How do you know murder is wrong?

[BaalChatzaf]

9 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

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.

I am as armed as I am able to be.  My hand eye co-ordination is pretty well shot (I am over 80) so fire-arms our out.  My armament consists of a foil and cans  of that nasty spray that blinds people.   That is as much  force as I have at hand.   I lock my door, I do not  display things that I do not wish stolen.  As to government, it completely has the drop on me.  I just do not go out looking to provoke some government asshole to make my life miserable. The only remaining element of defense after this are my wits.  

As to murder:  Murder is homicide  flowing from men rea (malicious intent) or from culpable loss of control.  That is a legal definition.  Killing in self defense is not legally murder although it is homicide.  I really don't see why there is even a question.  The legal definition of murder is fairly well known and it does not require any genius or special talent to know what it is.  The real question ought to be  :  what kind of homicide  is wrong?

[BaalChatzaf]

48 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

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

Michael

So do I.  There is nothing in my book of rules  that will prevent me from defending myself physically and with lethal force if necessary.  Just because I follow the Jewish non-altruistic version of the Golden Rule does not lead me to the naive notion that everyone else does. 

[Brant Gaede]

6 hours ago, moralist said:

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

Murder is wrong many ways but the basic ones are top-down and bottom up.

Its wrong because it's initiation of force (rights' violation)--top-down. That's the legality. But that's from--out of--the bottom up. That's the morality. There never would have been that legality without the morality. No one would ever even know about it. And that top is very weak and has to be continually re-enforced from the bottom. This makes NIOF just a slice of passing time and in our culture--intellectual and moral--evaporating. That's because it stands in the way of more political power from the ruling class which bribes hoi polloi for the necessary votes. This country is filled with children who don't want to grow up. The government obliges.

I'm not now going to write pages about morality, but give and take with Bob about it is impossible. It's like wrestling with a rock.

--Brant

[moralist]

44 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Murder is wrong many ways but the basic ones are top-down and bottom up.

Its wrong because it's initiation of force (rights' violation)--top-down. That's the legality. But that's from--out of--the bottom up. That's the morality. There never would have been that legality without the morality. No one would ever even know about it. And that top is very weak and has to be continually re-enforced from the bottom. This makes NIOF just a slice of passing time and in our culture--intellectual and moral--evaporating. That's because it stands in the way of more political power from the ruling class which bribes hoi polloi for the necessary votes. This country is filled with children who don't want to grow up. The government obliges.

I'm not now going to write pages about morality, but give and take with Bob about it is impossible. It's like wrestling with a rock.

--Brant

The purpose of legality is to serve the objective reality of morality which is greater than itself. And without that reference there is only subjective opinion.

The purpose of give and take is for for Bob to fully express his view, because he offers a real time example of what happens to a person who was groomed by the secular moral relativistic education system for a lifelong parasitic trained-monkey relationship to his government.

And as a secular amoral legalist, Bob is just a tool who will do whatever his government tells him is legal no matter what it is. It's lucky he lives in a nation built on Judeo Christian values, because if he lived in a Sharia culture I have no doubt he'd be a suicide bomber just because Islamic terrorist governments declare it's legal as well as moral. 

Bob is an example of a useful idiot... which is why it's good for everyone to see him express his view. 

 

Greg 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 Just because I follow the Jewish non-altruistic version of the Golden Rule does not lead me to the naive notion that everyone else does. 

Bob,

That was not my point. My point was that if he followed the Golden Rule, he would treat you the way he would want to be treated. And since he is a sicko sado-masochist, that would not be a good moral principle to govern a situation where you both met. I believe a different principle would be better for you at such an event. As for him, the Golden Rule would help him get his jollies at your expense.

Michael

[anthony]

20 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

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?

Fair, up to a point, I think. You bring in some value in a life, at least. However, we're talking absolutes here, life or death, good or evil. The shorthand checks in using the Golden Rule socially will never extend to such absolutes. Some eventualities and situations when applying the GR: should I push in front of the queue, should I help the old lady with her parcels, should I lie or tell the truth in this case...? always hold oneself - as the standard of value.

Essentially, in all cases one is saying - "How would I enjoy/hate this or that being done/not done ... to ME?"

One's life is one's own "supreme" value - or ought to be, for many it isn't always, as we see - but one can't ever be one's OWN "standard" of value. A standard is an independent, objective gauge of measurement, and so "the standard of value" sets an objective level against which one measures oneself and one's actions.

Translated into action, your statement means:  I don't wish to be murdered, therefore I won't murder.

And is self-referencing, or circular (you are your own 'standard') - and subjective (the concept of value in life, hugely varies and is erratic from one individual to the next), and amounts to little more than opinion. Therefore it diverts us further away from being able to identify the objective dis-value (evil) in murder for all of humanity for all time (like for some individual in hundreds of years time - out on Mars, for instance).

[Peter]

Tony wrote: 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? end quote  

The “Golden Rule” is elegant but merely a shorthanded introduction to deep thought, so its main benefit is for primitive people and children. We adults use law, precedent, and morality to explain when self defense is not murder.

Peter

Do you have TV commercials over there for new medicines like we do in America?

After describing the miraculous wonders of a new drug, they recite in a low, quick voice a list of side effects. HumVEE can lower a person's ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. Serious, sometimes fatal events like lymphoma and other types of cancer have happened. There are a few studies showing heart failure, blood, liver and nervous system problems. So pay for this drug upfront. We want our money. It may do the good we say but this shit might kill you too.

[BaalChatzaf]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

That was not my point. My point was that if he followed the Golden Rule, he would treat you the way he would want to be treated. And since he is a sicko sado-masochist, that would not be a good moral principle to govern a situation where you both met. I believe a different principle would be better for you at such an event. As for him, the Golden Rule would help him get his jollies at your expense.

Michael

There is little I can do to prevent the evil of others,  except to avoid such others, if practical  or if necessary,  defend my self.  The world is filled with people who have no self control. 

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Fair, up to a point, I think. You bring in some value in a life, at least. However, we're talking absolutes here, life or death, good or evil. The shorthand checks in using the Golden Rule socially will never extend to such absolutes. Some eventualities and situations when applying the GR: should I push in front of the queue, should I help the old lady with her parcels, should I lie or tell the truth in this case...? always hold oneself - as the standard of value.

Essentially, in all cases one is saying - "How would I enjoy/hate this or that being done/not done ... to ME?"

One's life is one's own "supreme" value - or ought to be, for many it isn't always, as we see - but one can't ever be one's own "standard" of value. A standard is an independent, objective guage of measurement, and so "the standard of value" sets an objective level against which one measures oneself and one's actions.

Translated into action, your statement means:  I don't wish to be murdered, therefore I won't murder.

And is self-referencing, or circular (you are your own 'standard') - and subjective (the concept of value in life, hugely varies and is erratic from one individual to the next), and amounts to little more than opinion. Therefore it diverts us further away from being able to identify the objective dis-value (evil) in murder for all of humanity for all time (like for some individual in hundreds of years time - out on Mars, for instance).

Life and Death are factual matters.  Good and Evil to some extent are doxa -- matters of opinion.  There is nothing in the laws of physical nature that tell us what is good and what is evil.  On the other hand  any once living entity that comes into persistent thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings is dead and any system that can maintain itself far from thermodynamic equilibrium is probably alive.  My guiding rule  of doing what I consider right rests on my judgement  and is not the least bit altruistic.  Two things I cannot stand ---  bad breath and altruism. 

[anthony]

17 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Life and Death are factual matters.  Good and Evil to some extent are doxa -- matters of opinion.  There is nothing in the laws of physical nature that tell us what is good and what is evil.  On the other hand  any once living entity that comes into persistent thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings is dead and any system that can maintain itself far from thermodynamic equilibrium is probably alive.  My guiding rule  of doing what I consider right rests on my judgement  and is not the least bit altruistic.  Two things I cannot stand ---  bad breath and altruism. 

If you can manage to conceive of knowing of anything 'good' without having life to know it, do tell. The good is life and one's life, not so? This 'Good and Evil' isn't floating out there, somewhere, as you seem to imagine, it's within people and their choices.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

39 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

There is little I can do to prevent the evil of others,  except to avoid such others, if practical  or if necessary,  defend my self.  The world is filled with people who have no self control. 

Bob,

Cute. Right on point with what I was talking about.

But then again, shirts tend to be cheaper in São Paulo, Ray Bradbury's works straddle the line between pop culture and great writing, squirrels look cute but are awfully dumb, and not everybody agrees Kant.

That's what I think.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

5 minutes ago, anthony said:

If you can manage to conceive of knowing of anything 'good' without having life to know it, do tell. The good is life and one's life, not so? This 'Good and Evil' isn't floating out there, somewhere, as you seem to imagine, it's within people and their choices.

The condition for knowing is being alive and aware.  What am I supposed to infer from that?   That being un-alive or un-aware makes knowing impossible? Is there anything further that I can logically deduce?  

[BaalChatzaf]

8 minutes ago, anthony said:

The good is life and one's life, not so?

Really?  What if someone is suffering from extreme and intractable pain and the only way of ending it is dying?  Is life a good then? Sometimes death or being unconscious  is the better state. 

[jts]

Philosophy is in bad shape if after 2500 years of progress in philosophy, philosophers don't know why murder is wrong.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

19 minutes ago, jts said:

Philosophy is in bad shape if after 2500 years of progress in philosophy, philosophers don't know why murder is wrong.

Jerry,

You just said something I agree with 100%.

Michael

[Peter]

3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jerry,

You just said something I agree with 100%.

Michael

Not me. I think ANY Objectivist could give you a decent definition of murder and self defense, but it has been done on this forum before so repeating that would be tedious.

Psychologist B.B. Ba’al wrote: Sometimes death or being unconscious is the better state. 

Woody Allen had a saying, “I don’t mind dying, I just don’t want to be there when it happens.”

Two relatives died from heart attacks and it was not a good way to go: both fearfully made it to the hospital but died soon after. I would prefer a Soylent Green ending to that. There are end of life choices a “civilized person” can make. Fortunately for many, they slip into a deep sleep and never wake up. When your time is near, opioids could keep the pain away and that jagged little pill could then put you into the deep sleep that you so desire.

The Star Trek suspended animation idea is also a method whose time has come. No funeral. No death . . . at that time. Just a long sleep until you can be cured or your *self* is downloaded to an inanimate computer or a cloned body. Yeah. That’s it. Download me into a cloned 20 year old body identical to me. If I were a Klingon I would prefer the boney forehead ridges be eliminated, or if I had a similar human defect, I would like that to be corrected.

Peter           

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 minutes ago, Peter said:

Not me. I think ANY Objectivist could give you a decent definition of murder and self defense, but it has been done on this forum before so repeating that would be tedious.

Peter,

It was a quip about splitting hairs over nothing.

It was the quip I agreed with.

I mean, why worry about bombing Syria or Afghanistan when there is the urgent matter of whether the Golden Rule really applies to categorical imperatives?

Michael

[anthony]

1 hour ago, jts said:

Philosophy is in bad shape if after 2500 years of progress in philosophy, philosophers don't know why murder is wrong.

 

Some have and do, absolutely.

[anthony]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Really?  What if someone is suffering from extreme and intractable pain and the only way of ending it is dying?  Is life a good then? Sometimes death or being unconscious  is the better state. 

Where there's life there are choices. I say again.

..."the only way of ending it is dying"

And what do YOU believe ends life? Last I looked, it was - yup, dying.

(Seriously, you are flailing, Bob. Just concede you have no answer - in your skeptical philosophy - for why murder is wrong).

[anthony]

7 hours ago, Peter said:

Tony wrote: 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? end quote  

The “Golden Rule” is elegant but merely a shorthanded introduction to deep thought, so its main benefit is for primitive people and children. We adults use law, precedent, and morality to explain when self defense is not murder.

Peter

 

Peter: I think along the same lines about the Golden Rule. It is basically what we teach a child who wants to push and grab. "How would you feel if someone did the same back to you?" So far so good, the lesson teaches self-awareness in regard to others, but it can become a lazy form of morality when relied on too far going into adulthood.

One can end up habitually imposing one's own wishes and variable standards upon others implicitly--"what you would have others do unto you"--instead of applying attention, awareness and objectivity to others' singular situations. Which means clearly looking at another person's predicament (which you've come across), sizing it up for what it is - in itself - and volitionally acting accordingly from one's objective/benevolent standards, to their aid. The O'ist ethics and methodology thoughtfully used by one will make his GR redundant.

By contrast, in making of oneself the subjective "standard of value", I believe the "circularity" back on to oneself will be prone to eventual subjective egotism.

Though flawed if relied on over much, I think the GR is still streets ahead of any "duty and service" ethics, by which the standard of value is 'others'.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Where there's life there are choices. I say again.

..."the only way of ending it is dying"

And what do YOU believe ends life? Last I looked, it was - yup, dying.

(Seriously, you are flailing, Bob. Just concede you have no answer - in your skeptical philosophy - for why murder is wrong).

But a person with intractable pain may opt for euthanasia or suicide.  If life were that valuable in and of itself,  suicide would be out of the question.

[Wolf DeVoon]

9 hours ago, moralist said:

The purpose of legality is to serve the objective reality of morality which is greater than itself.

Nope. Not even close. Totally wrong. The source of law is not your imagination.

[Wolf DeVoon]

deleted (double post, sorry)

[anthony]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

But a person with intractable pain may opt for euthanasia or suicide.  If life were that valuable in and of itself,  suicide would be out of the question.

"If life were that valuable in and of itself" ... to whom? There is not some kind of a mystical or universal imperative on 'life'. For whom? Value has to be seen, found and developed, individually. It's not an automatic effect of having life, but life and value are inseparable. Every life is of objective and individual value to he/she who has it. Here's the reason, in part, why each life has to be given such high value, in order that one's life isn't just given up, sacrificed, at the first obstacle one meets. And for any later pain, of any sort. Can life ever become a dis-value? I personally can't imagine any such intensity of relentless suffering which could outweigh the supreme value of existence, so I can't speak for that person and anyone. Perhaps. But where there is life, there's life. With all its existing values which he hasn't lost and haven't left him.

[Brant Gaede]

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Life and Death are factual matters.  Good and Evil to some extent are doxa -- matters of opinion. 

Finally, for you just said, "Good and Evil to some extent are [not] doxa--matters of opinion."

--Brant

congratulations