Federererererer
Banned
I think one key point you're missing is that there is a sort of self-prescribed morality and ethics system in an existentialist point of view.
People are driven by their self-interests and as such, there will be lots of conflicting interests. However, nobody wants to die as they want to gain as much power and the such as possible. Therefore, though they are totally free to do whatever they want, they will only do things that they feel others should also be able to do. It's similar to the neighbor principle: in existentialism, because you take full responsibility for all of your actions, by choosing what you do for yourself, you are choosing for all men. By lying, you say it's okay for everyone to lie to you. By killing, you are proclaiming it's okay to murder left and right.
Oh god no, I'm a nihilist, not an existentialist, I lay no claim to morality, there is only conceivably subjective morality affecting the one, which is to me invalid. Who are you to say nobody wants to die. THAT IS A PLAIN AS DAY FALSITY. Many, many, many people want to die. You are presupposing that people should put value on their decisions, since they have meaning. They do not, it means nothing. To say I am choosing for all men is ignorant. I believe in complete freedom, to die, to live, to choose. IT IS NOT OKAY to kill and it is NOT NOT OKAY ok to kill. Your last sentence seems to be an effort to reduce my argument to absurdity (reductio ad absurdum). But it is not absurd to say that killing is ok, because it means as much as not killing, nothing.