Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 140

Thread: Why is murder wrong?

  1. #101
    Swaeft's Avatar Drama King
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,307
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    Why would I stand by something I never said?
    You know, normally when people say something like that they usually provide a quote or a more substantiated reply. Do I really have to point out you said exactly that before you give me a proper reply?

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    Once you take God out of the picture, the foundation for opposition to murder gets shaky
    Since apparently somehow I'm not being clear enough, I'll rephrase. Why does the foundation for opposition to murder get shaky once God is out of the picture? I'm just flummoxed at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    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.
    You know, I do feel inclined to point out that playing with feces and killing someone have remarkably different consequences. Murder, I can assure you, definitely has moral implications.

    Swaeft's Scribblings (Library)| Swaeft's Snaps (Gallery)| My Blog (The Lensation)

  2. #102
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Why is murder 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.
    It should be noted that there is a an in group/out group aspect to the question. Murder out group (in effect war) is more or less OK. It is in group murder we are dealing with here. Thus the desire to find reason to in group murder wrong it seems to me is likely developmental to the species since we spent most of our existence a small bands. In such a band murder would harm everyone not just the dead individual because the band would lose of needed functionally and because they were all likely a kin group could not likely afford the social repercussions. Compare how nasty a divorce can be a ripple through an extended family vs say a judge dealing with somebody he does know or care about in a personal way. Murder had to be wrong for survival reasons but then being conscious apes then we get to spend our time finding reasons and justifications for it to be. But as I said we are cool with killing the Other.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  3. #103

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    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.
    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.
    Bullivant's survey of British university students, as cited in the Oxford Handbook of Atheism, shows that the lack-of-belief definition of atheism is still a minority view. The vast majority of respondents define atheism as a positive disbelief in God, which is also the consensus definition among philosophers. Calling this a Christian conspiracy against atheism seems untenable. The idea of atheism as a lack of belief is fairly recent; it was introduced by Antony Flew only in the 1970s. Philosophers unanimously reject Flew's redefinition, because it doesn't serve any purpose; it's just a dishonest argumentative tactic against theism.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 






    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.
    Hmmm, well, it might require no thought not to believe in gods, but it requires no thought to not believe in logic, philosophy, math or science either, so that's not necessarily a point in nontheism's favor. Most people will naturally discover or learn these truths as they develop in life.
    Last edited by Prodromos; February 24, 2019 at 11:34 AM.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  4. #104
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Swaeft View Post
    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.
    I have actually done that (well not streets, I did it in pubs) and the results are why I hold this view.
    People generally have no idea why they think murder is wrong and those people who think they know why murder is wrong each have radically different accounts.

    Why does the reasoning come after the conclusion? Do you not take reasoning into account before deciding on something?
    Because we all already know what murder is wrong, the justifications are necessarily engineered to fit this pre-existing conclusion. This is why the justifications vary from individual to individual, culture to culture, epoch to epoch. The conclusion is always the same.

    Why would a reason for murder being wrong cause people to resent it?
    Because the real reason pales in comparison to the stories we have been telling ourselves for millennia.

    Hmm, now I'm curious to know what made you think I was rankling. I simply disagreed?
    It's uncomfortable to react to/accept that one of our most cherished and most noble of idealistic principles is nothing more than mere bio-neurological programming.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  5. #105
    Swaeft's Avatar Drama King
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,307
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    I have actually done that (well not streets, I did it in pubs) and the results are why I hold this view.
    People generally have no idea why they think murder is wrong and those people who think they know why murder is wrong each have radically different accounts.
    That's new to me, I certainly wasn't expecting that. Good to know, guess things are kinda different over there. Also, did they give you any funny faces? Just curious When I ask someone that question they'll give me the 'eh, what, you okay bro?' face.

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    Because we all already know what murder is wrong, the justifications are necessarily engineered to fit this pre-existing conclusion. This is why the justifications vary from individual to individual, culture to culture, epoch to epoch. The conclusion is always the same.
    Here I must disagree. Maybe its a difference in culture, or upbringing, but most folks here don't see it that way. It is true the justifications vary from individual to individual, but most of them are under the umbrella that you don't take a life because it's cruel and you don't devalue a life so utterly like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    Because the real reason pales in comparison to the stories we have been telling ourselves for millennia.
    I assume the 'real reason' here is the 'pre-existing conclusion' you mentioned above. If not, do enlighten me

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    It's uncomfortable to react to/accept that one of our most cherished and most noble of idealistic principles is nothing more than mere bio-neurological programming.
    Aha, here I disagree again, because I do believe it's not just bio-neurological programming. If that was the case you wouldn't need this thread - everyone would know the reason. People need to be taught stuff, they don't just learn it out of thin air. In any case, that doesn't show that I was rankling, because I wasn't.

    Thanks for the responses, always good to get new insights into this rather simple looking question. Of course, there will be those who choose not to reply at all after making some incredible statements, I don't know what to make of that, but it's not very good for debate or discussion.
    Last edited by Swaeft; February 24, 2019 at 07:25 PM.

    Swaeft's Scribblings (Library)| Swaeft's Snaps (Gallery)| My Blog (The Lensation)

  6. #106
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    There are two distinct aspects to murder that the law quite adequately deals with, premeditated murder and accidental. The first comes from rage turned into cold heartedness whereby plotting when and where to do it is essential if the perpetrator is to get away with it. This applies not only to Joe Bloggs but ascends to the professional killer. Accidental killing is another matter because there is no premeditation involved. That's usually how the laws of any land work. In premeditation that takes a lot of determination to reach the point of being able to do it. We see this in the training that ordinary men and women have to go through to be soldiers capable of killing in the fraction of a second, why? Because all know deep inside that killing is wrong. The first kill is most likely to be the one they remember the most, the one that questions them non stop.

  7. #107

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Swaeft View Post
    Here I must disagree. Maybe its a difference in culture, or upbringing, but most folks here don't see it that way. It is true the justifications vary from individual to individual, but most of them are under the umbrella that you don't take a life because it's cruel and you don't devalue a life so utterly like that.
    You say most... which is not universal. You have admitted that there are people who reason that murder is wrong for different reasons.



    Quote Originally Posted by Swaeft View Post
    Aha, here I disagree again, because I do believe it's not just bio-neurological programming. If that was the case you wouldn't need this thread - everyone would know the reason. People need to be taught stuff, they don't just learn it out of thin air. In any case, that doesn't show that I was rankling, because I wasn't.

    Thanks for the responses, always good to get new insights into this rather simple looking question. Of course, there will be those who choose not to reply at all after making some incredible statements, I don't know what to make of that, but it's not very good for debate or discussion.
    Well how would people create morality in the first place? Consider the very first humans. How would they create the idea that murder is wrong if there were no reasons for them to think that in the first place?
    This is not an unwieldy concept. There are animal species that don't constantly murder each other and there are instances of mutual cooperation or altruism among some species without them being able to comprehend morality.
    Last edited by ♔The Black Knight♔; February 25, 2019 at 04:09 PM.

  8. #108
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Swaeft View Post
    That's new to me, I certainly wasn't expecting that. Good to know, guess things are kinda different over there. Also, did they give you any funny faces? Just curious When I ask someone that question they'll give me the 'eh, what, you okay bro?' face.
    Yup, I get funny faces, mostly from my friends, looking on, who roll their eyes in dismay. Such questions are among my go to flirtatious quips, along with "What do you think of Transhumanism?" "If a placebo cures something should it still be considered a placebo?" "Would you murder a stranger if you knew it would save five others?"
    I've tried on every continent (well Antarctica is next). It seems to be a universal truism that women do not actually want smart guys, or rather they do not want guys trying desperately to appear smart. C'est la vie.

    Here I must disagree. Maybe its a difference in culture, or upbringing, but most folks here don't see it that way. It is true the justifications vary from individual to individual, but most of them are under the umbrella that you don't take a life because it's cruel and you don't devalue a life so utterly like that.
    The western world is clearly under the thrall of John Stuart Mill, other countries are not so much, going back in time we see justifications that vary even more. Yet the conclusions are the same all over, despite being absolutely disconnected by space and time. The one connection is the human condition. Are we to suppose that this uncanny universal conclusion was actually reached by such a plethora of random trajectories or is the instinct to not kill your own an inborn mammalian trait?
    The answer is obvious and terrible.

    Aha, here I disagree again, because I do believe it's not just bio-neurological programming. If that was the case you wouldn't need this thread - everyone would know the reason.
    Everyone does know the reason and they know it's boring and uninspiring, so they don't think about it. Hence the fancy dancing and word games.

    People need to be taught stuff, they don't just learn it out of thin air.
    Only psychopaths need to be taught this. Everyone knows, even animals know. In Christian terms it is written onto the heart of every man, woman and child by God. You can see even that is a tacit acceptance of my hypothesis, except of course the base natural truth had to be dressed up with a frame of metaphysical rhetorical nonsense.

    Of course, there will be those who choose not to reply at all after making some incredible statements, I don't know what to make of that, but it's not very good for debate or discussion.
    A combination of laziness and intellectual arrogance I think. I do it too sometimes.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  9. #109
    Swaeft's Avatar Drama King
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,307
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by ♔The Black Knight♔ View Post
    You say most... which is not universal. You have admitted that there are people who reason that murder is wrong for different reasons.
    Yes, I was making allowances for people who I've never met, hence the 'most'. I don't like to assume things of others. But every single person I know will tell me that murder is wrong for those exact reasons. I think you are missing the point, though, it's not to say that there aren't many different reasons to why murder is wrong. There are. It's just that there are also some really basic principles that most people understand easily, and thus there is no need to delve further into different branches of answers.


    Quote Originally Posted by ♔The Black Knight♔ View Post
    Well how would people create morality in the first place? Consider the very first humans. How would they create the idea that murder is wrong if there were no reasons for them to think that in the first place?
    This is not an unwieldy concept. There are animal species that don't constantly murder each other and there are instances of mutual cooperation or altruism among some species without them being able to comprehend morality.
    ...we have come a long way since then and have since been able to work out the reasons behind why we do certain things. Granted we haven't worked it out for everything, but for something as basic as this I can tell you we certainly have, hence the laws and the education and what have you. Or at least, "most folks over here" Why do you go back to the stone age and even before that? Basic reasoning from thousands of years ago surely won't be applied in this day and age.


    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    Yup, I get funny faces, mostly from my friends, looking on, who roll their eyes in dismay. Such questions are among my go to flirtatious quips, along with "What do you think of Transhumanism?" "If a placebo cures something should it still be considered a placebo?" "Would you murder a stranger if you knew it would save five others?"
    I've tried on every continent (well Antarctica is next). It seems to be a universal truism that women do not actually want smart guys, or rather they do not want guys trying desperately to appear smart. C'est la vie.
    Umm, well...good luck with that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The western world is clearly under the thrall of John Stuart Mill, other countries are not so much, going back in time we see justifications that vary even more. Yet the conclusions are the same all over, despite being absolutely disconnected by space and time. The one connection is the human condition. Are we to suppose that this uncanny universal conclusion was actually reached by such a plethora of random trajectories or is the instinct to not kill your own an inborn mammalian trait?
    The answer is obvious and terrible.
    If I take it that plethora of random trajectories could mean each group of people come up with their reasons, discuss that with others and ultimately agree on something, then yeah. I mean, we have had thousands of years to refine our understanding of it, lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    Everyone does know the reason and they know it's boring and uninspiring, so they don't think about it. Hence the fancy dancing and word games.
    Well, I guess that means everyone in this thread is just fooling around. No wonder it's so hard to get a proper reply. I've been had!

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    Only psychopaths need to be taught this. Everyone knows, even animals know. In Christian terms it is written onto the heart of every man, woman and child by God. You can see even that is a tacit acceptance of my hypothesis, except of course the base natural truth had to be dressed up with a frame of metaphysical rhetorical nonsense.
    Ooookay...this is where I know we're going to be butting heads forever, because you really aren't born with knowledge of something you don't even know about. And, hypothetically speaking, if everyone does know it is wrong, why would there be a debate about it? Clearly there are people here who don't know why or are just trolling, which the former instantly debunks your hypothesis and which the latter reflects pretty hilariously upon them based on the earnestness of their arguments.
    Last edited by Swaeft; February 25, 2019 at 08:29 PM.

    Swaeft's Scribblings (Library)| Swaeft's Snaps (Gallery)| My Blog (The Lensation)

  10. #110

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Swaeft View Post

    ...we have come a long way since then and have since been able to work out the reasons behind why we do certain things. Granted we haven't worked it out for everything, but for something as basic as this I can tell you we certainly have, hence the laws and the education and what have you. Or at least, "most folks over here" Why do you go back to the stone age and even before that? Basic reasoning from thousands of years ago surely won't be applied in this day and age.

    I am asking you the question because I want you to think about the process of making a moral stance. Notice how you said human beings have " work[ed] out the reasons" over time. How do we work out the reasons? What is that process? Where do we start?

    I want you to try and answer those questions.
    Last edited by ♔The Black Knight♔; February 25, 2019 at 09:08 PM.

  11. #111
    Swaeft's Avatar Drama King
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,307
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    You can ask me that question without taking us many years back, where people don't have the information or understanding or education that we have of today, which makes it much easier to distinguish right from wrong and the reasons why. If you're asking me how we work out the reasons...well, probably by communicating with one another and agreeing on something? Over time as more perspectives and more input is given to the discussion people can better formulate a reasonable stance.

    Anyway, where are we heading with this?

    Swaeft's Scribblings (Library)| Swaeft's Snaps (Gallery)| My Blog (The Lensation)

  12. #112

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    Ah, so you didn't answer the "where do we start" question .

    This is the most important part. Let me list my understanding of your position.
    1. Morality is learned
    2. It is formed when a consensus is reached by enough of the population
    3. That consensus is created by people coming up with reasons why they think murder is wrong and sharing it with others.

    Now here is the next part of your argument that I want to understand.



    4. How do they come up with those reasons in the first place?

    You said that information helps us distinguish between right and wrong and to create reasons. This implies that the concept "right and wrong" exists before, which allows people to reach a consensus in the first place correct? If you could explain this, it will go a long way in understanding the position.

    Thank you for working with me here. This is more productive in helping me understand.
    Last edited by ♔The Black Knight♔; February 26, 2019 at 03:53 AM.

  13. #113
    Swaeft's Avatar Drama King
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,307
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    What exactly do you mean by where do we start? You can't possibly be referring to the fact that people start this process when they recognize that there is a problem they need to address, right?

    Your understanding of my position is quite correct, though bear in mind that this applies to pretty straightforward issues like why is murder wrong. Don't apply this to debates that are currently still ongoing, like the morality of abortion or cloning.

    To answer your question #4, they need to address a problem.

    No problem man, it's always good to have a civil debate. One thing I am concerned about is the direction this is heading, though. For me this is pretty much an open and shut case, I only came back to post because I was mystified by the position of certain people and wanted to know why they feel that way. I do hope you present your position soon

    Edit: Aha, I've been ninja'ed! Give me a few moments to reply to your edited post.

    Yes you are right, information does help us distinguish between right and wrong. But I think you are applying what I said above out of context. It's not a way of thinking, it's simply the process applied to this particular question.

    Morality is learned - This was a reply to Himster's post, and refers to children learning ethics and values as they grow up through education as opposed to innately knowing right from wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♔The Black Knight♔ View Post
    4. How do they come up with those reasons in the first place?


    You changed your question #4 from Why do they come up with these reasons to How, so disregard my previous answer since it is no longer relevant (though I would appreciate if you posted correctly the first time round because that's quite a radical change). To avoid further confusion, let me put it into context. The how is basically them realizing that murder is wrong and then discussing about why murder is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♔The Black Knight♔ View Post
    You said that information helps us distinguish between right and wrong and to create reasons. This implies that the concept "right and wrong" exists before, which allows people to reach a consensus in the first place correct? If you could explain this, it will go a long way in understanding the position.


    Yes, you are correct, the concept of right and wrong exists before, which is what they are able to base their reasoning on. But that is only true because this issue has already been recognized as 'solved', or at least that's what I thought of it given the relatively straightforward reasons I learned while growing up. It surprises me to see people think that without a religious education we would think that murder is acceptable. This 'right and wrong' didn't exist in the ancient times, until people debated about it and recognized something as right and wrong. We weren't born with the concept of right and wrong in our minds, that had to be discussed for a period of time before becoming the right and wrong as you know it now, and if I'm not wrong, grew up learning.

    I hope this answers your queries, but feel free to pose any further questions, I will respond as best as I can.
    Last edited by Swaeft; February 26, 2019 at 04:17 AM. Reason: Formatting

    Swaeft's Scribblings (Library)| Swaeft's Snaps (Gallery)| My Blog (The Lensation)

  14. #114

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Swaeft View Post
    Yes, you are correct, the concept of right and wrong exists before, which is what they are able to base their reasoning on. But that is only true because this issue has already been recognized as 'solved', or at least that's what I thought of it given the relatively straightforward reasons I learned while growing up. It surprises me to see people think that without a religious education we would think that murder is acceptable. This 'right and wrong' didn't exist in the ancient times, until people debated about it and recognized something as right and wrong. We weren't born with the concept of right and wrong in our minds, that had to be discussed for a period of time before becoming the right and wrong as you know it now, and if I'm not wrong, grew up learning.

    I hope this answers your queries, but feel free to pose any further questions, I will respond as best as I can.
    Yeah, with the way you presented information I thought it was a bad question at the time.

    Well, I think I might have found the issue that we are hung up on. It's the matter of the concept of right and wrong. How do you even begin to debate something before the concept of right and wrong is created? How do people construct such a thing without a prior system of right or wrong that people can use to form a consensus?

  15. #115
    Swaeft's Avatar Drama King
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,307
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    I see. I guess it was just unfortunate that I happened to reply at the same time

    Nice! Well the answer, for me at least, is relatively straightforward. Since in this day and age, in accordance with our values and beliefs based on the inputs of generations past which we agree on, there are certain principles already established (and with good reason), and as such there is no need to 'create' the concept of right and wrong, at least with regards to murder. I must stress again this is only for something that has pretty much been universally decided on, like why murder is wrong. I don't understand why you are asking me this, because I'm really sure that this is an established notion. Correct me if I'm wrong (and this happens a lot), but it seems to me that you wish to apply this thought process to other more complex or grey concepts, which you really can't, because we are still in the process of determining right and wrong for other stuff.

    Nevertheless, your question is a good one, and might see better responses in another thread (or perhaps even a new one if you so desire to).
    Last edited by Swaeft; February 26, 2019 at 06:48 AM.

    Swaeft's Scribblings (Library)| Swaeft's Snaps (Gallery)| My Blog (The Lensation)

  16. #116

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Swaeft View Post
    I see. I guess it was just unfortunate that I happened to reply at the same time

    Nice! Well the answer, for me at least, is relatively straightforward. Since in this day and age, in accordance with our values and beliefs based on the inputs of generations past which we agree on, there are certain principles already established (and with good reason), and as such there is no need to 'create' the concept of right and wrong, at least with regards to murder. I must stress again this is only for something that has pretty much been universally decided on, like why murder is wrong. I don't understand why you are asking me this, because I'm really sure that this is an established notion. Correct me if I'm wrong (and this happens a lot), but it seems to me that you wish to apply this thought process to other more complex or grey concepts, which you really can't, because we are still in the process of determining right and wrong for other stuff.

    Nevertheless, your question is a good one, and might see better responses in another thread (or perhaps even a new one if you so desire to).
    Nope, that's not what I'm trying to do. You keep saying that the concepts of right and wrong have been established and have been passed down. I want to understand the root.

    Ok, so using your argument:

    I got my ideas about murder being wrong from parents, society and people around me right?

    They got their morality from their parents, past society, older people etc...

    We can keep going further in the past to find a time where a consensus on murder was reached correct? And before that? We had the concepts of right and wrong to be able to introduce reasons for morality in the first place. This is the point I want to look at.

    Eventually we will get to a point where we get to the first people who constructed right and wrong in the first place. I'm curious how they figured that out. How do you think they figured that out?
    Last edited by ♔The Black Knight♔; February 26, 2019 at 07:41 AM.

  17. #117
    Swaeft's Avatar Drama King
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,307
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    You could have saved us the trouble and said that when I asked 4 posts up:
    Quote Originally Posted by Swaeft View Post
    What exactly do you mean by where do we start? You can't possibly be referring to the fact that people start this process when they recognize that there is a problem they need to address, right?
    So, wow, that's...really far in the past and really specific. I'll honestly tell you I don't know. How can I? How can you? Very little information is available about the first few people who lived. All I know is that today, now, we have clear established principles on what's right and wrong with regards to murder.

    In any case, why would the starting point be relevant to this discussion? Does it matter what the first humans thought of murder? They don't have the information and perspective we have now.

    I would also encourage you to start posting your views on the matter because it is starting to get a little tiring to keep being questioned, replying, and have the people who question you ignore parts of your reply.
    Last edited by Swaeft; February 26, 2019 at 08:23 AM.

    Swaeft's Scribblings (Library)| Swaeft's Snaps (Gallery)| My Blog (The Lensation)

  18. #118

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Swaeft View Post
    You could have saved us the trouble and said that when I asked 4 posts up:


    So, wow, that's...really far in the past and really specific. I'll honestly tell you I don't know. How can I? How can you? Very little information is available about the first few people who lived. All I know is that today, now, we have clear established principles on what's right and wrong with regards to murder.

    In any case, why would the starting point be relevant to this discussion? Does it matter what the first humans thought of murder? They don't have the information and perspective we have now.

    I would also encourage you to start posting your views on the matter because it is starting to get a little tiring to keep being questioned, replying, and have the people who question you ignore parts of your reply.
    Ok I think we have gone as far as we could go.

    Essentially I think this: I don't buy your argument that the idea that murder is wrong was simply conceived, argued, and disseminated over time. This implies that at one point that there was no concept that murder is wrong ( which I don't have a problem with). You explain that there is a concept of right and wrong that allows for us to argue reasons and reach a consensus to agree that murder is wrong. What is missing is an explanation of how we can create the concept of right and wrong in the first place. That is the main problem that I have.


    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.

    That is why I kept asking questions about what our ancestors thought about the concept of right and wrong. There is no way you can reach a consensus on the concept of right and wrong unless it was already there to begin with. And since I think it was already there to begin with, the only source I can point to is a biological feeling that some things are good and other things are bad.

    To make this more clear, I think morality of murder evolved like this.

    1. We have our earliest humans who did not know how to talk. They could make vocal sounds and use body language, but they were not able to communicate very well. They had no concept of words, but they had to have a concept of good vs bad, right vs wrong. If they didn't, they wouldn't know how to be scared, or to act on hunger, or to understand if the shelter provided warmth etc...

    Essentially it was right to do things that helped you survive and wrong to do things that hurt you. This was derived from just feelings within the body and not reasons. Language doesn't exist yet, so there is no way to thing about the 'reasons' that you do these things. We simply feel about something and act.

    2. Over time, the human beings that survived tended to be people who could communicate, cooperate and not fight with each other. They had 'feelings' that it would be good to socialize with these humans and cooperate to ensure their collective survival, not reasons. People who didn't have those feelings and couldn't receive ideas about socialization died off. Essentially our species has evolved built in feelings about how to interact with others (including to not murder them) to in order to survive, and has meant that their decedents would likely have those built in feelings.

    3. Eventually those people who could communicate well enough were able to create basic language and start talking. They had 'feelings' of how things should be done to survive up until this point, and it is only here where people could even begin to communicate how they 'felt'. People came up with reasons to communicate that people should feel how they felt, and that is how people have learned to conceptualize morality today.

    So I'm arguing that the earliest human beings had to have a biological concept of right vs wrong and that this biological concept can be described as the 'feeling' that we have about things. Murder is one of those things that most of us 'feel' is naturally bad (though not all, serial killers have a natural impulse that it is 'good'), and we create reasons to explain why it's bad because it's how we communicate how we want people to feel about the subject. I would argue evolution made it likely for us to 'feel' like murder is bad, and that why that moral stance is so widespread. It's not because we created superior reasons that convinced everyone.

    However, to give you credit, evolution has not shaped the entire species to 'feel' one way on every issue. Without prior reasons, only a select amount of people have 'feel' some way about an issue, and then construct reasons why it bad to get other people to feel the same way. This is where learning comes in, and it's this elaboration about reasons (which are not always rational) where people can be influenced to feel a certain way about something when they previously had felt nothing about.
    Last edited by ♔The Black Knight♔; February 26, 2019 at 12:53 PM.

  19. #119
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Swaeft View Post
    Why do you go back to the stone age and even before that? Basic reasoning from thousands of years ago surely won't be applied in this day and age.

    To truly understand something one must understand how and why it first emerged. Lacking that, one's understanding will always be faulty. The Black Knight is quite correct in bringing it up.

    If I take it that plethora of random trajectories could mean each group of people come up with their reasons, discuss that with others and ultimately agree on something, then yeah. I mean, we have had thousands of years to refine our understanding of it, lol.
    My point is that the conclusion is unanimous, yet independent. There was no discussion, there was no great council of Apache, Maori, Celtic, Vedic etc. shamans with a decision made there.


    Ooookay...this is where I know we're going to be butting heads forever, because you really aren't born with knowledge of something you don't even know about. And, hypothetically speaking, if everyone does know it is wrong, why would there be a debate about it? Clearly there are people here who don't know why or are just trolling, which the former instantly debunks your hypothesis and which the latter reflects pretty hilariously upon them based on the earnestness of their arguments.
    Of course we're born with knowledge, not conscious knowledge of course: We know snakes are dangerous even if we've never seen one or even heard of one before. We have evolved this trait for the same reason we evolved prehensile thumbs: Those without them would die or be unable to compete. The same goes for the instinct against murder.
    There is no actual debate as to whether murder is wrong or not, except in the form of sophistic devils-advocacy. The debate is semantics pertaining to the arbitrary justifications our various cultures/thinkers have developed. This debate is similar to sport team rivalry than anything else. Our debate, between you and I, is a more fundamental one of epistemology, evolutionary-neuro-biology and metaphysics, the things that underpin semantics.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  20. #120
    Swaeft's Avatar Drama King
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,307
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: Why is murder wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by ♔The Black Knight♔ View Post
    Essentially I think this: I don't buy your argument that the idea that murder is wrong was simply conceived, argued, and disseminated over time. This implies that at one point that there was no concept that murder is wrong ( which I don't have a problem with). You explain that there is a concept of right and wrong that allows for us to argue reasons and reach a consensus to agree that murder is wrong. What is missing is an explanation of how we can create the concept of right and wrong in the first place. That is the main problem that I have.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♔The Black Knight♔ View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    To truly understand something one must understand how and why it first emerged. Lacking that, one's understanding will always be faulty. The Black Knight is quite correct in bringing it up.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    My point is that the conclusion is unanimous, yet independent. There was no discussion, there was no great council of Apache, Maori, Celtic, Vedic etc. shamans with a decision made there.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    There is no actual debate as to whether murder is wrong or not, except in the form of sophistic devils-advocacy. The debate is semantics pertaining to the arbitrary justifications our various cultures/thinkers have developed. This debate is similar to sport team rivalry than anything else. Our debate, between you and I, is a more fundamental one of epistemology, evolutionary-neuro-biology and metaphysics, the things that underpin semantics.
    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

    In any case, thank you both for your points.
    Last edited by Swaeft; February 27, 2019 at 04:01 AM.

    Swaeft's Scribblings (Library)| Swaeft's Snaps (Gallery)| My Blog (The Lensation)

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •