Why is murder wrong?

[basics]

I feel like that is a rather dishonest interpretation of Atheism (maybe because you can only view it in a religious framework, because that is all you believe their is?); Atheism isn't about dogmatically denying the existence of God. If an all-powerful being were to appear before a crowd of Atheists, they wouldn't shout "blasphemy!" at it and try to do away with it. Atheism isn't unfalsifiable, unlike your position, Atheists acknowledge it is possible for them to be proved wrong. Generally.

The spartan,

An All Powerful Being did appear before many thousands of people both religious and atheist over a period of many years doing all sorts of Supernatural things and yet in the end they all watched Him being crucified after being punched, kicked, spat on, beaten and bloodied. Why even passers-by mocked Him as He hung there. This Man-God was their Creator as well as their potential Saviour just as the prophets had spoken of since the fall of man. His finger etched out in stone the Ten Commandments many years before, one of them being, " Thou shalt not kill."

[95thrifleman]

The spartan,

An All Powerful Being did appear before many thousands of people both religious and atheist over a period of many years doing all sorts of Supernatural things and yet in the end they all watched Him being crucified after being punched, kicked, spat on, beaten and bloodied. Why even passers-by mocked Him as He hung there. This Man-God was their Creator as well as their potential Saviour just as the prophets had spoken of since the fall of man. His finger etched out in stone the Ten Commandments many years before, one of them being, " Thou shalt not kill."

The problem is you demand that people take it on faith that your god did all this.

An old guy, on his own, goes into the mountains for a while and comes back with a dozen laws and you expect us to believe that god gave him the tablets rather than moses himself spent the time up there thinking about the problem and writing the laws himself.

Same with most of the bible. People wrote it yet you want s to accept it's the divine will of a god? More than that, EVERYONE elses religion, with similar concpets that are expected to be taken on faith are wrong?

Your unproven supernatural events are true but the hindhus and muslims are wrong in their own beliefs regarding supernatural events?

Your only evidence is a single book with no way to verify the truth and a smug "well it's a matter of faith" excuse?

[Sar1n]

Dictionaries generally just record word usage, so if a number of people define atheism as a lack of belief in God, that definition will be included in the average dictionary, no matter how "incorrect" it is. But in academic settings atheism has always been construed as a positive disbelief in God; that's how philosophers have always defined it.

The idea that atheism isn't a proposition is a recent and minority view, even among self-identified atheists; it's usually espoused mainly by New Atheists and Internet activists and such, as an argumentative tactic against theists: it inflates the number of atheists and makes atheism seem more common than it really is, but more importantly, it allows atheists to shift the "burden of proof" onto the theist, by pretending that only the theist and not the atheist is making a claim.

The redefinition serves no other purpose, since we already have terms like nontheist and agnostic.

In my experience, outside of academic and generally philosophical discourse, atheism is used more as a blanket term for both actual atheism, agnosticism and nontheism. I come from country that's largely non-religious, and many people, when asked, simply brush it off as atheism, despite the fact that they are not, strictly speaking, atheists.

[The spartan]

There may be different forms of approach to Theism and Atheism, you can't state which one is wrong and which one is right if not adopting yourself some fideistic approach.

Wow, that is a very measured response from you. I agree, Atheism is a fairly loose term that is better paired with the concept of Theism rather than any particular religion. Especially given that Atheism isn't very centralized, you will have a broad definition of what Atheists are. I believe Prodromos is referring to the Atheist culture within the US, which a is a bit more specific.

That's literally what atheism is.

Let's be generous for a second and pretend as if Atheists have an unfalsifiable belief that god(s) does not exist; that isn't what dogma means, at least not in a religious sense. Dogma has to come from an authoritative source such as a holy document or figure and often has an organization that promotes the source of that dogma (what it says in the Bible, or the teachings of Christ). To my knowledge, there is no equivalent for Atheism. When you argue with an Atheist, who do they site for authority of what they believe? Someone they claim has divine authority? When I argue with Christians, they will reference me to the Bible or the stance of a specific Church who has the authority of divinity; that's the dogma.

But to loop back to the first sentence, I will end my generosity by pointing out that of the many Atheists I know in life, maybe one actually has an unfalsifiable belief that there is no god. The others are not as near as zealous about there, by divine necessity, being no gods in existence; they are willing to be proven wrong. You ignored that later part of my post.

[conon394]

His finger etched out in stone the Ten Commandments many years before, one of them being, " Thou shalt not kill."

Unless you live in Jericho. Better ditch that ID man...

[basics]

The problem is you demand that people take it on faith that your god did all this.

An old guy, on his own, goes into the mountains for a while and comes back with a dozen laws and you expect us to believe that god gave him the tablets rather than moses himself spent the time up there thinking about the problem and writing the laws himself.
Same with most of the bible. People wrote it yet you want s to accept it's the divine will of a god? More than that, EVERYONE elses religion, with similar concpets that are expected to be taken on faith are wrong?
Your unproven supernatural events are true but the hindhus and muslims are wrong in their own beliefs regarding supernatural events?
Your only evidence is a single book with no way to verify the truth and a smug "well it's a matter of faith" excuse?

95thrifleman,

That old guy, Moses, not only brought the Law down from the mountain but he's the guy that God had write Genesis so that the people would know that there was/is a God Who not only watches over them but created all things including them. One only has to look to modern Israel to see God's work there and yet still most Jews don't believe in Jesus actually being their Messiah. Even so, there are Jews being brought to Jesus as can be seen on Youtube quite regularly, their stories being Supernatural as well.

Yes, people did write the Bible and each one of these writers had experience of God to be able to do so. Everyone elses religion right back to the time when Nimrod was deified was based on the prophecy about Christ's coming which Noah brought with him out of the flood. So, there are similarities with each one but the false ones are manmade whereas the true Gospel is God made.

People who are converted through rebirth never had any faith until at that moment of conversion, Jesus imputed His faith into them. That's why it is called Justification by Faith and that book as you call it happens to be the power of God unto salvation or conversion, why? Because it actually is the word of God as though He Himself had actually written it. It delivers what it promises.

[Prodromos]

In my experience, outside of academic and generally philosophical discourse, atheism is used more as a blanket term for both actual atheism, agnosticism and nontheism. I come from country that's largely non-religious, and many people, when asked, simply brush it off as atheism, despite the fact that they are not, strictly speaking, atheists.

You can blame that on atheists like Christopher Hitchens, who have worked tirelessly to popularize Flew's bogus redefinition of atheism. Since this redefinition serves no purpose whatsoever except as a dishonest argumentative tactic against theism, it is virtually unanimously rejected by philosophers, as well as by most regular people. Quoting from Oxford's Handbook of Atheism:

a 2007 study of over 700 students—all at the same British university, at the same time, with a clear majority being a similar age and from the same country—found that, from a list of commonly encountered definitions of ‘atheist’, the most popular choice was ‘A person who believes that there is no God or gods’ (Bullivant 2008). This was, however, chosen by only 51.8 per cent of respondents: hardly an overwhelming consensus. 29.1 per cent opted instead for ‘A person who is convinced that there is no God or gods’, 13.6 per cent took the broader ‘A person who lacks a belief in a God or gods’, and 0.6 per cent answered ‘Don’t know’.

Atheism has always been understood as the proposition that there is no God. We already have a term for simple nonbelief or lack of belief (nontheism), and for believing that the question of God's existence is unanswerable (agnosticism).

So I would prefer to use the mainstream definition of atheism in a philosophical debate.

Let's be generous for a second and pretend as if Atheists have an unfalsifiable belief that god(s) does not exist; that isn't what dogma means, at least not in a religious sense. Dogma has to come from an authoritative source such as a holy document or figure and often has an organization that promotes the source of that dogma (what it says in the Bible, or the teachings of Christ). To my knowledge, there is no equivalent for Atheism. When you argue with an Atheist, who do they site for authority of what they believe? Someone they claim has divine authority? When I argue with Christians, they will reference me to the Bible or the stance of a specific Church who has the authority of divinity; that's the dogma.

But to loop back to the first sentence, I will end my generosity by pointing out that of the many Atheists I know in life, maybe one actually has an unfalsifiable belief that there is no god. The others are not as near as zealous about there, by divine necessity, being no gods in existence; they are willing to be proven wrong. You ignored that later part of my post.

Dogma is binding doctrine. Just as a Christian must believe in Jesus's divinity, an atheist must deny the existence of God, since atheism just is the doctrine that there is no God, by definition. So, an atheist already believes there is no God. How he came to that conclusion and how willing he is to abandon it, well, that differs from atheist to atheist, obviously.

[The spartan]

Dogma is binding doctrine. Just as a Christian must believe in Jesus's divinity, an atheist must deny the existence of God, since atheism just is the doctrine that there is no God, by definition. So, an atheist already believes there is no God. How he came to that conclusion and how willing he is to abandon it, well, that differs from atheist to atheist, obviously. But I am reminded of this quote by Pascal:

You didn't actually answer the question: what is the authority (American) Atheists point to as the core of their "doctrine"? They aren't at least claiming divine authority, unlike yourself.

[basics]

You didn't actually answer the question: what is the authority (American) Atheists point to as the core of their "doctrine"? They aren't at least claiming divine authority, unlike yourself.

The spartan,

How about the falsety of Darwin's theory of evolution because that is the only standard by which an atheist can stand on trying to prove there is no God.

[Prodromos]

You didn't actually answer the question: what is the authority (American) Atheists point to as the core of their "doctrine"?

The dictionary? The definition of atheism is literally, "the doctrine that there is no God." Could you clarify your question, because I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you mean to say that atheism is innate while theism must be learned from others?

[Himster]

The dictionary? The definition of atheism is literally, "the doctrine that there is no God."

Practically no atheists in the world accept that definition, certainly no atheist here that I know of. This definition is a common strawman, more specifically a strawman designed and disseminated by Christians, a deliberate misrepresentation.
Atheism is precisely synonymous with nontheism, in the same way that nonmoral and amoral are perfectly synonymous, as are; nonhistorical/ahistorical, nonsymmetrical/asymmetrical, etc. The prefixes of "non" and "a" are synonyms.

Do you mean to say that atheism is innate while theism must be learned from others?

I know you're not asking me, but I'll answer anyway because I'm just that sort of guy.
Yes and no. Theism (it is a broad category) can be a conclusion reached by self-reflection, it is not necessarily a cultural product. But atheism is by necessity the pre-reflective state: it requires no thought to not believe in gods.
Innate is perhaps the wrong word, as that implies a trait of some kind. "Default" would be better.

In terms of categories perhaps this analogy will help: Out of all objects in the universe only a certain proportion of them are symmetrical, these objects need to have a very specific criterium to qualify as such. All things that are not symmetrical are asymmetrical. The same applies to all words with the prefix "a". Theists are people with a specific thing and atheists are everyone else, everyone who lacks that specific thing. So it includes people with no beliefs in god and people who believe that there is no god and people who believe

Now the agnostic issue that someone brought up before: It can be a difficult concept for some people to grasp especially when steeped in the platonic tradition of epistemology as most Christians are (ie. knowledge constitutes beliefs that happen to be true). The gnostic/agnostic position is a response to a specific epistemological proposition: it's quite important to not confuse this with belief. Do you have knowledge of God or do you not? That's the question, yes or no. Agnosticism is absolutely not a position in between theist and atheist, it is about knowledge, not belief. I think Diocle gave a perfect illustration on how these words interact. Belief and knowledge are separate categories, working independently but in parallel. So we can have agnostic-theists who admit ignorance but still believe, we have gnostic-atheists who think they know that there is no God, gnostic-theists who know that God exists (like our good friend Basics here) and agnostic-atheists who lack both knowledge and belief.

It's this last category of atheists who make up the vast majority of atheists, but within this sub-group there are further ways to break them down. There are those who believe that there is no God (but they do not comprise all atheists) and there are those who simply do not believe and additionally there are those who believe that theism is dangerous, these are antitheists (these can also be gnostic-atheists obviously). These groups can be broken down even further, looking at Eastern forms and indigenous forms, but I have the sense that I've already become boring, so I'll stop now.

I'll just say one more thing: I'm not saying that there aren't dogmatic atheists, there are. I'm saying there is no atheist doctrine, except for the one invented by Christians, which is basically just a lazy insult.

[Mayer]

How about the falsety of Darwin's theory of evolution

You have a better theory? If you mention creation and humans living with dinosaurs, i will laugh.

[Swaeft]

So I've been away for a while, and man, seeing this thread has provided me with some much needed entertainment.

I don't see how defining Atheism is answering the question at all, and for my part I only have two questions for two people.

Swaeft,

The thing is that one cannot avoid religion even if one wants to, why? Because even atheism is a religion followed by deniers of God. Is murder wrong as the question begs? Funny enough it applies to anyone if only because it is written into every culture on the planet perhaps not as most see it but there anyway.

I didn't think I needed to state this after my previous response, but you have proved me wrong good sir. I do not want to drag religion into this because we can't prove definitively that (a) God exists. I don't know what you're talking about not being able to avoid religion even if I wanted to, except for some basic information in pre-school, I've stayed relatively clear of it so far.

I initially wanted to ask you to make a non-religious argument here, something to do with ethics or morals, but when I was reading the first page to understand how this got all blown up in the first place, I see that you say this:

Murder is wrong because taking the life of another has been since the beginning of time wrong and all men know that. There isn't a culture or civilization that has not understood this and has laws natural or otherwise to combat it.

So my question to you is: "Why is it wrong?" Sure, you say that it's wrong, but you don't say why. Could you elaborate on this? Because it seems like you're saying its wrong because everyone else says its wrong. Oh, and an answer not entirely reliant on the bible would be greatly appreciated.


Secondly, to you Prodromos, who casually ignored my last reply to you and instead chose to nitpick on the definition of Atheism, I initially wanted to ask you to give me an ethical argument as well since it's not clear at all where you stand, but when I scrolled to the first page I saw this:

The only correct (and coherent) answer is, "Because God says so." Once you take God out of the picture, the foundation for opposition to murder gets shaky, and when the wind eventually blows, all that is not firmly rooted will be overthrown; you'll start to make exceptions for the disabled, the unborn or the "other."

You're seriously telling me without a bible to tell people murder is wrong it starts to become acceptable by all? You say "you'll", so you are directing this to everyone who's reading. So my question to you is this: Do you still stand by this notion?

[Himster]

I have never found a properly satisfying prescriptive account as to why murder ought to be wrong. There are plenty of descriptive accounts.
For Utilitarians: they don't murder because they don't want to be murdered, the less we murder the less likely we are to be murdered. Let's not murder, so we therefore don't have a society rife with murder as a commonplace occurrence.
For Kantians: they follow the Categorical Imperative where one imagines a prospective action as if it were to be a universal and if it is untenable then it is rationally unacceptable.
For followers of Virtue ethics: being a murderer is an ugly trait, the typical person prefers to be beautiful (in character if not in body).
For Slaves, Christians, Jews, Muslims etc.: They blindly obey their master's arbitrary dictates.

I think it all comes down to the same problem Socrates had with Euthyphro: How do we know what is good? Do the Gods say what is good because it is good, or is it good because the gods say it is good?
We can translate it into something more useful and modern: Do we say what is good because it is good, or is it good because we say it is good?
Plato's response is interesting, but a surreal higher realm of truths is hardly more tenable than any other mere thought experiment or analogy Though it does continue in today's Christian pedantic/semantic sophistry that their God=good.

Anyway: it seems, in essence, the reason why we don't murder is because we don't actually want to. All that is revealed through 25 centuries of philosophical dialogue by the greatest minds humanity has ever seen is that moral philosophy is a series of longwinded justifications for a decision we have already made.

[The spartan]

The spartan,

How about the falsety of Darwin's theory of evolution because that is the only standard by which an atheist can stand on trying to prove there is no God.

I don't see how Darwin's theory of evolution is exclusive to atheists; the majority of people who believe evolution to be true are not atheists. More over, I have never seen it held us evidence that no gods exist. That is a bit outside the theory's scope.

The dictionary? The definition of atheism is literally, "the doctrine that there is no God." Could you clarify your question, because I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you mean to say that atheism is innate while theism must be learned from others?

When discussing the dogma of a religion, you are talking about it's central tenets of the religion; i.e. the source of the Truth. Where does the Truth come from? Christians tell me it is from the Bible and teachings of Christ. Buddhist tell me it is from the teachings of Buddha. Hindu's have the Puruṣārtha, and so on. What is the atheist equivalent of that? You tell people they are wrong and quote the Bible to prove it by claiming it has divine authority, atheists have no such thing.

[Swaeft]

Thanks for the reply, man, it made for good reading.

I have never found a properly satisfying prescriptive account as to why murder ought to be wrong.

Wow, that's interesting. I would have thought someone would have made one by now. Anyway, I think we are more than capable of thinking for ourselves why murder is wrong instead of relying on archaic reasons as to why it is wrong.

We can translate it into something more useful and modern: Do we say what is good because it is good, or is it good because we say it is good?

I am inclined to believe that people know something is good because it is good. 'good because we say it is good' is flawed - people will want to know the reasoning behind something before agreeing or disagreeing instead of just following blindly, I hope.

Anyway: it seems, in essence, the reason why we don't murder is because we don't actually want to. All that is revealed through 25 centuries of philosophical dialogue by the greatest minds humanity has ever seen is that moral philosophy is a series of longwinded justifications for a decision we have already made.

Yes, I agree that we don't want to, but there has to be a reason why we don't want to, and that, if I'm not mistaken, is the whole point of this thread. As for your next sentence, I must disagree here, morality is (or at least, should be) one of the core reasonings behind justifying a decision as important as this.

[basics]

Swaeft and The spartan,

Perhaps a personal experience might explain better why murder is wrong. I once managed a toy wholesale business during my first marriage and I came to hate a guy who worked there on and off. He was a relative of one of my bosses and thought himself a real hard man. He continually niggled at me and was constantly making remarks about what he'd like to do to my then wife. After some time I made up my mind that I was going to have him even if it meant killing him. It turned out that we had to go up north to a funeral and on the journey my hatred boiled over that I made up my mind on the journey that on the way back I was going to have him one way or another. I don't know what I was thinking because rather than taking my wife home first I headed straight for the wholesalers. As I drove into the carpark I was met by the brother of the boss who was related to this guy and as he came over to the car I rolled the window down to hear him ask if I had heard about John Scott? What about him as I opened the door and the reply was that he was dead. What? Yes, he was dead having gotten into a drunken stupour he went into the toilet and choked on his own vomit. The sense of relief that poured over me was something I'd never felt before because hatred had literally taken me over. I wasn't a Christian then but I knew that God had beaten me to it. I was drained and thankfully so because for all that time I was consumed, uncontrollably by an evil that wanted me, me, to kill that guy. That's why I know murder to be wrong.

[Himster]

Wow, that's interesting. I would have thought someone would have made one by now. Anyway, I think we are more than capable of thinking for ourselves why murder is wrong instead of relying on archaic reasons as to why it is wrong.

We can think all we want, we've been doing it for millennia, but providing a universally acceptable doctrine as to why we don't and why we shouldn't murder seems to have been proven impossible. If it's not universally acceptable, in what sense can it be considered true? Any moral doctrine one puts forward is necessarily relativistic. This has always been the case, currently is the case and it seems it will always be the case.

I am inclined to believe that people know something is good because it is good. 'good because we say it is good' is flawed - people will want to know the reasoning behind something before agreeing or disagreeing instead of just following blindly, I hope.

My point is: the reasoning, here, always comes after the conclusion. There is no ground upon which morality can be built, the structure floats off the ground.

Yes, I agree that we don't want to, but there has to be a reason why we don't want to, and that, if I'm not mistaken, is the whole point of this thread.

Sure, there most certainly is a reason. But it seems most likely to be something so mundane and lacking in profundity that we rankle at even the mention of it.

As for your next sentence, I must disagree here, morality is (or at least, should be) one of the core reasonings behind justifying a decision as important as this.

You see, you're rankling already and I haven't even mentioned it yet.

[Swaeft]

Swaeft and The spartan,

Perhaps a personal experience might explain better why murder is wrong. I once managed a toy wholesale business during my first marriage and I came to hate a guy who worked there on and off. He was a relative of one of my bosses and thought himself a real hard man. He continually niggled at me and was constantly making remarks about what he'd like to do to my then wife. After some time I made up my mind that I was going to have him even if it meant killing him. It turned out that we had to go up north to a funeral and on the journey my hatred boiled over that I made up my mind on the journey that on the way back I was going to have him one way or another. I don't know what I was thinking because rather than taking my wife home first I headed straight for the wholesalers. As I drove into the carpark I was met by the brother of the boss who was related to this guy and as he came over to the car I rolled the window down to hear him ask if I had heard about John Scott? What about him as I opened the door and the reply was that he was dead. What? Yes, he was dead having gotten into a drunken stupour he went into the toilet and choked on his own vomit. The sense of relief that poured over me was something I'd never felt before because hatred had literally taken me over. I wasn't a Christian then but I knew that God had beaten me to it. I was drained and thankfully so because for all that time I was consumed, uncontrollably by an evil that wanted me, me, to kill that guy. That's why I know murder to be wrong.

I was actually looking for a more basic (hey, no pun intended! ) answer, that was a different perspective, I wasn't expecting that. Thanks for sharing. The point that murder is wrong because 'the desire to do so consumes an individual with hate and rage' is one that I hadn't really placed much importance on, thanks for pointing that out.

We can think all we want, we've been doing it for millennia, but providing a universally acceptable doctrine as to why we don't and why we shouldn't murder seems to have been proven impossible. If it's not universally acceptable, in what sense can it be considered true? Any moral doctrine one puts forward is necessarily relativistic. This has always been the case, currently is the case and it seems it will always be the case.

What? I'm starting to see why this thread even exists. How is it not universally acceptable that murder is a cruel and vile thing? Now I'm talking about this day and age, not some tribal society that values ferocity and strength in combat above all else, or anything else like that. I really don't know why you say this is currently the case, I guarantee right now if I go out onto the street and ask people why murder is wrong they're gonna give me some rapid fire reasons, along with a few choice looks.

My point is: the reasoning, here, always comes after the conclusion. There is no ground upon which morality can be built, the structure floats off the ground.

Why does the reasoning come after the conclusion? Do you not take reasoning into account before deciding on something?

Sure, there most certainly is a reason. But it seems most likely to be something so mundane and lacking in profundity that we rankle at even the mention of it.

Why would a reason for murder being wrong cause people to resent it?

You see, you're rankling already and I haven't even mentioned it yet.

Hmm, now I'm curious to know what made you think I was rankling. I simply disagreed?

[Prodromos]

You're seriously telling me without a bible to tell people murder is wrong it starts to become acceptable by all? You say "you'll", so you are directing this to everyone who's reading. So my question to you is this: Do you still stand by this notion?

Why would I stand by something I never said?

Romans 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Human beings may be against murder by nature, but that doesn't necessarily make murder wrong. "Biology" may explain to an extent why we have certain built-in judgements, such as against murder or incest for instance, but it can't ground them as normative moral standards. We have a natural disgust reaction toward feces, for example, but on a naturalistic account of reality this disgust reaction is only biological, and thus has no moral implications; we can always "get over" it and play with the feces anyway, regardless of the consequences.

One essential component of morality is obligation, and you can't have obligation without religion: nature is ontologically below us and hence can't obligate us; other human beings are ontologically equal to us and can't obligate us either. Only a higher reality, like God, can obligate us. A purely secular moral standard would lack normativity and thus wouldn't be a morality, properly speaking. It may use the language of morality but it doesn't mean it. So on a naturalistic account of reality, some people may avoid committing murder and others may engage in it, but neither option is normative.

It's all explained in this speech attributed to serial rapist Ted Bundy:

“Then I learned that all moral judgments are ‘value judgments,’ that all value judgments are subjective [it just depends on how you think about them], and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’…I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable “value judgment that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others?’ Other human beings with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me – after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.”