Why is murder wrong?

[basics]

I don't know why no-ones observed this before but the first place a human will have angry contact is usually within the family where siblings are. Percentage wise the numbers suggesting murders within families is quite rare. Yes there are the famous cases where it had happened but these are not the norm, why? May I suggest that being part of a family, sharing the same blood has a lot to do with that. Another factor is the love that is in the family which is not necessarily felt elsewhere. That's the time when friends and enemies start as one makes their way into the outside world yet in most cases it doesn't come down to the murdering of anyone. So where does this staying power come from if man has a built in tendency for survival by being the fittest? What stops us from murdering within our family if that is the case?

[Himster]

Fair enough, I don't fully buy that myself, it just seems the most logical path to me. I can't explain to you how people in the past created the concept of right and wrong because it is so far back. Your own views on that matter are much like mine - they are just speculation.

How would we construct the concept of right and wrong? Well...through careful reasoning? You really don't rely on initial biological feelings to tell you something. I'd feel bad stealing from a hardworking individual. I couldn't care less if a serial scammer was scammed from. From what you are saying, 'biological feelings' tell me stealing is wrong. Perhaps. But ethics and reasoning is what makes you set the scammer apart from the hardworking dude instead of lumping them together. The concept can be created, and it most certainly can be passed down.

Perhaps people in the past did feel this way because they lacked the words or understanding to articulate their feelings and reasons properly. The 'this is wrong just because it's wrong' is a slippery slope argument and will not hold up in any proper debate.

That is a sweeping statement and whilst it may be applicable to many other things in life on this issue I disagree. In any case, there's no point bringing it up because none of us can definitively say 'this is how it happened'. Besides, I don't need to understand what our ancestors thought of murder to know why it's wrong today. Do you?
How do you know? And even if there wasn't, who's to say they didn't just agree on this tacitly or implicitly? Maybe they had their own reasons for doing so, but today we know for sure and can justify why murder is wrong.
You are right, there isn't. The only reason I was here was to try and understand other people's views on this, especially the religious one, because this really is a no brainer for me. Unfortunately Prodromos doesn't seem to be interested in backing up his assertions at all, which by glancing around the forums seems to be his modus operandi, which means I'm probably done here since I'm not really interested in figuring out who thought what thousands of years ago. To be very honest I'm surprised this reached 6 pages of discussion, it's a little unnerving. I would have thought this was an open and shut thing, but looks like you never know

We can do a bit more than mere speculation, we can infer quite strongly that group prohibitions on in-group killings predated language and therefore predated the human capacity for reason and therefore the proposition that the modern prohibition rests on a lofty pillar of reason is not an entirely tenable proposition. It is certain that the essence or ultimate truth about morality cannot rest on reason alone. When you say that when we separate a scammer and a hardworking-dude: now we're getting into the blurry borderlands of legalism, but still you raise a damn fine point. This is getting into the minutae of competing socially constructed moral systems. It could be an interesting path to walk down if you like. I think this is the issue that you wanted to discuss from the beginning. But I think you'll find, as every philosopher has found, that if you want to apply the Socratic method to its conclusion on any moral system (you utilitarianism included), once you get past each priori one will inevitably reach in impasse.

Utilitarianism, for example, follows this route: maximum happiness/pleasure and minimum suffering/pain is its principle. Why maximize happiness? If one enhances the happiness of those around you to the net benefit of society, one's own happiness will be enhanced. Why minimize pain? (Same logic). Seems logical, most people accept this form either as a prescriptive system or merely a descriptive one. But the next question is: how is happiness a good? There are many ways to answer this, I'll skip those steps and jump to the how can we know "good" is "good". (remember Euthyphro's dilemma) We're stuck on this step, and we have been forever, likely we will be stuck forever. Every moral system is based on a floating axiom, it is arbitrary. Even the most sophisticated philosophers and theologians have to invent convoluted metaphysics to fill the gap, to lay out a framework as to how a floating axiom could even have a hypothetical grounding. Such as gods, the transcendent, etc. But most of us here are ontological materialists due to our culture, scientific advancement and the inherent absurdity of religions. So those metaphysics are simply unacceptable.

The fact remains that the closest thing we have to a reliable ground for moral structures is biological determinism.

In any case, thank you both for your points.

You're most welcome, it has been a pleasure.

[Swaeft]

Yeah, that pretty much shows that we're not in agreement

Just my last questions for you guys to help me understand better. To save you both some time perhaps a shorter, more concise answer would do here.

Himster: You say we need to understand how murder was first conceptualized to be wrong in order to understand why it is wrong. Why would we need to understand how they decided on whether it's right or wrong in their time? Society back then was vastly different from what it is now.

The Black Knight: Just to double check, you're saying that coming up with a concept of right and wrong is impossible?

I argue that human beings are born with innate feelings of what is right and wrong because I don't think it's possible to construct the concept of right and wrong. How would you? You can't create the concept of right and wrong without initial biological feelings about things being good or bad. This means the previous human beings couldn't create the concept either, which means that it can't be passed down.

Thank you.

[basics]

The Black Knight,

It is written that when the first man and woman fell from grace it was because they had eaten fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. At that point their eyes were opened to what is good and evil so here we have an explanation of how that came about. From then on man had with that knowledge the opportunity to choose which decisions he would make and as history has played out the propensity was that evil was the easier option. As it is alsao written, all mankind, male and female have fallen short of the glory of God in Whom no evil exists. So, almost from the beginning we had one brother killing his younger sibling out of jealousy. Cain had no doubt that what he had done was wrong, his conscience bearing witness. And so it is with everyone else right down until today.

[♔The Black Knight♔]

Yeah, that pretty much shows that we're not in agreement

Just my last questions for you guys to help me understand better. To save you both some time perhaps a shorter, more concise answer would do here.

Himster: You say we need to understand how murder was first conceptualized to be wrong in order to understand why it is wrong. Why would we need to understand how they decided on whether it's right or wrong in their time? Society back then was vastly different from what it is now.

The Black Knight: Just to double check, you're saying that coming up with a concept of right and wrong is impossible?



Thank you.

Yes, it is impossible to come up with concept of right and wrong since it is required for the foundation of reason itself. How would human beings be able to construct an argument for a concept of right or wrong when they haven't constructed a way to differentiate or to see some reasons to be better than others and make a distinction whether an argument is 'right' or 'wrong'.

Since its impossible to come with the concept of right and wrong, but it also is possible for us to feel something is right or wrong, I conclude that the best explanation for the source of right and wrong is biological.

I do think you bring up some valuable points on trying to analyze how we, through our society, have sought to mold morality and manipulate our biological feelings in ways to think the way we do today. I don't truly understand that, and it needs to be explored.

[Swaeft]

I see. I think I now understand why you feel that way. Thanks for the response.

I would just like to point out that in this case you are, unfortunately, flat out wrong. Why is speeding wrong? Why arson a bad thing? Why is theft wrong? The answers to all these don't come from a 'this is wrong because I feel it is wrong' feeling. There are proper answers and reasons behind those questions. As such I am not convinced by your position at all.

Any further into this and I think we'd be deviating from the topic too much, so I would encourage you to create a new thread if you disagree with the above.

[Himster]

I would just like to point out that in this case you are, unfortunately, flat out wrong. Why is speeding wrong? Why arson a bad thing? Why is theft wrong? The answers to all these don't come from a 'this is wrong because I feel it is wrong' feeling. There are proper answers and reasons behind those questions.

Are there proper reasons? And reasons behind those reasons? With a sound a priori upon which this moral system of yours is built?

Any further into this and I think we'd be deviating from the topic too much, so I would encourage you to create a new thread if you disagree with the above.

I think the essence and source of morality identifies the core of the question. Actually discussing the fleeting whims and fashions of modern popular "morality" is irrelevant to anyone who thinks seriously about moral issues.

[Swaeft]

Are there proper reasons? And reasons behind those reasons? With a sound a priori upon which this moral system of yours is built?

I would require another thread to discuss this, but since I'm here mainly to be convinced and not to convince others, I probably won't respond to one. I also do not understand your last question. A sound a priori?

I think the essence and source of morality identifies the core of the question. Actually discussing the fleeting whims and fashions of modern popular "morality" is irrelevant to anyone who thinks seriously about moral issues.

I don't follow at all. Modern popular morality? Fleeting whims and fashions? To my knowledge, our stance on murder has not changed. And are you saying that we must strictly follow old moral codes from years and years ago and not be open to changing them to fit today's context?

See how this is turning into a different debate? I'm done here, thanks for all your replies.

[basics]

Swaeft,

The thing is that Himster thinks we all got here by chance so he sees morals as good for one but not necessarily good for another in his transitional world.

[conon394]

Swaeft,

The thing is that Himster thinks we all got here by chance so he sees morals as good for one but not necessarily good for another in his transitional world.

But basics the morals in your favorite book are equally up to the capriciousness of your god essentially chance. Thou shall not kill unless you are innocent people in Jericho who did nothing particularly wrong except prefer not to hand over their stuff to some nomads.

[Prodromos]

But basics the morals in your favorite book are equally up to the capriciousness of your god essentially chance. Thou shall not kill unless you are innocent people in Jericho who did nothing particularly wrong except prefer not to hand over their stuff to some nomads.

Have you read Paul Copan's Is God a Moral Monster?

[♔The Black Knight♔]

Disregarding all the problems with accepting the Bible a being an accurate account of ancient history, I feel like reading this still implies several immoral actions (at least in my eyes) to be ok.

1. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Rebecca and her ENTIRE FAMILY residents of Jericho at the time. They operated an inn correct? That would surely imply that they were more families operating businesses within the walls, correct? To say that there are no women and children that were killed is overly optimistic to the 9th degree. Also, are we assuming that killing human beings who are not intent on hurting us (even if they are soldiers) moral as well??? Many could be fathers who were providing for their families and killing them would destroy the people who depended on them. Many wives and children would likely starve to death simply due to the fact that the person who had the ability to provide for them had been wiped out. Also, are we are forgetting that grown men are human beings too and their lives are just as valuable in God's eyes?

2. I want to look further into the assumption that killing soldiers of a neutral state for no reason other than they were "sinful" is also a moral act, in of itself. How is that even considered a valid reason. First off, do Israelites and Canaanites share a mutually intelligible language so that messages can even be communicated between the two? Even if they did, do you really think it would have been reasonable to for them to realize the "sinfulness" of their ways even thought they have had no encounter with the Hebrew God or the Herbrew people themselves? Imagine you being a soldier during ancient times and a random nomadic tribe who you have never interacted with before come up to you and demand that you hand over the city, repent of your wicked ways, and obey a god you have never heard of. That would be the stupidest thing you would have ever heard.

Also, this is not consistent with the god of the New Testament or even morality commonly held today. Have you talked to any missionary who has been out in the field today? How many of them were able to convert people in a remote village that they operated within in the first 7 days? Do they move on after 7 days knowing that it was enough time for people to understand the 'wickeness' of their ways? No, they realize that it takes more time than that to reach people. Surely they would see a problem with destroying populations (even if was primarily soldiers, they are still human too) for their sinfulness, knowing that trying to convert and change people is a long a laborious process.

3. Also, when writing holy texts, don't you think God should have made it clear of the actual intent of the phrase to ensure that it wouldn't be interpreted wrong in the future? Imagine all the people reading this (especially in the past) without access to research that could be used to find a way to make these action justified (to their own subjective morality, in reality). Would it be unreasonable to interpret the meaning of the words "They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it-- men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, and donkeys", literally? Of course not. The authors, whether they intended it or not, have put in clear text that glorifies destruction of these people and provides ammo for those who with to justify the absolute destruction of cities and all its residents.

If I was a God, I know I would want to write using language that would accurately represent myself and my morality correctly to ensure that I would not be interpreted incorrectly.

At best, you have established that the Bible can't be interpreted correctly without access to modern research and historical context, and that it is rife with plenty of verses that justify or could be interpreted to justify immoral (at least in my eyes) acts.In addition, you have shown that billions of Christians over time without access to these tools have been unable to actually find the real truth within the words that were meant to be accessible to everyone. Way to go God...

[basics]

But basics the morals in your favorite book are equally up to the capriciousness of your god essentially chance. Thou shall not kill unless you are innocent people in Jericho who did nothing particularly wrong except prefer not to hand over their stuff to some nomads.

conon394,

Well, as Paul says in the book to the Romans, " There is no-one innocent, no not one for all have fallen short of the glory of God."

[Bob69Joe]

Society back then was vastly different from what it is now.

We are very much in the moment that the Western Roman Empire was facing. Nothing ever proceeds linearly but in cycles. "Civility," "civilized," are the words for an excuse of an overly socialized nation, that has pushed aside all the original hierarchies that made it succeed for an egalitarian system that is now diminishing all qualities to incorporate inequalities.

[basics]

We are very much in the moment that the Western Roman Empire was facing. Nothing ever proceeds linearly but in cycles. "Civility," "civilized," are the words for an excuse of an overly socialized nation, that has pushed aside all the original hierarchies that made it succeed for an egalitarian system that is now diminishing all qualities to incorporate inequalities.

Bob69Joe,

So is it follow the money or follow the bodies?

[Bob69Joe]

Bob69Joe,

So is it follow the money or follow the bodies?

I don't understand what you mean. That's much too colloquial and I'm not knowledgeable or invested much in American culture, my father is an immigrant from Istanbul.

[basics]

I don't understand what you mean. That's much too colloquial and I'm not knowledgeable or invested much in American culture, my father is an immigrant from Istanbul.

Bob69Joe,

My thoughts at the time of answering your post was about the American dream for all its good potential as well as its bad.

[conon394]

conon394,

Well, as Paul says in the book to the Romans, " There is no-one innocent, no not one for all have fallen short of the glory of God."

So yes you a cool with murder of anyone you perceive not to following the will of you god or be reborn?

[swabian]

We can do a bit more than mere speculation, we can infer quite strongly that group prohibitions on in-group killings predated language and therefore predated the human capacity for reason and therefore the proposition that the modern prohibition rests on a lofty pillar of reason is not an entirely tenable proposition. It is certain that the essence or ultimate truth about morality cannot rest on reason alone. When you say that when we separate a scammer and a hardworking-dude: now we're getting into the blurry borderlands of legalism, but still you raise a damn fine point. This is getting into the minutae of competing socially constructed moral systems. It could be an interesting path to walk down if you like. I think this is the issue that you wanted to discuss from the beginning. But I think you'll find, as every philosopher has found, that if you want to apply the Socratic method to its conclusion on any moral system (you utilitarianism included), once you get past each priori one will inevitably reach in impasse.

Utilitarianism, for example, follows this route: maximum happiness/pleasure and minimum suffering/pain is its principle. Why maximize happiness? If one enhances the happiness of those around you to the net benefit of society, one's own happiness will be enhanced. Why minimize pain? (Same logic). Seems logical, most people accept this form either as a prescriptive system or merely a descriptive one. But the next question is: how is happiness a good? There are many ways to answer this, I'll skip those steps and jump to the how can we know "good" is "good". (remember Euthyphro's dilemma) We're stuck on this step, and we have been forever, likely we will be stuck forever. Every moral system is based on a floating axiom, it is arbitrary. Even the most sophisticated philosophers and theologians have to invent convoluted metaphysics to fill the gap, to lay out a framework as to how a floating axiom could even have a hypothetical grounding. Such as gods, the transcendent, etc. But most of us here are ontological materialists due to our culture, scientific advancement and the inherent absurdity of religions. So those metaphysics are simply unacceptable.

The fact remains that the closest thing we have to a reliable ground for moral structures is biological determinism.



You're most welcome, it has been a pleasure.

Interesting points here!

If i may add: a reason based morality could be infered from game theory. We want security of our lives and property for ourselves and therefore we need to criminalize antisocial behaviour. We need to grant security for everyone out of egoistical reasons. Therefore we need a state that is granted a monopoly on the use of force, etc.

This is completely independent from arbitrary moral axioms (which are eventually based on emotionality, belief systems and all that dogmatic mumbo jumbo - as you say, if i understod you correctly).

Again, good thinking there, everyone. 'Twas an interesting read. Lemme hand out some reps real quick.

[basics]

So yes you a cool with murder of anyone you perceive not to following the will of you god or be reborn?

conon394,

All murder is perceived as someone not following the word of God and so they must be punished. So, in answer to your question, all murder is wrong and so in one way or another God Himself will bring the killers to justice either by human laws or His Law. Saying that any murderer can be saved by the blood of Christ, David and Moses being examples. Perhaps that's a wee bit over your head?