How do you know murder is wrong?

[moralist]

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

And you -can- define justice?  In such a way that it is universally acceptable?

Yes... but I didn't create it.

It was clearly defined thousands of years before any of us ever existed...

"You shall not commit murder."

 "...if, in enmity, he struck the victim down with his hand, and he died, the one that struck the victim shall certainly be put to death; he is a murderer. The blood avenger shall put the murderer to death when he meets him."

 

Greg

 

[anthony]

On 2017/05/06 at 7:22 AM, moralist said:

Yes... but I didn't create it.

It was clearly defined thousands of years before any of us ever existed...

"You shall not commit murder."

 "...if, in enmity, he struck the victim down with his hand, and he died, the one that struck the victim shall certainly be put to death; he is a murderer. The blood avenger shall put the murderer to death when he meets him."

 

Greg

 

An early thinker and early Hebrew.

Interesting. Imagine what one saw back then in nature and of animals, and the norm of some animal 'murdering' another constantly, why should it be different for men? How would someone make this conceptual leap - for mankind?

Certainly, someone must have first observed, experienced and induced huge amounts, to be able to ask and answer, perceive and indentify: what is man? is he apart from animals, and how? what is life? what is non-existence and death? what is "value"? can there be value without life? or life without value? What is it to deprive a man of life?

The completed idea, put together: Man's life is the standard of value. And for each man, "...that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life". This Hebrew guy's* raw injunction carries in it his conclusion: murder is evil because man's life is good - the base of a rational morality.

Further conceptual knowledge by later men, removed retribution from the "blood avenger" and that looks to be the beginning of a codified Justice system, which took judgment and punishment away from individuals, for obvious reasons. ('Justice' the virtue remained the same. An individual from then to now, and onwards, always has been judging other individuals' actions, beliefs and character for his own preservation and values).

*Unlikely that his name was Ba'al.

[BaalChatzaf]

8 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Strictly speaking there is in law--what the law says. It may be the objectification through codification of subjective preferences, but law has its legal logic. Read, know and apply the law.

Down deeper justice has moral roots and is expressed as retribution. Revenge is too harsh and narrow an idea and is generally a private matter until it hits the law wall. It's not supposed to have a public (government) reality. Revenge is displaced by retribution by and through the law. The retribution through the public weal and sanction gives the victims some measure of solace revenge generally vitiates as classically illustrated by the Hatfields and McCoys.

--Brant

retribution is constructive and revenge destructive and all revenge hurts the revenger so only be one with your eyes wide open

 

Retribution vs Revenge.  Twiddly-Dumm   vs Twiddly-Dee. 

[Peter]

Ba’al considers retribution - the same as revenge, gang bangers - the same as the police, a mafia kill - the same as an execution for mass murder, and a little kid hitting another little kid in the head - the same as a mother teaching her child not to hit other kids. I suggest you call 911 because you are exhibiting signs of a stroke.

So the use of retaliatory force is not moral? Ever?

Peter    

[moralist]

4 minutes ago, Peter said:

Ba’al considers retribution - the same as revenge, gang bangers - the same as the police, a mafia kill...

That's the indiscriminate secular doctrine of moral equivalence Bob was brainwashed with by his liberal government schools.

Like I've been telling you... he's been mindfucked.

Greg

[Peter]

Greg wrote: Like I've been telling you... he's been (expletive deleted.)

There are children on OL. Quit the stupid expletive crap. It’s called expletive because uncouth low life’s mouth it. You have fallen into his liberal secular trap by becoming a black, ghetto, California hippie, etc., etc., etc.

Yet you and he think that because some scam artist or deluded person said something a LONG TIME AGO it somehow has relevance whereas modern, applied reason does not. Now let me get back to The Garden of Eden.

[moralist]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Greg wrote: Like I've b

There are children on OL. Quit the stupid expletive crap. It’s called expletive because uncouth low life’s mouth it. You have fallen into his liberal secular trap by becoming a black, ghetto, California hippie, etc., etc., etc.

Yet you and he think that because some scam artist or deluded person said something a LONG TIME AGO it somehow has relevance whereas modern, applied reason does not. Now let me get back to The Garden of Eden.

I edited it out, Peter... for the sake of the "children".

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

11 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Retribution vs Revenge.  Twiddly-Dumm   vs Twiddly-Dee. 

If you could only think . . .

You could have been another one of Judy's friends in The Wizard of Oz.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

54 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

If you could only think . . .

You could have been another one of Judy's friends in The Wizard of Oz.

--Brant

I think better than you do, son.   I am a mathematician first and foremost.  Both revenge and retribution are about Getting Even.....

[Wolf DeVoon]

Sad, really, everything posted so far. Let's try again.

Justice is ___ ______ ________ __ ________ ________ .

[Brant Gaede]

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I think better than you do, son.   I am a mathematician first and foremost.  Both revenge and retribution are about Getting Even.....

And?

--Brant

[moralist]

1 hour ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Sad, really, everything posted so far. Let's try again.

Justice is ___ ______ ________ __ ________ ________ .

Justice is... the objective reality of the consequences of your own actions.

 

Greg

[moralist]

7 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If you could only think...

 

 

 

 

[BaalChatzaf]

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

And?

--Brant

revenge and retribution are very close cousins.  Could "revenge" and "retribution"  be two names for the same thing?????  If not, what is the difference?

[Brant Gaede]

I answered that question and you replied and I replied to your reply, etc. Only you didn't actually reply the first time. Hence you want a restatement?

You read a post, see something that engages you and ignore most of the rest. All the time almost every time. That's okay, but I'm not going back. You may, however, start over. You can requote me and comment for real.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

revenge and retribution are very close cousins.  Could "revenge" and "retribution"  be two names for the same thing?????  If not, what is the difference?

1) yes

2) no

3) I told you already

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

22 hours ago, Peter said:

 

So the use of retaliatory force is not moral? Ever?

Peter    

If it is exercised  to defend an innocent life....  In that case the private use of force is also moral....

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote, “Retribution vs Revenge. Twiddly-Dumm vs Twiddly-Dee.” But then he contradicts himself by saying, “If it is exercised to defend an innocent life....  In that case the private use of force is also moral....” 

 

Admit it you flip flopper: retribution is not revenge. You used the words and concepts “defend,” “innocent,” and “moral,” which all trumpet out the fact that you DO know the difference between retribution and revenge, and force and the retaliatory use of force. Even a shallow thinking person knows when justice is served or when “someone had it coming.”  

 

Ba’al. Can you devise a formula to show retribution is not revenge?

Peter

 

(An aside from my archives: If YOU now claim that the principles of justice are knowable by an individual’s reason, why is justice not always served? It is of course, because of individual conflicts of interests or criminality. We have the police and the courts to resolve those issues.

 

So, why do some people like Ba’al come to the conclusion that NO retribution can be rationally justified, though he now seems to have changed his mind? Why can’t a rationally instituted government be more consistently rational and more morally correct just as in Ba’al hypothetical case, one person can be moral?

 

Was the lawless, American West a better place before the sheriff arrived? I can point to history to show that a society with government has more longevity than an immoral, lawless society. Within that lawless society each individual’s thinking and desires are primary and necessary for their own happiness or for the good life. Within a deuces wild society you can have logical, intelligent, rational people living next door to those movie clichés, “The Outlaw,” “The Ax Murderer,” “The Child abuser,” and “The Wife beater.” They will all insist their thinking and actions are necessary for their own happiness. Under lawlessness individuals are entitled to whatever they want or can do. The only thing stopping the axe murderer is social pressure or force. And each individual is entitled to his own definition of when force is necessary. If I don’t like you, I can shoot you and that is my right in a lawless geographical area. The school yard or barroom taunts of “Try and stop me,” or “Make me” are as valid as the decisions of our Supreme Court. If that is not open and blatant Subjectivism then I do not know what is.)

[BaalChatzaf]

16 minutes ago, Peter said:

Ba’al wrote, “Retribution vs Revenge. Twiddly-Dumm vs Twiddly-Dee.” But then he contradicts himself by saying, “If it is exercised to defend an innocent life....  In that case the private use of force is also moral....” 

 

Admit it you flip flopper: retribution is not revenge. You used the words and concepts “defend,” “innocent,” and “moral,” which all trumpet out the fact that you DO know the difference between retribution and revenge, and force and the retaliatory use of force. Even a shallow thinking person knows when justice is served or when “someone had it coming.”  

 

Ba’al. Can you devise a formula to show retribution is not revenge?

Peter

 

(An aside from my archives: If YOU now claim that the principles of justice are knowable by an individual’s reason, why is justice not always served? It is of course, because of individual conflicts of interests or criminality. We have the police and the courts to resolve those issues.

 

So, why do some people like Ba’al come to the conclusion that NO retribution can be rationally justified, though he now seems to have changed his mind? Why can’t a rationally instituted government be more consistently rational and more morally correct just as in Ba’al hypothetical case, one person can be moral?

 

Was the lawless, American West a better place before the sheriff arrived? I can point to history to show that a society with government has more longevity than an immoral, lawless society. Within that lawless society each individual’s thinking and desires are primary and necessary for their own happiness or for the good life. Within a deuces wild society you can have logical, intelligent, rational people living next door to those movie clichés, “The Outlaw,” “The Ax Murderer,” “The Child abuser,” and “The Wife beater.” They will all insist their thinking and actions are necessary for their own happiness. Under lawlessness individuals are entitled to whatever they want or can do. The only thing stopping the axe murderer is social pressure or force. And each individual is entitled to his own definition of when force is necessary. If I don’t like you, I can shoot you and that is my right in a lawless geographical area. The school yard or barroom taunts of “Try and stop me,” or “Make me” are as valid as the decisions of our Supreme Court. If that is not open and blatant Subjectivism then I do not know what is.)

One man's moral imperative is another man's  fanatical insanity....

[Peter]

Once again Ba’al insists, “One man's moral imperative is another man's fanatical insanity....”

 

No they are not. Reason can define justice FOR ALL. Come on. Give me the formula or syllogism showing that the rational use of retaliatory force is *moral.* That was the word you used. Back it up. Don’t be a hypocrite. You like to quote Jewish scriptures. Why is "ancient wisdom' better than current, scientifically proven wisdom?

Peter

[Peter]

14 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Sad, really, everything posted so far. Let's try again.

Justice is ___ ______ ________ __ ________ ________ .

A is A. Let’s agree on that. Cave dwelling humans knew that, though they couldn’t express it fluently.

If Act A is aggressive behavior towards another human being, witnessed by the receiver of the aggression and 12 other witnesses . . .  then defense, retribution, and restitution are moral. That is traditional justice.  

Peter

LONDON (AP) — Police in Ireland are refusing to comment on a blasphemy complaint and investigation involving British comedian Stephen Fry. The inquiry came to light when the Irish Independent newspaper reported Saturday that a member of the public had contacted police about remarks Fry made in 2015 to Irish broadcaster RTE. The individual told the newspaper it was his duty to complain under the Defamation Act, which makes blasphemy a crime punishable by a fine of up to 25,000 euros ($27,500.)

In the interview, Fry was asked what he would say if he were confronted by God.

He replied: "How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault? It's not right."

Police say they won't comment on an ongoing investigation."

[BaalChatzaf]

34 minutes ago, Peter said:

A is A. Let’s agree on that. Cave dwelling humans knew that, though they couldn’t express it fluently.

If Act A is aggressive behavior towards another human being, witnessed by the receiver of the aggression and 12 other witnesses . . .  then defense, retribution, and restitution are moral. That is traditional justice.  

Peter

LONDON (AP) — Police in Ireland are refusing to comment on a blasphemy complaint and investigation involving British comedian Stephen Fry. The inquiry came to light when the Irish Independent newspaper reported Saturday that a member of the public had contacted police about remarks Fry made in 2015 to Irish broadcaster RTE. The individual told the newspaper it was his duty to complain under the Defamation Act, which makes blasphemy a crime punishable by a fine of up to 25,000 euros ($27,500.)

In the interview, Fry was asked what he would say if he were confronted by God.

He replied: "How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault? It's not right."

Police say they won't comment on an ongoing investigation."

Everything is what it is.  What shall we conclude from that surprising proposition....

everything has an identity[*].   But knowing that does not tell one the identity of anything.  From tautologies little useful information can be inferred. 

 

* the identity of an object is the set of all properties which are true of the object (this principle was established by Leibniz) 

[anthony]

13 hours ago, moralist said:

Justice is... the objective reality of the consequences of your own actions.

 

Greg

Right, or: Justice is seeking and earning one's own justice in and from reality. 

In order to achieve your just ends, no person and no government can intervene. In there I think is the single, stripped down rationale behind government, or - its Justice protecting one's own justice.

[Peter]

One good thing about Ba’al he is not swayed by me or the crowd. He is no social metaphysician. Lame yes, but apparently he understands sarcasm, and is not a Jewish Borg as I suspected. Joke. Now laugh.     

 

Ba’al responded to me by saying: Everything is what it is.  What shall we conclude from that surprising proposition.... end quote

 

I doubt that you are referring to A is A because it is the most unsurprising thing in the world, so I will pick the AP quote.

 

I quoted the AP: In the interview, Fry was asked what he would say if he were confronted by God. He replied: "How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault? It's not right." end quote

 

Oddly enough if you are a deist you can blame “THE BIG GUY IN THE SKY” for the unearned misery but if you are not a deist you can blame an evil or malfunctioning universe, natural catastrophe, yourself, fate, someone else, or if you were Charley Darwin, evolution. There is no luck of the Irish, the call of the wild, destiny or fate. There is only a string of natural events and choices we make to thrive or die.

Peter  

[moralist]

55 minutes ago, Peter said:

I quoted the AP: In the interview, Fry was asked what he would say if he were confronted by God. He replied: "How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault?

Honestly, that's sooo liberal to blame (unjustly accuse) God for the evil people choose to do. It's the ulltimate in infantile abnegation of personal responsibility for their own actions and the just and deserved consequences they set into motion.

Oddly enough if you are a deist you can blame “THE BIG GUY IN THE SKY” for the unearned misery

Only liberal secularists could hold that view of religious people because they don't have any personal knowledge of them.

What they're actually saying is that they unjustly blame God, and the self imposed pain of believing that lie is what causes them to intellectually negate God in an effort to absolve themselves of hating God.

I've personally known many religious people in my lifetime, and so far not one of them has ever blamed (unjustly accused) God for the misery created by people who do evil.

Greg