Our legal system doesn't push "harm" per se, but rather harm caused unjustly[1]. E.g. it harms me a company raises the price of a product that happens to be in

Our legal system doesn't push "harm" per se, but rather harm caused unjustly[1]. E.g. it harms me a company raises the price of a product that happens to be in demand ("price gouging") but that company has every right to do so as it owns the product. One way we can reconcile the utilitarian notion of harm, with the property rights/natural rights approach is through economic theory. The so called "welfare theorems" of economics state that when every person maximizes their own utility (under the assumptions of a perfect market), then the result is pareto optimal. From this it follows that in a society with redistribution of wealth, no person has a right to complain that another person has "harmed" them by way how they behaved in the free market. Outside of the economic realm, the argument for natural rights is even stronger. How can you compare cheating, which is a consensual act, with robbery? At most cheating could be considered a violation of a contract, e.g. a prenuptial agreement. By completely ignoring the role of natural rights and property rights in the law and in moral reasoning, you are engaging in sophistry. [1] e.g. "[with developments such as the Model Penal Code] crime increasingly became conceptualized as the wrongful imposition of risk" (my emphasis) in "Making the Best of Felony Murder" http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/binder.pdf http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/binder...