How do you know murder is wrong?

[BaalChatzaf]

4 hours ago, anthony said:

It's a report. I passed it on. Make of it what you will. I have no clue whether these are "scum" or not. How can you know? Maybe it's the desperation of many who've previously only heard acquiesence? Whatever they are, it's better to command respect from certain people than affection. Second, a palpable change is being brought about by Trump, he's not bluffing.

That is true.  Trump is not bluffing.  He is acting on impulse.  Who knows what he will do next week?  Probably not him. 

[Wolf DeVoon]

 

On 4/3/2017 at 3:21 PM, anthony said:

What existing data is there to show murder is evil?

 

On 4/3/2017 at 7:17 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

I don't know about evil. I do know legal and illegal. The laws are clear on murder. It is illegal and punishable.

 

Hmph. Had to go back to page 6 to find anything about murder, and I found astounding chaos. My boilerplate response: Ethics and the philosophy of law are two separate branches of science, so there's no point in asking whether murder is evil. "Laws" begs a sillier question, namely the source of "laws" (especially codified statutes decreed by a legislature or tyrant). The legal prohibition of murder has to do with due process. Equal standing is constitutionally provided, so you can't deprive someone of access to the courts, or punish someone without fair trial, competent counsel, appellate review of error, etc. Murder is wrongly acting as extra-legal judge, jury, and executioner.

[moralist]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

That is true.  Trump is not bluffing.  He is acting on impulse.  Who knows what he will do next week?  Probably not him. 

Unpredictable spontanaety is always an advantage... for the enemy doesn't know what he'll do either.

Unlike Obama who told his Islamic fascist allies everything.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

9 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

 

 

 

Hmph. Had to go back to page 6 to find anything about murder, and I found astounding chaos. My boilerplate response: Ethics and the philosophy of law are two separate branches of science, so there's no point in asking whether murder is evil. "Laws" begs a sillier question, namely the source of "laws" (especially codified statutes decreed by a legislature or tyrant). The legal prohibition of murder has to do with due process. Equal standing is constitutionally provided, so you can't deprive someone of access to the courts, or punish someone without fair trial, competent counsel, appellate review of error, etc. Murder is wrongly acting as extra-legal judge, jury, and executioner.

and......?

[anthony]

Jeez, remind me not to be shipwrecked on the same deserted island as you guys. I could be a goner.

Since, if we chanced to be outside the vicinity of Rule of Law, would anyone "know" how you know that murder is wrong?

It's like a man careful not to drive through a red light. Does he not do this: a.) because it's against the traffic law b.) because he might hurt someone, or damage their property or, c.) could hurt himself, damage his property. In a society or anywhere else, give me the rationally selfish guy who puts c.) and b.) way above a).

Acting/not acting because of fear of the law isn't a moral act, it's an obedient one.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Jeez, remind me not to be shipwrecked on the same deserted island as you guys. I could be a goner.

Since, if we chanced to be outside the vicinity of Rule of Law, would anyone "know" how you know that murder is wrong?

It's like a man careful not to drive through a red light. Does he not do this: a.) because it's against the traffic law b.) because he might hurt someone, or damage their property or, c.) could hurt himself, damage his property. In a society or anywhere else, give me the rationally selfish guy who puts c.) and b.) way above a).

Acting/not acting because of fear of the law isn't a moral act, it's an obedient one.

Actually  most people will be  friendly or non-hostile if they are not threatened.  Aside from law that tells us what is punishable and what the punishments are, there is always old fashioned good manners and courtesy.  Given a choice between Morality and Good Manners,  I choose Good Manners. 

[moralist]

11 hours ago, anthony said:

Jeez, remind me not to be shipwrecked on the same deserted island as you guys. I could be a goner.

Since, if we chanced to be outside the vicinity of Rule of Law, would anyone "know" how you know that murder is wrong?

It's like a man careful not to drive through a red light. Does he not do this: a.) because it's against the traffic law b.) because he might hurt someone, or damage their property or, c.) could hurt himself, damage his property. In a society or anywhere else, give me the rationally selfish guy who puts c.) and b.) way above a).

Acting/not acting because of fear of the law isn't a moral act, it's an obedient one.

That's SO true, Tony!

Amoral legalistic secularists are truly scary. 

State worshippers who placed legality over morality marched Jews into gas chambers and opened valves because their government god declared it was legal to do it.

Greg

[anthony]

22 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Actually  most people will be  friendly or non-hostile if they are not threatened.  Aside from law that tells us what is punishable and what the punishments are, there is always old fashioned good manners and courtesy.  Given a choice between Morality and Good Manners,  I choose Good Manners. 

Now if only you could translate Good Manners into the rationale for not murdering anyone. Or do you think Bad Manners the cause of murder? I don't know, but am quite sure that murderers have existed who had Good Manners, and many of their victims had Good Manners. Apart from that, I agree - there is never cause for gratuitous discourtesy, although honesty comes first. Appeasing certain other people in "friendly or non-hostile" fashion disregardful of their wrong actions and morals is to condone them, and allow them to move onto some other victim.

[anthony]

23 hours ago, moralist said:

That's SO true, Tony!

Amoral legalistic secularists are truly scary. 

State worshippers who placed legality over morality marched Jews into gas chambers and opened valves because their government god declared it was legal to do it.

Greg

So far Greg, there's not a reply which disputes Dennis Prager's premise. It's been tacitly accepted that there is no common secular response to the immorality of murder. There's the Law which forbids and penalises it; there is the bad feeling it would give one - well, one should hope so! For any civilisation and any proper human, these have to be accepted as a given. (Although it's many times that emotion is the cause of murder, so doesn't count as justification, either way).

[moralist]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

So far Greg, there's not a reply which disputes Dennis Prager's premise. It's been tacitly accepted that there is no common secular response to the immorality of murder. There's the Law which forbids and penalises it; there is the bad feeling it would give one - well, one should hope so! For any civilisation and any proper human, these have to be accepted as a given. (Although it's many times that emotion is the cause of murder, so doesn't count as justification, either way).

I noticed that too, Tony. 

Without an objective moral law greater than men, no act is objectively evil. It's all just subjective collective popular cultural opinion... none of whch has any greater weight than any other.

There can only be objective moral standards of behavior when there is absolutely nothing any man could ever do do alter them. The subjective laws man creates can only either agree or disagree with the objective reality of those immutable standards. For example, US law agrees because it is based upon Judeo Christian moral standards... while Sharia law disagrees because it is based on something else.

But US law did not create the moral standards upon which it is based. It only serves them because they are of a higher order than any man made law.

So while man is free to subjectively choose to violate those objective moral standards...

...he can never change them.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Now if only you could translate Good Manners into the rationale for not murdering anyone. Or do you think Bad Manners the cause of murder? I don't know, but am quite sure that murderers have existed who had Good Manners, and many of their victims had Good Manners. Apart from that, I agree - there is never cause for gratuitous discourtesy, although honesty comes first. Appeasing certain other people in "friendly or non-hostile" fashion disregardful of their wrong actions and morals is to condone them, and allow them to move onto some other victim.

Murdering some one is very intrusive.  Good Manners forbid  excessive intrusion on the time, person and property of another. 

Also, using a handy rule of symmetry,  if one does not wish to be murdered, it would be reasonable not to murder someone else.  Don't do to others what you don't want done to you. 

[moralist]

26 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Also, using a handy rule of symmetry,  if one does not wish to be murdered, it would be reasonable not to murder someone else.  Don't do to others what you don't want done to you. 

"Reasonable" is only your own subjective opinion, Bob. You still can't give a reason how you know murder is wrong. Hitler didn't wish to be murdered and yet murdered millions. And you'd gas Jews too, as long as your government told you it was legal to do so.

Greg

[anthony]

57 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Murdering some one is very intrusive.  Good Manners forbid  excessive intrusion on the time, person and property of another. 

Also, using a handy rule of symmetry,  if one does not wish to be murdered, it would be reasonable not to murder someone else.  Don't do to others what you don't want done to you. 

Let me get this straight. If I don't go round murdering people, I can safely assume that nobody will murder me?

Is this a kind of watchful, cosmic justice or is it sheer wishful thinking?

Your GR falls apart when you use it for anything more than a quick n easy, one sided check on one's actions (apropos other people).

If by what you do, you can also expect from others - to do in return - ha, not in this reality, think again.

And murder being "very intrusive" is one of your most classic lines, Bob.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

3 minutes ago, anthony said:

Let me get this straight. If I don't go round murdering people, I can safely assume that nobody will murder me?I

 

Non sequitor.  You are rather good at that.  From the proposition  I do not do to others what I do not want them to do to me,  I cannot infer that others won't to me what I don't want them to do to me.  

Have you ever consider taking a course in elementary logic?  There are several such course available for free on the Internet. 

[moralist]

7 hours ago, anthony said:

Let me get this straight. If I don't go round murdering people...

You would murder if your government told you it was legal...

... because without an objective moral standard the only thing that determines your behavior is government laws. You'd gas Jews if your government god told you it was legal. As an amoral secularist whose only god is government, you have NO objective moral criteria.

Face it, Bob... you're just a kapo...

...because you still can't tell me HOW you KNOW murder is wrong.  

Greg

[anthony]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Non sequitor.  You are rather good at that.  From the proposition  I do not do to others what I do not want them to do to me,  I cannot infer that others won't to me what I don't want them to do to me.  

Have you ever consider taking a course in elementary logic?  There are several such course available for free on the Internet. 

I'll try hard to see it your way, but here you contradict your first statement. You first wrote:

"Also, using a handy rule of symmetry, if one does not wish to be murdered, it would be reasonable not to murder someone else".

You made a statement: If not A, then B.

And I restated it in reverse -  "If I don't go round murdering people, I can safely assume that nobody will murder me?" If not A, then B. The minor difference being your equivocal "be reasonable not to murder..." (Reasonable? Not immoral?!)

You, not I, made a causal connection between A and B. It was indeed your clear inference that it should not happen to one ... if one doesn't do it to others.

A "rule of symmetry" between the acts of individuals doesn't exist in actuality. You let 'logic' confuse your sense of reality and now have later adjusted that erroneous first position.

Good manners and etiquette as early education to pre-empt future murder is a novel approach, though. I guess murderers will be trained to politely say "Pardon me, sir, sorry about that" when they stick the knife in.;)

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

I'll try hard to see it your way, but here you contradict your first statement. You first wrote:

"Also, using a handy rule of symmetry, if one does not wish to be murdered, it would be reasonable not to murder someone else".

You made a statement: If not A, then B.

And I restated it in reverse -  "If I don't go round murdering people, I can safely assume that nobody will murder me?" If not A, then B. The minor difference being your equivocal "be reasonable not to murder..." (Reasonable? Not immoral?!)

You, not I, made a causal connection between A and B. It was indeed your clear inference that it should not happen to one ... if one doesn't do it to others.

A "rule of symmetry" between the acts of individuals doesn't exist in actuality. You let 'logic' confuse your sense of reality and now have later adjusted that erroneous first position.

Good manners and etiquette as early education to pre-empt future murder is a novel approach, though. I guess murderers will be trained to politely say "Pardon me, sir, sorry about that" when they stick the knife in.;)

Let me clarify for for you.  Don't do to other people what your don't want them to do to you.  Is that clear enough for you?

[Wolf DeVoon]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Don't do to other people what your don't want them to do to you.  Is that clear enough for you?

Oops. Parental control of children. Probate, bankruptcy, national security, vice, zoning, controlled substances, licensure, welfare, affirmative action quotas and race-based admissions and hiring, subsidies paid to politically correct cronies and politically correct academics. Criminals and other neighbors who don't give a shit about you, or your stupid Golden Rule. There is no Golden Rule jurisdiction, no mention of it in the U.S. Constitution or case law. You have no right to disobey the state, and individual rights are toast. A majority of your neighbors thank you for accurately disclosing income and paying taxes on penalty of criminal prosecution.

[Wolf DeVoon]

10 hours ago, anthony said:

It's been tacitly accepted that there is no common secular response to the immorality of murder. There's the Law which forbids and penalises it...

I don't blame anyone for not knowing, but it would be good to note that murder (and other crime) is a common law jurisdiction -- which is to say that, historically, it was arrived at by trial court case law, long before it became a subject of legislative code with specific defenses and penalties.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, wolfdevoon said:

Oops. Parental control of children. Probate, bankruptcy, national security, vice, zoning, controlled substances, licensure, welfare, affirmative action quotas and race-based admissions and hiring, subsidies paid to politically correct cronies and politically correct academics. Criminals and other neighbors who don't give a shit about you, or your stupid Golden Rule. There is no Golden Rule jurisdiction, no mention of it in the U.S. Constitution or case law. You have no right to disobey the state, and individual rights are toast. A majority of your neighbors thank you for accurately disclosing income and paying taxes on penalty of criminal prosecution.

I am talking about my everyday ordinary ethical behavior.  I am not  pulling a Kantian categorical imperative  stunt.   That is the rule I use. I find it works for me just fine. I am not in the business of proposing  universal ethical principle for everyone.  I have enough trouble regulating my own behavior. 

[Wolf DeVoon]

11 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am talking about my everyday ordinary ethical behavior.  I am not  pulling a Kantian categorical imperative  stunt.   That is the rule I use. I find it works for me just fine. I am not in the business of proposing  universal ethical principle for everyone.  I have enough trouble regulating my own behavior. 

My family uses firearms, door locks, motion detectors, and situational awareness to deter murder.

[BaalChatzaf]

53 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

My family uses firearms, door locks, motion detectors, and situational awareness to deter murder.

So do I.  I have a perfect right to defend myself and my family from harm.  However I do not initiate force on the grounds that I do not wish force to be initiated against me.  But if it is I will take whatever actions are required to protect me and mine.  Self defense is NOT the initiation of force. 

[Wolf DeVoon]

31 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Self defense is NOT the initiation of force. 

Uh-huh. (shakes head) The question was "How do you know murder is wrong?" and instead of answering it, you segued to the Golden Rule and NOIF. I replied that we're surrounded by rights violators and my family is armed. Okay, fine, you characterize it as lawful and morally correct self-defense, but it's not. It's a positive claim of privilege that evaporates when a cop, a tax bill, or a bad guy shows up. If you shoot someone, however justifiable in your own mind, you are presumed to be legally wrong. The great problem is independent action (of whatever kind). Fine line between heroism and evil. The Declaration of Independence was an act of treason, much like Roark blowing up a building and Guts Regan providing a corpse to fake Bjorn's suicide.

I get the feeling that you're a law-abiding citizen and want everyone else to be law-abiding citizens. Unreasonable expectation. But more importantly, I subscribe to the notion of choice. Most of us exert such power as we dare. Some dare more than others.

[moralist]

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 I have enough trouble regulating my own behavior. 

Who protects your own family from you?

You can't even explain how you know murder is wrong, Bob... and it is that subjective relativistic amoral legalistic secularism without any connection to objective moral reality which makes you a danger to others.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

That is the rule I use. I find it works for me just fine.

Bob,

Just hope if you ever run into a passive-aggressive suicidal killer, he doesn't follow the same rule.

Michael