wills? That’s the problem I have with the do unto others as you would have them do you. It presumes that my personal preference is a good fit for everyone. That’s highly unlikely.

 

[Badaliyyah]

The statement is:

“Do what thou wilt at no harm to others”.

Also, I’m not interested in the source of the statement, the statement should be argued on its own merits.

Its hard to pretend that the context doesn’t matter. I can think of phrases like Augustine’s famous, “Love God and do what you will”, which might seem objectionable in some contexts (an expression of antinomianism), but is a logical statement within the context of Augustine’s work.

As long as the relationship between self and others and God are rightly understood, there is no reason to think this statement is problematic. If they are not rightly understood then the statement will turn out to be very problematic.

salaam.

 

[crowonsnow]

The statement is:

“Do what thou wilt at no harm to others”.

Also, I’m not interested in the source of the statement, the statement should be argued on its own merits.

In spirit it’s a great sentiment. Legislating and executing it, however, is always the greater challenge.

 

[emotel]

The statement is:

“Do what thou wilt at no harm to others”.

Also, I’m not interested in the source of the statement, the statement should be argued on its own merits.

Is that “Net harm” or “Gross harm”.

Consider this:

You stand, in 1939, with a gun at Hitler’s head.

Do you pull the trigger?

Emotel.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

The statement is:

“Do what thou wilt at no harm to others”.

Also, I’m not interested in the source of the statement, the statement should be argued on its own merits.

I think this depends in large part on how you define “no harm.”

If I ignore a homeless person, have I done harm or not? In one sense no – I haven’t hurt him in any additional way. In one sense yes – I haven’t done anything to ease his situation.

Jesus didn’t tell us to “do no harm,” he told us to take action to feed the hungry, visit the sick, etc. I think we need to be active in making things better, not simply avoiding making them worse.

 

[Starwynd]

What if the other thou wilt no harm is about to do harm to another and the only way to prevent said harm is to harm the one about to commit it?

Would you clarify that statement and give examples of those kinds of situations?

 

[Starwynd]

Is that “Net harm” or “Gross harm”.

Consider this:

You stand, in 1939, with a gun at Hitler’s head.

Do you pull the trigger?

Emotel.

No, i wouldn’t pull the trigger.

For two reasons: one is that he would simply be replaced by another tyrant.

And two there has been some good to come out of his evil. A lot of tech was developed by Nazi Germany that has had huge impacts on our society, such as the first jet planes.

 

[BlaineTog]

The statement is:

“Do what thou wilt at no harm to others”.

The statement is solipsistic. It divides humanity into billions of little islands that are supposed to stay away from each other as much as possible. It is the antithesis of love.

(As for the Hitler thing, I’ve seen enough episodes of The Twilight Zone to know that that never works, but assuming it did, I still wouldn’t kill him because that would be murder, and murder is wrong. I would preach to him, using words if necessary.)

 

[DL82]

It’s a necessary, but not a sufficient, moral law.

It is the negative form of the Golden Rule, don’t do to others what you wouldn’t have them do to you (i.e. harm you).

It’s necessary, i.e. you can’t be moral without following it. But it’s not sufficient, i.e. following this rule ALONE is not enough to make you a moral person, from a Christian standpoint.

The other question which the statement begs is the definition of ‘do what you will’, is the will something more than the result of one’s passions, or does ‘do what you will’ mean the same as ‘do what you want’?

(Short note on its’ provenance - though often associated with Wicca, this rule basically derives from the 19th century liberalism of J S Mill, and was taken up and turned into a commandment by the 1930s English middle-class Wiccan founder Gerald Gardner.)