NationStates Jolt Archive

Born of wandering thoughts on the UK and death penalty thread.

Why is murder considered immoral?

Born of wandering thoughts on the UK and death penalty thread.

Why is murder considered immoral?Think of what things would be like if it wasn't (immoral or unethical, take your pick):

A society where going around killing people for whatever reason probably wouldn't last on grounds of the lack of security. You'd end up with individuals forming subcultures that vow not to murder eachother in order to survive, and presto, murder is immoral or unethical within those subcultures.

Are you really asking this, Peep-sama? :eek:

It is difficult to define - you may as well ask, Why do we have morals?

Are you really asking this, Peep-sama? :eek:

I am yes. However there is point to my asking.:D

I am yes. However there is point to my asking.:D

Wakatta. I´ll seat back and think about this before answering your question.

Born of wandering thoughts on the UK and death penalty thread.

Why is murder considered immoral?

Depends who you kill. If they're brown enough or if you suspect their god might have a bigger dick than your god then it's okay to kill them. *nod*

It is difficult to define - you may as well ask, Why do we have morals?

Okay then to start the ball rolling let me have a bash at it myself.

If you kill somebody, you take away their choice, not only that but everybody else connected with that person. It's the ultimate act of power over another human.

This is immoral, if you want to live by what ever veriation of the 'golden rule' you subscribe to (and I belive that the majority of us do) then you have to extend the same to everyone else. By murdering somebody, you take away all of their lifes choices, you force them to live not by their rules, but to die according to your will. You impose your will over their own.

An action that, if everyone did it, would destroy society is immoral.

I think that's basically a generalization of Kant, not sure. I probably butchered it.

Another morality thread?


Noooooooooooooooooooooo!

*commits suicide*

Another morality thread?


Noooooooooooooooooooooo!

*commits suicide*

Heheh sorry, but it is something that I wonder about!

An action that, if everyone did it, would destroy society is immoral.

I think that's basically a generalization of Kant, not sure. I probably butchered it.

Heh and by that logic, car ownership is immoral! I knew it!:D

An action that, if everyone did it, would destroy society is immoral.

I think that's basically a generalization of Kant, not sure. I probably butchered it.It's also not universally applicable. For instance, it sets murderers on the same level as general free riders. Murder is clearly worse than being a welfare bum, which is why murder is generally illegal while being a welfare bum is generally reviled.

It's also not universally applicable. For instance, it sets murderers on the same level as general free riders. Murder is clearly worse than being a welfare bum, which is why murder is generally illegal while being a welfare bum is generally reviled.

True. But wrongness can have different levels.

So perhaps the more basic "That which harms others is wrong," thing. But then again, why is harming others wrong?

Eventually, no matter what, you get down to "It just is."

because if you brake someone you will never ever have them to play with again :(

*informs toy soldiers family of a great loss during the microwave war*

True. But wrongness can have different levels.

So perhaps the more basic "That which harms others is wrong," thing. But then again, why is harming others wrong?

Eventually, no matter what, you get down to "It just is."Well, yeah, we can still tar and feather Peep for not asking "Why should murder not be allowed?" instead. You did answer the question.

Born of wandering thoughts on the UK and death penalty thread.

Why is murder considered immoral?
*shoots Peepelonia for asking the question*

You tell me!

Well, yeah, we can still tar and feather Peep for not asking "Why should murder not be allowed?" instead. You did answer the question.

Yeah, but I probably shouldn't participate in this thread much longer. I think it's quickly going to go over my sleep-deprived head.

*shoots Peepelonia for asking the question*

You tell me!

I refer you to post 8!:D

Mainly I think it's because two fundamental precepts, "don't take another life" and "don't take what is not yours" pretty much form the backbone of just about every moral system

Yeah, but I probably shouldn't participate in this thread much longer. I think it's quickly going to go over my sleep-deprived head.

You too? Only got two hours last night, on top of a belly and half full of beer!(leaving do) still, only half hour of work left.

Mainly I think it's because two fundamental precepts, "don't take another life" and "don't take what is not yours" pretty much form the backbone of just about every moral system

Yeah agreed, but what I'm after is why 'don't take another life'?

You too? Only got two hours last night, on top of a belly and half full of beer!(leaving do) still, only half hour of work left.

Only had two beers, but stayed up posting in Sin's sex thread, among others, and then watched a movie for no reason. Basically I haven't slept at all. Hella dumb.

No matter how I look at this and how much my mind wanders off to the Chávez thread, murder is wrong. Why? Damn! Because I was brought up being told that to take the life of another human being is bad and morally wrong.

No matter how I look at this and how much my mind wanders off to the Chávez thread, murder is wrong. Why? Damn! Because I was brought up being told that to take the life of another human being is bad and morally wrong.

Say that sounds like a faith based belife to me!:D

Say that sounds like a faith based belife to me!:D

Perhaps it is. Do you think it's wrong? Murder, I mean.

I live by my own morals, and to me, Murder is wrong.

Simply put, it's immoral because most human beings value human life.

Perhaps it is. Do you think it's wrong? Murder, I mean.

Yes of course I do. I don't really expect to find any people who think otherwise.

Going off on a tanget though for a second or two, it is interesting that thus far we have a few attempts at a rational but mostly we have 'coz it just is'.

Now my intent was not to make this into a faith vs reason thread, but the next time somebody tells me that they have no faith based beliefs at all, and I counter with my nornmal 'of course you do', I'll at least be able to ask them their rationalisation on this question.

Simply put, it's immoral because most human beings value human life.

Yeah thats a good un. But it does leave us with the thought that if most people did not value human life, then would murder be considerd moral?

I live by my own morals, and to me, Murder is wrong.

Why? What's your rational for saying this?

Why? What's your rational for saying this?

Do I need a reason? I live by my own code, simple as that.

I'm going to leave this thread, as I said I would, but I'd like note something first. Maybe it's relevant, maybe not.

Someone's life is the most basic thing they have. It is their first possession. Without it, they have nothing. The only thing most people would ever treasure more than their own lives, would be the lives of their loved ones.

Life is the most valuable thing someone can take away. And it's something that can't be given back.

Do I need a reason? I live by my own code, simple as that.

Do you not think you need reasons for your code? Is your code then not a well thought out rational thing? Or is it based on your emotional highs and lows?

How did you come by your code? Have you just made it up? Is it a code without rules, or logic? Can you then change it on a whim?

I'm going to leave this thread, as I said I would, but I'd like note something first. Maybe it's relevant, maybe not.

Someone's life is the most basic thing they have. It is their first possession. Without it, they have nothing. The only thing most people would ever treasure more than their own lives, would be the lives of their loved ones.

Life is the most valuable thing someone can take away. And it's something that can't be given back.


I'd say that is relevent.

Do you not think you need reasons for your code? Is you code then not a well thougth out rational thing? Or is it based on your emotional highs and lows?

How did you come by your code? Have you just made it up? Is it a code without rules, or logic? Can you then change it on a whim?

To put it simply, I figured from an early age I learned that I should treat people as I'd like to be treated. Thus I designed my own code to live by.

The initiation of violence against another person is a violation of the universal right to self-ownership. Or maybe the murder of a person is the deprivation of someone else's ownership of that person in a feudalistic society. Or because all men are created in the image of God, attacking a person is a direct offense to the deity.

Do I need a reason? I live by my own code, simple as that.Well, yeah. For instance:
"Blacks are inferior to whites. Why? Do I need a reason? I live by my own code, simple as that."

The "I live by my own code" is an inadequate argument in favor of an ethical viewpoint.

Take your pick:


Murder is wrong because it prevents human flourishing, both individually and as a group. It's not what the virtuous person would do.

OR:

Murder is wrong because it is against the moral law, it cannot be universally willed.

OR:

Murder is wrong because it does not maximise well-being.

OR:

Murder is wrong because you would not want to be murdered yourself.

Yes of course I do. I don't really expect to find any people who think otherwise.

Going off on a tanget though for a second or two, it is interesting that thus far we have a few attempts at a rational but mostly we have 'coz it just is'.

Now my intent was not to make this into a faith vs reason thread, but the next time somebody tells me that they have no faith based beliefs at all, and I counter with my nornmal 'of course you do', I'll at least be able to ask them their rationalisation on this question.

I consider it more of what's socially acceptable. I mean, society in general, deplores murder.

To the contrary, I consider murder very moral. In fact, I would posit that it is always the most moral option in every conceivable situation, shit, murder is a categorical imperative!

Well, yeah. For instance:
"Blacks are inferior to whites. Why? Do I need a reason? I live by my own code, simple as that."

The "I live by my own code" is an inadequate argument in favor of an ethical viewpoint.

I was simply saying it is my ethical view that killing is wrong. *Sigh* You guys are always so techinical.

To the contrary, I consider murder very moral. In fact, I would posit that it is always the most moral option in every conceivable situation, shit, murder is a categorical imperative!

Do you talk like that to your lovers? Have imperative sex with me!

:fluffle:

To put it simply, I figured from an early age I learned that I should treat people as I'd like to be treated. Thus I designed my own code to live by.

So your code is indeed a veriation on the 'Golded rule'. then your answer must be along the lines, of I would not want anybody to take my life, and so I extend that curtiesie to all others.

Going back to my post 8, would you agree then that there is a question of will and the opposition of one persons will (the killer) above that of another's (the victim)? Or do you not see that as being relevant at all?

The initiation of violence against another person is a violation of the universal right to self-ownership. Or maybe the murder of a person is the deprivation of someone else's ownership of that person in a feudalistic society. Or because all men are created in the image of God, attacking a person is a direct offense to the deity.

Now I'm likeing these, cept of course not everybody belives in a God, yet the vast majority belive murder to be immoral.

Murder is wrong because it does not maximise well-being. If sufficient people receive enjoyment from murder it would counterbalance the suffering caused to the person murdered and their loved ones.

This is why utilitarianism sucks.
I was simply saying it is my ethical view that killing is wrong. *Sigh* You guys are always so techinical.It's an ethics debate.

So your code is indeed a veriation on the 'Golded rule'. then your answer must be along the lines, of I would not want anybody to take my life, and so I extend that curtiesie to all others.

Yes.

Going back to my post 8, would you agree then that there is a question of will and the opposition of one persons will (the killer) above that of another's (the victim)? Or do you not see that as being relevant at all?

I agree.

It's an ethics debate.

It was an ethical view. Just my own eithcal view.

It's an ethics debate.

Now that you mention that, what about aesthetically? I mean, murder looks gross when there's a lot of blood and gore involved, demo... I find the idea of dying in a lover's embrace, after wild and passionate sex, aesthetically correct and pleasing.

Do you talk like that to your lovers? Have imperative sex with me!


Haha, not at the moment, but maybe that could be effective in a weird way. "it's an absolute moral obligation that you allow me in to your house tonight, sweetie" :)

It was an ethical view. Just my own eithcal view.I take it you've never taken an ethics or philosophy class, then =P

I consider it more of what's socially acceptable. I mean, society in general, deplores murder.

Yes indeed, but that only repeats that murder is immoral and does nowt to address the questions of why.

The mores of socity are also fraut with strangeness, consider:

I'm a gora Sikh, that is a white convert to the Sikh religion, I live in the UK, and in my culture it is considered rude to cover the head whilst in a place of God(Church). Yet my faith opposes that particular cultural more, and instead replaces it with, when in a house of God(Gurdwara) one must cover the head as a mark of respect to God. I often have ummm heated talks with my fellow Sikhs, about whether this is a cultural(as I suspect it is) or a religious thing.

I was simply saying it is my ethical view that killing is wrong.
Sure, but why is it your ethical view?

You guys are always so techinical.
We have to be if we're discussing the ins and outs of morality.



If sufficient people receive enjoyment from murder it would counterbalance the suffering caused to the person murdered and their loved ones.
As long as you're discussing hedonistic utilitarianism, focusing on happiness as what is to be maximised. It's not as problematic for interest-based utilitarians.

But yeah, utilitarianism kinda sucks.

Now that you mention that, what about aesthetically? I mean, murder looks gross when there's a lot of blood and gore involved, demo... I find the idea of dying in a lover's embrace, after wild and passionate sex, aesthetically correct and pleasing.

I think your lover would not be able to bring himself to kill you. If he did I would be disturbed.

Take your pick:


Murder is wrong because it prevents human flourishing, both individually and as a group. It's not what the virtuous person would do.

OR:

Murder is wrong because it is against the moral law, it cannot be universally willed.

OR:

Murder is wrong because it does not maximise well-being.

OR:

Murder is wrong because you would not want to be murdered yourself.

Yes.
Umm not sure on that one.
Yes.
Yes.

Sure, but why is it your ethical view?

Because it is?

Now that you mention that, what about aesthetically? I mean, murder looks gross when there's a lot of blood and gore involved, demo... I find the idea of dying in a lover's embrace, after wild and passionate sex, aesthetically correct and pleasing.

Then, there's the aestheticization of violence that's in for example Tarantino's films.

If sufficient people receive enjoyment from murder it would counterbalance the suffering caused to the person murdered and their loved ones.

This is why utilitarianism sucks.


Firstly, nobody follows that type of utilitarianism, they do differentiate between higher and lower pleasures, and there are many types of utilitarianism theorised specifically to stop this kind of thing happening. Secondly, regardless of this, in practical terms there could never be a sufficient amount of people to receive enjoyment from murder that could counterbalance the horrific suffering caused anyway.

I think your lover would not be able to bring himself to kill you. If he did I would be disturbed.

I guess that, no matter how we argue this, as Peepelonia states, one goes back again and again to the debate of it's wrong because it's immoral.

I guess that, no matter how we argue this, as Peepelonia states, one goes back again and again to the debate of it's wrong because it's immoral.

Exactly.

Because it is?You've actually already answered the question: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." (Which is a generally good guideline, but fails under certain circumstances.)

"Because it is?" will never be an adequate defense of an ethical view.

Yes.



I agree.

Yeah the more I think on it, the more important the idea of not opposing your will over that of another seems to me.

"Because it is?" will never be an adequate defense of an ethical view.

Hmph. It's my view because I choose it. Simple as that. Don't like my simple answer? Too bad.

Then, there's the aestheticization of violence that's in for example Tarantino's films.

Yes, rather like a murder dance. A dance of violence.

But again, there's no justification that would make murder acceptable. That's why suicide is tried in court, after the person already attempted against his/her life.

Firstly, nobody follows that type of utilitarianism, they do differentiate between higher and lower pleasures, and there are many types of utilitarianism theorised specifically to stop this kind of thing happening. Secondly, regardless of this, in practical terms there could never be a sufficient amount of people to receive enjoyment from murder that could counterbalance the horrific suffering caused anyway.You forget mass media and morphine.

Now that you mention that, what about aesthetically? I mean, murder looks gross when there's a lot of blood and gore involved, demo... I find the idea of dying in a lover's embrace, after wild and passionate sex, aesthetically correct and pleasing.

As long as you both died?

I take it you've never taken an ethics or philosophy class, then =P

Shit not me, heh perhaps that's why my thoughts constantly run around in circles, on such matters.

You forget mass media and morphine.

And the mass death, or if not that the precedent set that would cause mass death in future, which would definitely counter balance it. Hell, even if only one person had to die to produce this mass orgasmic pleasure, I still doubt you'd find a single utilitarian who'd say it's justified or that the pleasure counterbalances it.

Now that you mention that, what about aesthetically? I mean, murder looks gross when there's a lot of blood and gore involved, demo... I find the idea of dying in a lover's embrace, after wild and passionate sex, aesthetically correct and pleasing.

One of my friend's exes apparently once begged him to stab her in the heart while she was having an orgasm (this was during sex, apparently). He said that basically his erection went away instantly and that her suggestion totally ruined not only that sex, but the entire day as well.

Hmph. It's my view because I choose it. Simple as that. Don't like my simple answer? Too bad.Look at it this way: Your statement has just as many merits as the statement "Murder is not immoral because I enjoy it. This is my view because I choose it."

But there are some very good arguments as to why murder is wrong. Simple answers like that are bad, because they open the door to all sorts horrific worldviews.

As long as you both died?

No, I just find the idea of me dying in his arms aesthetically pleasing and correct. Besides, I posed this question to him not too long ago and he told me, right off the bat, that he couldn't do that to me. He adores me too much. Not that I would, come the time, actually ask something like that to him. But it's always good to pose the theoretical question.

Look at it this way: Your statement has just as many merits as the statement "Murder is not immoral because I enjoy it. This is my view because I choose it."

But there are some very good arguments as to why murder is wrong. Simple answers like that are bad, because they open the door to all sorts horrific worldviews.

Well, too bad. :D

And the mass death, or if not that the precedent set that would cause mass death in future, which would definitely counter balance it. Hell, even if only one person had to die to produce this mass orgasmic pleasure, I still doubt you'd find a single utilitarian who'd say it's justified or that the pleasure counterbalances it.Mass death? Nay, only one.

Hmph. It's my view because I choose it. Simple as that. Don't like my simple answer? Too bad.

Chill man, he has already said you have adequatly answered the question. I guess he is trying to give you some pointers debate techniche?

Mass death? Nay, only one.

Carry on reading the post. ;)

One of my friend's exes apparently once begged him to stab her in the heart while she was having an orgasm (this was during sex, apparently). He said that basically his erection went away instantly and that her suggestion totally ruined not only that sex, but the entire day as well.

LOL! That's too crude. I was making reference to something more sophisticated.

No, I just find the idea of me dying in his arms aesthetically pleasing and correct. Besides, I posed this question to him not too long ago and he told me, right off the bat, that he couldn't do that to me. He adores me too much. Not that I would, come the time, actually ask something like that to him. But it's always good to pose the theoretical question.

Okay yeah I get that, I wondered though, how you would feel knowing that your death would pain him?

That certianly makes no differance to the asthecics of the situation, but the rightness of it?

Umm not sure on that one.
It's a Kantian notion, discussed above.

It would not be possible to will your action as, if you universalised it (in this instance, if everyone murdered someone) it would lead to an non-viable, irrational existence.



Because it is?
That's no answer, unless, I suppose, you feel that any statement of morals is simply a personal feeling?

You have the intuition that murder is wrong. But what's your reasoning?

Carry on reading the post. ;)Still, not being able to find a single utilitarian that supports that just proves to show how flawed the whole concept is in the first place.

That's no answer, unless, I suppose, you feel that any statement of morals is simply a personal feeling?

You have the intuition that murder is wrong. But what's your reasoning?

I can't explain it to be honest. It's always just been my way.

I refer you to post 8!:D
:$ Aw.

It's a Kantian notion, discussed above.

It would not be possible to will your action as, if you universalised it (in this instance, if everyone murdered someone) it would lead to an non-viable, irrational existence.

Ahhh that is not what I though it meant, thanks for that clarifycation, yes, I can agree with that.

Okay yeah I get that, I wondered though, how you would feel knowing that your death would pain him?

That certianly makes no differance to the asthecics of the situation, but the rightness of it?

But it goes in a full circle of something we both discussed here. The rightness of it, morally is wrong to kill someone else. Why? As you yourself already've seen on the thread, it's just not ok to kill. Of course, as you already posted too, regardless of what's aesthetically pleasing, my death would pain the one I adore too much. No rewards, to put it simply.

LOL! That's too crude. I was making reference to something more sophisticated.

Yes, a bit too much blood everywhere.

I wouldn't mind dying in the throes of orgasm or in that nice feeling afterwards. But not right now. Much much later.

I wouldn't mind dying in the throes of orgasm or in that nice feeling afterwards. But not right now. Much much later.

DING DING DING! You read my mind!:D

Isn't murder immoral by it's definition?

As a verb, murder can mean "to kill (another human) unlawfully" or "to kill brutally or inhumanly," and as a noun it normally means, "the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." (or it means some shit about crows, but everybody knows that those bastards are immoral, so no questions there).
Killing can be good, bad or indifferent depending on your circumstances and beliefs, but once it becomes "murder" you're admitting that you shouldn't be doing it.

Still, not being able to find a single utilitarian that supports that just proves to show how flawed the whole concept is in the first place.
I think that's being a little unfair, especially if you get away from rather crude interpretations of what utilitarianism stands for.

I can't explain it to be honest. It's always just been my way.
As it has mine, but I found it very much a worthwhile activity to examine the basis of my ethical beliefs.

If murder was not considered a drastically inappropriate way to settle disputes people would behave like animals, fighting to the death over the merest perceived slight, leading to near-constant war, the collapse of society and a Hobbesian state of nature. There'd be hardly any scientific progress, living standards would fall, and life would be very shitty.

I consider it immoral because not considering it to be so would have awful consequences for the species.

A vague bell in the back of my mind is ringing and telling me there's a flaw in that argument somewhere, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Still, not being able to find a single utilitarian that supports that just proves to show how flawed the whole concept is in the first place.

Or, perhaps, it is your understanding of the concept which is flawed?

Okay then to start the ball rolling let me have a bash at it myself.

If you kill somebody, you take away their choice, not only that but everybody else connected with that person. It's the ultimate act of power over another human.

This is immoral, if you want to live by what ever veriation of the 'golden rule' you subscribe to (and I belive that the majority of us do) then you have to extend the same to everyone else. By murdering somebody, you take away all of their lifes choices, you force them to live not by their rules, but to die according to your will. You impose your will over their own.

You couldnt possibly tell it better...you must study law huh?:)

As it has mine, but I found it very much a worthwhile activity to examine the basis of my ethical beliefs.

I wish I could explain it. It's just the way I am.

I think that's being a little unfair, especially if you get away from rather crude interpretations of what utilitarianism stands for.
Or, perhaps, it is your understanding of the concept which is flawed?Not really. I have dealt with utilitarianism before. Sure, you can adapt it in order to make up for the flaws in pure utilitarianism, but it's debateable whether that's reall utilitarianism or if it's something else based off the core principle of maximizing utility.

I wish I could explain it. It's just the way I am.
Perhaps a (well-used) example might bring out your moral character:

Imagine that you're in charge of a set of railway points. The points control whether a train travels along track A or track B. One day, you see a train coming along track A. Suddenly, you notice it's heading for a group of five men, trapped on the track (for the purposes of the thought experiment, assume you cannot reach/free the men in time, nor can you reach/stop the train).

You could switch the train to track B, undoubtedly saving the five mens' lives, but you notice there's one man trapped on track B also.

So, do you make train switch tracks, ensuring the death of one, but saving five? Or do you leave the train on the track it's on?



Not really. I have dealt with utilitarianism before. Sure, you can adapt it in order to make up for the flaws in pure utilitarianism, but it's debateable whether that's reall utilitarianism or if it's something else based off the core principle of maximizing utility.
It's not 'pure' utilitarianism if you're maximising happiness, it's hedonistic utilitarianism. Note that 'the right action maximises utility' doesn't have to include mention of happiness at all. I've mentioned interest-based utilitarianism before, and it's just as 'real' as hedonistic utilitarianism, and avoids the problem of the 'happy psychopath' objection.

Yet it's still sticking to the principle of maximised utility.

Not really. I have dealt with utilitarianism before. Sure, you can adapt it in order to make up for the flaws in pure utilitarianism, but it's debateable whether that's reall utilitarianism or if it's something else based off the core principle of maximizing utility.

One way of looking at it is that by adding to the theory, these additions are only logical conclusions of pure utilitarianism, as in, greater utility is served to make these additions and safeguards to the theory.

So, do you make train switch tracks, ensuring the death of one, but saving five? Or do you leave the train on the track it's on?

I'd hand in my resignation. :D

Perhaps a (well-used) example might bring out your moral character:

Imagine that you're in charge of a set of railway points. The points control whether a train travels along track A or track B. One day, you see a train coming along track A. Suddenly, you notice it's heading for a group of five men, trapped on the track (for the purposes of the thought experiment, assume you cannot reach/free the men in time, nor can you reach/stop the train).

You could switch the train to track B, undoubtedly saving the five mens' lives, but you notice there's one man trapped on track B also.

So, do you make train switch tracks, ensuring the death of one, but saving five? Or do you leave the train on the track it's on?

Chumbly Chumbly, be patient with him. And be fair.:wink:

If murder was not considered a drastically inappropriate way to settle disputes people would behave like animals, fighting to the death over the merest perceived slight, leading to near-constant war, the collapse of society and a Hobbesian state of nature. There'd be hardly any scientific progress, living standards would fall, and life would be very shitty.
Doubtful. The Hobbesian state of nature doesn't exist anywhere in nature because such reckless violence would entail a great deal of physical risk. Especially in the absence of medical care.

I'd hand in my resignation. :D
Ach, you cheater, you! :p

I'm not trying to get on at you, and I apologise if I am, but I think it's incredibly worthwhile to examine our ethical beliefs.

Have a think about the train problem. I know it's tricky, and there's no 'perfect answer'. It's just a good way of seeing what your beliefs on morality actually are.

Ach, you cheater, you! :p

I'm not trying to get on at you, and I apologise if I am, but I think it's incredibly worthwhile to examine our ethical beliefs.

Have a think about the train problem. I know it's tricky, and there's no 'perfect answer'. It's just a good way of seeing what your beliefs on morality actually are.

my apologies, but I'm not in an explaining mood. my mind is jelly right now. :p

my apologies, but I'm not in an explaining mood. my mind is jelly right now. :p
That's not a problem.

If you like, when you're feeling in a thinky mood, see if you can come up with a solution that you feel would be moral.

That's not a problem.

If you like, when you're feeling in a thinky mood, see if you can come up with a solution that you feel would be moral.

Deal. ;)

Deal. ;)

Then get to it, mate. No excusing it with my brain is jelly. You're just lazy and you know it!:mad:





;)

Iz lazy, yes. :(

But I work hard when I want to. :p

Iz lazy, yes. :(

But I work hard when I want to. :p

You ain't showing nothing fo' it, foo.



:fluffle:

Then get to it, mate. No excusing it with my brain is jelly. You're just lazy and you know it!:mad:
Am I that brusque?

:$

You ain't showing nothing fo' it, foo.



:fluffle:

Neko-Chan! Don't be like that now! :D

:fluffle:

If murder was not considered a drastically inappropriate way to settle disputes people would behave like animals, fighting to the death over the merest perceived slight, leading to near-constant war, the collapse of society and a Hobbesian state of nature. There'd be hardly any scientific progress, living standards would fall, and life would be very shitty.

I consider it immoral because not considering it to be so would have awful consequences for the species.

A vague bell in the back of my mind is ringing and telling me there's a flaw in that argument somewhere, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Actually, it is quite common among animals not to fight to the death, but rather until one has clearly overpowered the other. This is assuming they are the same species, of course.

Am I that brusque?

:$

Not you, but I have permission from management.:p

Perhaps a (well-used) example might bring out your moral character:

Imagine that you're in charge of a set of railway points. The points control whether a train travels along track A or track B. One day, you see a train coming along track A. Suddenly, you notice it's heading for a group of five men, trapped on the track (for the purposes of the thought experiment, assume you cannot reach/free the men in time, nor can you reach/stop the train).

You could switch the train to track B, undoubtedly saving the five mens' lives, but you notice there's one man trapped on track B also.

So, do you make train switch tracks, ensuring the death of one, but saving five? Or do you leave the train on the track it's on?

I'll give this a go. Well, it seems to me that as Spock said, "The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few." I guess I would switch it to track B. I would feel better saving 5 lives than one. But that one death would still haunt me for a long time.

I'll give this a go. Well, it seems to me that as Spock said, "The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few." I guess I would switch it to track B. I would feel better saving 5 lives than one. But that one death would still haunt me for a long time.

Good on you Zero-kun.:)

Doubtful. The Hobbesian state of nature doesn't exist anywhere in nature because such reckless violence would entail a great deal of physical risk. Especially in the absence of medical care.

Hmm...you've got a point there. But if murder isn't regarded as immoral, instead of sticking to a business agreement a person could just kill you and take what you were going to trade and keep what they've already got. What I mean to ask is this: is it more risky to attack first, or to be peacable and honest in your dealings and risk others killing you to take your goods? I'm wondering if its rational for someone in this situation to make the attack first, which would catch their opponent slightly on the back foot and give themself a greater chance of winning. You can caluclate its less risky for both of you not to attack, but if you assume the other person will think that way, it becomes rational for you to plan to kill them.

Those who tried to be honest in their dealings and perform their side of the bargain would seem to lose out in the long run, because they'd get a reputation for being someone who doesn't use violence. It would then seem rational for people to bring weapons, attack them, catch them off-guard and kill them. If individuals can't trust each other not to kill them for their own advantage, there seems little deterrent for all out war. Unless a group is rich enough to afford more hi-tech weapons, in which case they would dominate society as everyone would have to do as they say or be killed. Unless maybe everyone's armed with massive guns that are guaranteed to kill their opponent if they attack. That might solve it.

I'll give this a go. Well, it seems to me that as Spock said, "The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few."
Commendable. Pop references and philosophy were made for each other.

I guess I would switch it to track B. I would feel better saving 5 lives than one.
That's a utilitarian point of view, as is Spock's.

Utilitarians believe that right actions are those that maximise utility, where 'utility' can come to mean a number of things (as Laerod and I have been discussing). Most famously, many utilitarians mean 'happiness' when they say 'utility'; so they believe that you should maximise happiness.

Now, that's not to say you're a utilitarian; examples like the train problem rest on wild situations that could be said to 'force' utilitarian answers. As do many TV shows; think of the new Battlestar Galactica, for example. Many episodes focus around the basic plot of, "if you don't do horrible action x, the entire of humanity will die!".

But if you think that, as a general rule, maximising happiness/pleasure/etc. and minimising sadness/pain/etc., is the way to go, then you seem to be going down the route of utilitarianism.

Thus, in the example of murder, you might say that it's wrong to murder because you're not maximising happiness; you're contributing to a sadder world.

Do you have a degree in Psychiatry? :D

Do you have a degree in Psychiatry? :D

I don't think so. I think Chumbly has an enormous amount of knowledge in both philosophy and sociology.

I don't think so. I think Chumbly has an enormous amount of knowledge in both philosophy and sociology.

So he's Yoda? :D

Actually, it is quite common among animals not to fight to the death, but rather until one has clearly overpowered the other. This is assuming they are the same species, of course.

Even if humans would behave like that, I still think thats not going to be a very nice society. Sod democracy, the physically strongest dominate and subordinate the weakest and run society in their own interest. Of course, that happens to a certain extent in a democracy with the power of the economically strongest to influence political decisions, but not to the same degree and not with the same amount of physical violence.

So he's Yoda? :D

Does he talk backwards and is he a Jedi?

Born of wandering thoughts on the UK and death penalty thread.

Why is murder considered immoral?

It causes several levels of harm.

1. The personal: You've just deprived someone of their right to decide (within reason and the limits of nature) whether they live or die. You've harmed their body to the point it stops working.

2. The social: You've caused extreme emotional and sometimes economic trauma to the friends and family of the person you've killed. They can't have that person in their lives anymore and now they have to miss them. If they were dependents of the murder victim, they've lost that financial support too, especially problematic if they're children.

3. The societal: The entire basis for human sociality is attachment, which involves trust and mutual benefit. If a human being cannot even trust its own social group not to kill it at any given time, society itself will break down.

There ya go. Nothing complicated, no God involved. Context, however, IS involved:

1. If people could spontaneously regenerate and revive from the dead, murder would harm no one on the personal level.

2. If people were incapable of loving one another and never needed one another for economic support, murder would harm no one on the social level.

3. If people were not profoundly social in nature, trust by definition would not be a basis for human interaction and we already would not assume we were safe around others of our society or culture, thus murder would not be as traumatic because we would already expect it.

But y'know, that's not a world I'd want to live in.

Does he talk backwards and is he a Jedi?

Perhaps not, he is. :p

To me, murder is wrong because if you kill someone you're taking from them everything they ever were, are, or ever will be. Not just from them, but from everyone they know or ever will know. I can't express how enormous a thing that is. Something like that should never be done unless it's absolutely necessary. Of course, "necessary" is the key word there, and where the problem lies. Personally, I don't believe in killing someone unless not doing so will result in the possible serious injuring or death of myself or others.

Born of wandering thoughts on the UK and death penalty thread.

Why is murder considered immoral?

Personally, I'm a pacifist, so I don't think I have the right to take anyone's life.

But I do love the old Scandinavian way: if you believed you were wronged severely enough to warrant killing your offender, you could do it. The only thing you must have done after the fact is tell everyone that you did it. Hiding the fact that you did it was a terrible offense, and you would in turn be put to death.

Do you have a degree in Psychiatry? :D
No, but I'm finishing off a degree in Philosophy, focusing on ethical and political theory. It makes you pretty good at spotting the implications of people's beliefs.

Hopefully, I'll be teaching folks this sorta stuff in years to come.



Does he talk backwards and is he a Jedi?
I'd like to say the latter was true, but alas...

I think Chumbly has an enormous amount of knowledge in both philosophy and sociology.
You're very kind, but my knowledge is only limited to some areas of moral philosophy, as that's all I've been doing for the last 5 years or so (and, hopefully, what I'll be doing for the rest of my life).

I think we're trying to say that you are awesome, Chumbly-San. :D

You're very kind, but my knowledge is only limited to some areas of moral philosophy, as that's all I've been doing for the last 5 years or so (and, hopefully, what I'll be doing for the rest of my life).

Well, at least I was on the right by saying you do know some of your philosophy.:tongue:

No, but I'm finishing off a degree in Philosophy, focusing on ethical and political theory. It makes you pretty good at spotting the implications of people's beliefs.

Hopefully, I'll be teaching folks this sorta stuff in years to come.

I'd like to say the latter was true, but alas...

You're very kind, but my knowledge is only limited to some areas of moral philosophy, as that's all I've been doing for the last 5 years or so (and, hopefully, what I'll be doing for the rest of my life).

Nice - PhD'ing or just a long course?

Which areas, out of interest? I'll need these for future reference when deciding if I should disagree with you :D

I think we're trying to say that you are awesome, Chumbly-San. :D
Cheers, but you better stop before my ego gets too inflated.

Nice - PhD'ing or just a long course?
Four-year undergraduate degree and a year-long college course. Becoming a Doctor of Philosophy is a long, long way away.

Which areas, out of interest? I'll need these for future reference when deciding if I should disagree with you :D
:p

I'm focusing on virtue ethics at the moment, specifically Rosalind Hursthouse and Philippa Foot's 'ethical naturalism', with mind to building a political virtue ethic that can handle elements of social ecology/bioregionalism. That's, admittedly, rather ambitious for an undergrad, but it's a long-term project that I hope to carry onto Masters or even Doctorate level.

More generally, I'm interested in pretty much all moral and political philosophy (especially anarchist/Marxist thought, environmental ethics, neo-Aristotelianism, and the concept of humans nature), with a sprinkling of the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of religion on the side.

I'm focusing on virtue ethics at the moment, specifically Rosalind Hursthouse and Philippa Foot's 'ethical naturalism', with mind to building a political virtue ethic that can handle elements of social ecology/bioregionalism. That's, admittedly, rather ambitious for an undergrad, but it's a long-term project that I hope to carry onto Masters or even Doctorate level.

More generally, I'm interested in pretty much all moral and political philosophy (especially anarchist/Marxist thought, environmental ethics, neo-Aristotelianism, and the concept of humans nature), with a sprinkling of the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of religion on the side.

"Political Virtue Ethic" are three words I would never have thought applicable in the same sentence. Your potential thesis sounds specific enough to be honed down to something good (but what do I know? ;) )

..... And as for "Neo-Aristotelianism" - try saying that after a few beers!

I'm more interested in normative sources for ethics, and why those sources might oblige you to act / give rise to a sense of duty. After all, no matter what your system is, WHY follow it?

Not something I was ever taught though, more just an interest. I'm also interested in the philosophical implications of scientific theory (I feel like I am in some sort of Philosopher's anonymous group, admitting I have an addiction now)

"If it's morally wrong to kill anyone, then it's morally wrong to kill anyone. Period." -George Carlin.

Born of wandering thoughts on the UK and death penalty thread.

Why is murder considered immoral?

Because we all fear death. To remain alive, we have to make many choices based in that fear -- fear of death is as strong a factor in forming "personhood" as habits of gaining gratification are, and far less rational.

Because we all fear our personal death, as the point at which we lose any chance to control the future, we find murder to be "cheating" in the game of life.

Murder is sudden accidental death. But at the will of another. We agnostics fear murder as a good Christian fears God: the being who makes our lives nothing.

Because we fear murder, and trust only those who fear murder, we hold it to be morally wrong.

To the contrary, I consider murder very moral. In fact, I would posit that it is always the most moral option in every conceivable situation, shit, murder is a categorical imperative!

There is no problem that cannot be solved by sufficient amounts of homicide.

Yeah agreed, but what I'm after is why 'don't take another life'?

It was founded on the basis of self preservation. If it is instilled as immoral, you have at least a better chance of not being on the receiving end of stabby time from your cousin who thought it was a good idea at the time.

Yeah thats a good un. But it does leave us with the thought that if most people did not value human life, then would murder be considerd moral?

People generally value their lives. All living creatures do. It's hardwired into their genetic code. If people didn't value their lives, there'd be a lot more suicide and Darwin awards.

There is no problem that cannot be solved by sufficient amounts of homicide.

There is one: "should I suicide?"

"Political Virtue Ethic" are three words I would never have thought applicable in the same sentence.
There's very little literature on the subject, but I feel it's an area which can have a major impact. Applied ethics and political philosophy are dominated by utilitarian and Kantian theory; I think virtue ethics can have a great impact, especially in the fields of environmental ethics and political obligation.

Your potential thesis sounds specific enough to be honed down to something good (but what do I know? ;) )
The second part of what I want to achieve is very much a future project. My thesis is only focusing on the viability of Hursthouse and Foot's 'ethical naturalism'. The plan is, if I get into a Masters course, to continue the project one day.

... And as for "Neo-Aristotelianism" - try saying that after a few beers!
I can hardly pronounce 'utilitarianism' on the best of days, never mind when I'm pissed...

I'm more interested in normative sources for ethics, and why those sources might oblige you to act / give rise to a sense of duty. After all, no matter what your system is, WHY follow it?
Ahh, moral motivation.

Up until now, I've taken a broadly anti-Humean stance, but virtue ethics kinda throw out talk of 'obligation' or 'duty' (instead, one appeals to what the virtuous person would do, and relies on ingrained character traits/virtues), so that's a topic I need to re-assess.

Not something I was ever taught though, more just an interest. I'm also interested in the philosophical implications of scientific theory
Now that's an interesting topic. I've always hankered after someone coming up with a 21st Century equivalent for Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding. I just love a philosopher with the cojones to expound a complete worldview.

I feel like I am in some sort of Philosopher's anonymous group, admitting I have an addiction now
You're in good company.

Why is murder immoral?

In my opinion, I guess it's becuase you "stole" someone's chance at life. They never had any consent of you taking their life away. Now, I knwo there's many different circumstances, but I'm looking at it very plain and simple.

Murder is immoral because it violates someone's right to their body. Every human being "owns" themselves. Your right to move your fist stops at my chin, so to speak.

Why is murder immoral?

In my opinion, I guess it's becuase you "stole" someone's chance at life. They never had any consent of you taking their life away. Now, I knwo there's many different circumstances, but I'm looking at it very plain and simple.

What about euthanasia?

Born of wandering thoughts on the UK and death penalty thread.

Why is murder considered immoral?

Morality is about actions. If murder wasn't immoral, then murder would be a normal behaviour. Society woudln't work. Hence murder has to be immoral.

If you want to talk about ethics, that's another thing, which should include empathy etc.

Born of wandering thoughts on the UK and death penalty thread.

Why is murder considered immoral?

Were you one of those kids that always asked why long after they had the answer?;)

OK I'll have a bash...

Most morals, in any culture, past or present, are based on the preservation of the species and general peace and harmony in the community, be it large or small.

Murder is generally at the top of the list of immoral acts because it does not preserve the species or facilitate peace and harmony in the long term.

If Blue boy goes and murders pink boy for deflowering his sister, blue girl, pink man will (probably) murder blue boy for murdering his son, pink boy. Then blue man will murder pink man for killing his son...... any way this pretty much goes on and on until any one related to the blues is killing any one related to the pinks and vice versa and every one is killing any accidental purple people. At the end of all this ony one person remains in the whole village, blue nana, and she told blue boy that it was morally wrong to go out and kill pink boy in the first place!

Does the above illustrate to you in any way how murder harms humans as a species and causes chaos driving peace and harmony away from the community?

This is WHY murder is morally wrong

What about euthanasia?

True, but I said that the murderer didn't have consent. If the one going to be killed wants to die, and the killer is willing, I guess it changes things. but then you'd need a massive argument to say you didn't just kill the person, and documents, etc...

True, but I said that the murderer didn't have consent. If the one going to be killed wants to die, and the killer is willing, I guess it changes things. but then you'd need a massive argument to say you didn't just kill the person, and documents, etc...

Problem is, it goes back to being murder. You're killing another human being, wether this person consented or not. Peepelonia did pose a hard one here.:tongue:

Problem is, it goes back to being murder. You're killing another human being, wether this person consented or not. Peepelonia did pose a hard one here.:tongue:

Bah, you and your "logic." Maybe you can help them "accidentally" fall down some stairs.

Problem is, it goes back to being murder. You're killing another human being, wether this person consented or not. Peepelonia did pose a hard one here.:tongue:

Is murder not a special case of killing another human being? Not all killing is murder (well, legally speaking at least)

Is murder not a special case of killing another human being? Not all killing is murder (well, legally speaking at least)

Well, if you're, as an example, helping someone commit suicide, you're still helping that person to take his or her own life. You may not have killed them yourself, but you helped, so I guess it's still murder.

Well, if you're, as an example, helping someone commit suicide, you're still helping that person to take his or her own life. You may not have killed them yourself, but you helped, so I guess it's still murder.

No, not murder per se, but assisted suicide?

No, not murder per se, but assisted suicide?

I wouldn't consider it murder. Heck, I would help someone do it, if it were necessary. Demo... for the purpose of this thread, since it's still helping take the life of a human being, it's murder and it's immoral.

I wouldn't consider it murder. Heck, I would help someone do it, if it were necessary. Demo... for the purpose of this thread, since it's still helping take the life of a human being, it's murder and it's immoral.

Well you just closed the book on that argument/debate...

Well, if you're, as an example, helping someone commit suicide, you're still helping that person to take his or her own life. You may not have killed them yourself, but you helped, so I guess it's still murder.
I would say that a big part of what constitutes a killing as a murder is that the person killed does not consent to the killing. Euthanasia, on the other hand, is all about consent.

What about euthanasia?

Well, if you're, as an example, helping someone commit suicide, you're still helping that person to take his or her own life. You may not have killed them yourself, but you helped, so I guess it's still murder.

I would say that a big part of what constitutes a killing as a murder is that the person killed does not consent to the killing. Euthanasia, on the other hand, is all about consent.

Quite right. Next question: is lawful killing murder?

I speak of the death penalty, of course. Is it murder if the condemned criminal does not consent to die?

Quite right. Next question: is lawful killing murder?

I speak of the death penalty, of course. Is it murder if the condemned criminal does not consent to die?

I already said it, Peepelonia did pose a hard on with this thread.

In answer to your question, I would say yes, lawful killing is murder. It's still, no matter how one looks at it, murder. It's the taking of a human life, regardless of it being done in the name of the law.

Now, what's the difference between murder and lawful killing? One is condemned by the system while the other is protected by or preferably sponsored by the law.

I already said it, Peepelonia did pose a hard on with this thread.

Yeah. The simple questions are often the hardest.

In answer to your question, I would say yes, lawful killing is murder. It's still, no matter how one looks at it, murder. It's the taking of a human life, regardless of it being done in the name of the law.

Well, I oppose the death-penalty on several grounds.

But not because it is done against the will of the condemned person. That isn't a good reason, because:

If the intention is to punish, keeping them alive may be a more effective punishment if they DO consent to dying. (eg Timothy McVeigh)
Any punishment is implicitly against the consent of the criminal, so if we oppose the death-penalty for this reason we must also oppose imprisonment.


Now, what's the difference between murder and lawful killing? One is condemned by the system while the other is protected by or preferably sponsored by the law.

Murder is immoral, we agree. But now we're "moral relativists" because we have to acknowledge cases like self-defence, or killing in war, or perhaps even the death-penalty, where one murder prevents several murders.

Well, I oppose the death-penalty on several grounds.

But not because it is done against the will of the condemned person. That isn't a good reason, because:

If the intention is to punish, keeping them alive may be a more effective punishment if they DO consent to dying. (eg Timothy McVeigh)
Any punishment is implicitly against the consent of the criminal, so if we oppose the death-penalty for this reason we must also oppose imprisonment.


I oppose the death penalty on the grounds that nothing is more vile than giving criminals the easy route after they commit an atrocity. Like you posted, it's way better to keep the alive,in prison, isolated from everything. That's way fitting than simple death. In keeping them like that, they are the very epitome of the living dead, locked away from the same life they took from kindred.

Murder is immoral, we agree. But now we're "moral relativists" because we have to acknowledge cases like self-defence, or killing in war, or perhaps even the death-penalty, where one murder prevents several murders.

That's precisely what garbles my brain. Taking a life is immoral, we all seem to agree on that point. But then one needs to make the distinctions and it all turns into a spiral ending at the very start. One comes full circle. There's no simple way of answering this.

I'm going to have breakfast and actually read the whole thread. I think someone has probably said what I'm trying to say, already.

It's something about the law being stronger than an individual will, and possibly more competent. And therefore having rights to do things which it forbids to individuals.

EDIT: Saluna Secundus, your screen-name is very similar to that of another user. I'd rethink it and make a new account if I were you ... 'cos that user is SalusaSecondus, a game admin! (Unless it's you, of course ...) I think you'll figure out the other bit of advice about punctuation for yourself :)

It's a personal choice,like being vegetarian or not,some people find it easy,most people nowdays find it horrific although it's part of our DNA.Murder,kill,assassination,hot-blooded,cold-blooded,etc.History is full of countless kills,murder is part of humanity itself.

It's a personal choice,like being vegetarian or not,some people find it easy,most people nowdays find it horrific although it's part of our DNA.Murder,kill,assassination,hot-blooded,cold-blooded,etc.History is full of countless kills,murder is part of humanity itself.

Having looked at your previous posts to the thread about the death penalty in the UK, I guess this is a serious opinion.

Selection by survival has not made humanity incapable of killing. But nor has it made us all into stone killers.

I would argue that the individual who kills for no reason has less survival value than the individual who cannot kill at all.

Hmm...you've got a point there. But if murder isn't regarded as immoral, instead of sticking to a business agreement a person could just kill you and take what you were going to trade and keep what they've already got. What I mean to ask is this: is it more risky to attack first, or to be peacable and honest in your dealings and risk others killing you to take your goods? I'm wondering if its rational for someone in this situation to make the attack first, which would catch their opponent slightly on the back foot and give themself a greater chance of winning. You can caluclate its less risky for both of you not to attack, but if you assume the other person will think that way, it becomes rational for you to plan to kill them.

Those who tried to be honest in their dealings and perform their side of the bargain would seem to lose out in the long run, because they'd get a reputation for being someone who doesn't use violence. It would then seem rational for people to bring weapons, attack them, catch them off-guard and kill them. If individuals can't trust each other not to kill them for their own advantage, there seems little deterrent for all out war. Unless a group is rich enough to afford more hi-tech weapons, in which case they would dominate society as everyone would have to do as they say or be killed. Unless maybe everyone's armed with massive guns that are guaranteed to kill their opponent if they attack. That might solve it.
Possibly. However, even in human societies that embrace violence as a way to solve problems (organized crime, for instance), murder isn't the first recourse. Admittedly, gangs to tend to have codes of honor that would interfere with arbitrary slaughter, but there is also respect for people who follow their word and disregard for those who have proven themselves violent, untrustworthy psychopaths.

People who will kill for no apparent reason (psychopaths) can still be a useful tool for others though. Rather than having to give them a reason, the psychopath can simply be put in a circumstance where killing is possible ... and if they're captured they can't give away your plan because you never told it to them, nor even a lie which might give clues to your real plan.

But I guess that such "disposability" rather proves your point about their value, HNFV.

My approach is going to be from the direction of "evolution determines human nature." If anyone has reading suggestions which might help, I'd appreciate that.

I'll get taken to school by Chumblywumbly but that's OK.

EDIT (1): Wow, I vastly over-estimated my ability to crack this one with a single answer. But I think it's worth a try, because it's core to a lot of the moral issues we argue about here. Here's what I've got so far:

Evolved characteristics include self-interest but also altruism. It is essential that a newborn be able to be brought up differently depending on the circumstances -- a tribe that is fighting for its existence against invaders needs to be able to raise fighters, but the same tribe at some other time will benefit from having kindly people who make everyone else happy and reduce conflict.

In other words, plasticity itself is an evolved characteristic. We all have the ability to be sinners or saints. Any gene which makes the individual always violent or always pacifist is eliminated by one or other extreme of what that person's bloodline has to live through.

When there is a social need to keep conflict down (plenty of food, no immediate threats, no diseases rife from overcrowding) the altruistic urge to co-operate predominates, and we experience it as a "moral imperative."

At other times, the "moral imperative" dictates that we should kill other people, even at risk to ourselves.

But our societies have grown so large, what we consider our tribe spread way beyond our ability to trigger one or the other form of behaviour. So we're arguing about the death penalty, we're arguing about euthanasia. We're trying to rationalize, and build a universal moral code that allows us all to agree on what is right and what is wrong. We will fail, I think.

This is quite inadequate, but I'll put it up here anyway.

EDIT (2): This thread will be done again. PM or TG me any suggestions.

You couldnt possibly tell it better...you must study law huh?:)

Heh hardly, no I work in IT suport.

People have a tendency to get pissed off if you do it to them.

It causes several levels of harm.

1. The personal: You've just deprived someone of their right to decide (within reason and the limits of nature) whether they live or die. You've harmed their body to the point it stops working.

2. The social: You've caused extreme emotional and sometimes economic trauma to the friends and family of the person you've killed. They can't have that person in their lives anymore and now they have to miss them. If they were dependents of the murder victim, they've lost that financial support too, especially problematic if they're children.

3. The societal: The entire basis for human sociality is attachment, which involves trust and mutual benefit. If a human being cannot even trust its own social group not to kill it at any given time, society itself will break down.

There ya go. Nothing complicated, no God involved. Context, however, IS involved:

1. If people could spontaneously regenerate and revive from the dead, murder would harm no one on the personal level.

2. If people were incapable of loving one another and never needed one another for economic support, murder would harm no one on the social level.

3. If people were not profoundly social in nature, trust by definition would not be a basis for human interaction and we already would not assume we were safe around others of our society or culture, thus murder would not be as traumatic because we would already expect it.

But y'know, that's not a world I'd want to live in.

So all in all the level of harm to others that such an act generates?

To me, murder is wrong because if you kill someone you're taking from them everything they ever were, are, or ever will be. Not just from them, but from everyone they know or ever will know. I can't express how enormous a thing that is. Something like that should never be done unless it's absolutely necessary. Of course, "necessary" is the key word there, and where the problem lies. Personally, I don't believe in killing someone unless not doing so will result in the possible serious injuring or death of myself or others.


Ahhh now that is interesting. Okay time to fess up then.

The reason why I asked has much to do with the death penalty thread.

I wholehartedly disagree with such nonsense, and a lot of it has to do with the immposing of one will above that of another.

Even if a person has been charged and found guilty of, ohh lets just say peodophilia and murder of a child, (coz that always brings strong emotional responses) I belive that justice is better served by locking them away from sociaty for the rest of their life.

Now what are the chances of such a person being able to cause further harm or death within his solitary prison cell(except of course his own, but then surely they have the right to kill them selves?) to others?

Because we all fear death. To remain alive, we have to make many choices based in that fear -- fear of death is as strong a factor in forming "personhood" as habits of gaining gratification are, and far less rational.

Because we all fear our personal death, as the point at which we lose any chance to control the future, we find murder to be "cheating" in the game of life.

Murder is sudden accidental death. But at the will of another. We agnostics fear murder as a good Christian fears God: the being who makes our lives nothing.

Because we fear murder, and trust only those who fear murder, we hold it to be morally wrong.

Yes I think there is certianly somthing in this.

Why is murder immoral?

In my opinion, I guess it's becuase you "stole" someone's chance at life. They never had any consent of you taking their life away. Now, I knwo there's many different circumstances, but I'm looking at it very plain and simple.

Heh I often think that such philosphical questions have answers that are plain and simple. So essentialy you are agreeing with me about the immposition of one will above that of another?

What about euthanasia?

If as Buboria suggests:

'Every human being "owns" themselves' Then I see nowt ethicaly or moraly wrong about such a thing, if that is the persons choice.

Were you one of those kids that always asked why long after they had the answer?;)

OK I'll have a bash...

Most morals, in any culture, past or present, are based on the preservation of the species and general peace and harmony in the community, be it large or small.

Murder is generally at the top of the list of immoral acts because it does not preserve the species or facilitate peace and harmony in the long term.

If Blue boy goes and murders pink boy for deflowering his sister, blue girl, pink man will (probably) murder blue boy for murdering his son, pink boy. Then blue man will murder pink man for killing his son...... any way this pretty much goes on and on until any one related to the blues is killing any one related to the pinks and vice versa and every one is killing any accidental purple people. At the end of all this ony one person remains in the whole village, blue nana, and she told blue boy that it was morally wrong to go out and kill pink boy in the first place!

Does the above illustrate to you in any way how murder harms humans as a species and causes chaos driving peace and harmony away from the community?

This is WHY murder is morally wrong

That is indeed a fine example, many thanks for it. Yes I was one of those kids!:D

Problem is, it goes back to being murder. You're killing another human being, wether this person consented or not. Peepelonia did pose a hard one here.:tongue:

Heh not if the word murder is defined as the unlawfull killing of one human by another. At least in some parts of the world euthenasia is quite legal.

Quite right. Next question: is lawful killing murder?

I speak of the death penalty, of course. Is it murder if the condemned criminal does not consent to die?

Yes indeed it is.

Heh not if the word murder is defined as the unlawfull killing of one human by another. At least in some parts of the world euthenasia is quite legal.

It is legal in some parts of the world? I didn't know.

That is indeed a fine example, many thanks for it. Yes I was one of those kids!:D
:D my pleasure

its a violation of the states monopoly on violence.
which is why states tend to get bent out of shape about assisted suicide or dueling.

its a violation of the states monopoly on violence.

Bwhahahhahahahaha! Ohhhh shit.

Didn't read through the whole thread, but am I the only one who find murder in itself is not inherently moral or immoral? What if you kill to defend your friends/family from getting kill? What if you are a police officer who is facing a dangerous criminal, when the failure to act can get you kill? To not killing is a choice, and at times the failure to do so might lead to dire consequences.

I am not a believer of absolute morality.

Murder is wrong because we being social animals are bred with certain appreciation towards functioning social group: Killing for fun isn't really an acceptable breeding strategy when your species relies on co-operation for survival.

However, being deviant does open up alternative routes for procreation hence guaranteeing that there are, indeed, people who consider abusing others as moral. This becomes a society threatening problem when these people gain too much power...For example, I personally think that the current financial crisis has roots in people who see other people as toys, means to an end, rather than human beings.

Didn't read through the whole thread, but am I the only one who find murder in itself is not inherently moral or immoral? What if you kill to defend your friends/family from getting kill? What if you are a police officer who is facing a dangerous criminal, when the failure to act can get you kill? To not killing is a choice, and at times the failure to do so might lead to dire consequences.

I am not a believer of absolute morality.

Then perhaps you should have read through a bit more of the thread, specificly noteing peoples defintion of the word murder.:D

Basically it's just a violation of property rights. Morality is based upon an individual's belief system, for example a Christian finds murder immoral because the Bible says that it's immoral. Society itself should have no definition of morality because it's an individual's own mindset that determines it. Any type of state mandated morality is hegemonic coersion. Murder is illegal because its a violation of property rights and in a capitalist society those are the zenith of law. To some, murder is NOT immoral, in fact, but it's illegal for all.

murder is rather unfriendly, distracting, and is that really the kind of world we want to live in?

(and yes, i DO consider this a sound basis for the determination of immorality. the only sound basis for doing so even)

Next question: is lawful killing murder?
That's a really interesting, and pertinent question, one that I'd like to discuss at length, but I'm a bit snowed under by course work at the moment. Hopefully, I'll expand my answer in days to come, but I'd like to point to the difference between immoral killing and illegal killing.

The two simply don't go hand-in-hand. We can think of, though folks may well disagree with my examples, a moral legal killing (self-defence), immoral legal killing (honour killings, perhaps?), moral illegal killing (some forms of euthanasia, I'd argue), and immoral illegal killing (cold-blooded murder of an innocent child, to choose a hopefully clear-cut example).

I think we can give a fairly confident argument as to why state executions are immoral, but as to whether they're strictly murder, that's a much more tricky case to make; compounded by the fact that the term 'murder' is part a moral term, part a legal one.