Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why is murder wrong?

DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 3:52:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why is stabbing someone in the chest repeatedly with a butcher's knife until said person dies morally wrong? It may have been presented in an over-the-top fashion, but this is a serious question.

Many people think it's just "prima facie" wrong to kill another human, which it is, but never actually justify it aside from that. "Well, it's just obvious, you know? I mean, I wouldn't want to be murdered!"

I'm interested to hear why is the murdering of another human being wrong according to your own moral standards?
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:08:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 3:52:20 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Why is stabbing someone in the chest repeatedly with a butcher's knife until said person dies morally wrong? It may have been presented in an over-the-top fashion, but this is a serious question.

Many people think it's just "prima facie" wrong to kill another human, which it is, but never actually justify it aside from that. "Well, it's just obvious, you know? I mean, I wouldn't want to be murdered!"

I'm interested to hear why is the murdering of another human being wrong according to your own moral standards?

No one would accept being the victim of a murder (unless, in the rare circumstance that it furthers their goal of suicide). So - given that - if one were to say that someone else's murder was acceptable, but not their own, they would be contradicting themselves, i.e., they would be wrong. In other words, I could not say that my murder would be unacceptable while simultaneously asserting that someone else's murder is acceptable. If I did, I would be wrong. Humans inevitably will assert that their own suffering and annihilation is unacceptable, therefore all unnecessary murder is wrong.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:27:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:08:39 PM, vbaculum wrote:
No one would accept being the victim of a murder (unless, in the rare circumstance that it furthers their goal of suicide). So - given that - if one were to say that someone else's murder was acceptable, but not their own, they would be contradicting themselves, i.e., they would be wrong. In other words, I could not say that my murder would be unacceptable while simultaneously asserting that someone else's murder is acceptable. If I did, I would be wrong. Humans inevitably will assert that their own suffering and annihilation is unacceptable, therefore all unnecessary murder is wrong.

Interesting, I like it!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:41:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:08:39 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 4/8/2012 3:52:20 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Why is stabbing someone in the chest repeatedly with a butcher's knife until said person dies morally wrong? It may have been presented in an over-the-top fashion, but this is a serious question.

Many people think it's just "prima facie" wrong to kill another human, which it is, but never actually justify it aside from that. "Well, it's just obvious, you know? I mean, I wouldn't want to be murdered!"

I'm interested to hear why is the murdering of another human being wrong according to your own moral standards?

No one would accept being the victim of a murder (unless, in the rare circumstance that it furthers their goal of suicide). So - given that - if one were to say that someone else's murder was acceptable, but not their own, they would be contradicting themselves, i.e., they would be wrong. In other words, I could not say that my murder would be unacceptable while simultaneously asserting that someone else's murder is acceptable. If I did, I would be wrong. Humans inevitably will assert that their own suffering and annihilation is unacceptable, therefore all unnecessary murder is wrong.

That's a bit simplistic.

Would it be unacceptable to want Hitler to have died just before he starting a chain of events leading to signing off on the holocaust?

Also, if you plan to kill yourself, is it hypocritical to not want everyone else to kill themselves?
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:45:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:41:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
That's a bit simplistic.

Would it be unacceptable to want Hitler to have died just before he starting a chain of events leading to signing off on the holocaust?

Well, he did say "unnecessary" murder is wrong.

Also, if you plan to kill yourself, is it hypocritical to not want everyone else to kill themselves?

Maybe that's the kind of logic that can stop an intelligent person from taking his/her own life? :)
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:47:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 3:52:20 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Why is stabbing someone in the chest repeatedly with a butcher's knife until said person dies morally wrong? It may have been presented in an over-the-top fashion, but this is a serious question.

Many people think it's just "prima facie" wrong to kill another human, which it is, but never actually justify it aside from that. "Well, it's just obvious, you know? I mean, I wouldn't want to be murdered!"

I'm interested to hear why is the murdering of another human being wrong according to your own moral standards?

Given naturalism, there would be no reason not do kill someone (especially if it results in your self-interest or self-gain) if you can get away with it.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:48:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:47:20 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Given naturalism, there would be no reason not do kill someone (especially if it results in your self-interest or self-gain) if you can get away with it.

You're so silly, SD. I don't want to hear what you think other people think. I want to hear what YOU think! Why do you think murder is wrong?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:50:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What does it actually mean for something to be "wrong"?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:53:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:41:46 PM, Wnope wrote:

That's a bit simplistic.

Would it be unacceptable to want Hitler to have died just before he starting a chain of events leading to signing off on the holocaust?

Also, if you plan to kill yourself, is it hypocritical to not want everyone else to kill themselves?

If you define suicide as murder... but even someone who is suicidal and wishes to end their life wishes to do so on their own terms, and not have some random come along and make that decision for them.
yang.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:54:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:48:20 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/8/2012 4:47:20 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Given naturalism, there would be no reason not do kill someone (especially if it results in your self-interest or self-gain) if you can get away with it.

You're so silly, SD. I don't want to hear what you think other people think. I want to hear what YOU think! Why do you think murder is wrong?

Because there is an objective set of moral values and duties which we all, for the most part, intuitively recognize and which are decreed by a moral law-giver (namely -- God).
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:56:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:54:23 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/8/2012 4:48:20 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/8/2012 4:47:20 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Given naturalism, there would be no reason not do kill someone (especially if it results in your self-interest or self-gain) if you can get away with it.

You're so silly, SD. I don't want to hear what you think other people think. I want to hear what YOU think! Why do you think murder is wrong?

Because there is an objective set of moral values and duties which we all, for the most part, intuitively recognize and which are decreed by a moral law-giver (namely -- God).

Does it trouble you that God, at numerous times in the OT, commits flagrant atrocities? Or do you discount them because you've defined God as perfect?
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:58:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:54:23 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Because there is an objective set of moral values and duties which we all, for the most part, intuitively recognize and which are decreed by a moral law-giver (namely -- God).

Thank you for answering :)
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 5:22:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:56:55 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Does it trouble you that God, at numerous times in the OT, commits flagrant atrocities? Or do you discount them because you've defined God as perfect?

I suppose that I see the Old Testament as containing pertinent theological truths yet deeply flawed in its understanding of God. I see it more as a collection of historical documents which present some truths in mythos rather than logos. Being that God is the locus and paradigm of Good, I don't see how God could ever commit an immoral action.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:49:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:54:23 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/8/2012 4:48:20 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/8/2012 4:47:20 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Given naturalism, there would be no reason not do kill someone (especially if it results in your self-interest or self-gain) if you can get away with it.

You're so silly, SD. I don't want to hear what you think other people think. I want to hear what YOU think! Why do you think murder is wrong?

Because there is an objective set of moral values and duties which we all, for the most part, intuitively recognize and which are decreed by a moral law-giver (namely -- God).

In other words, the Boss says not to murder so it objectively morally wrong. It's an appeal to law fallacy. It's like saying, "Murder is illegal so it objectively morally wrong". The state is replaced my Yahweh of course, but the fallacious logic is the same.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:13:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:41:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/8/2012 4:08:39 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 4/8/2012 3:52:20 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Why is stabbing someone in the chest repeatedly with a butcher's knife until said person dies morally wrong? It may have been presented in an over-the-top fashion, but this is a serious question.

Many people think it's just "prima facie" wrong to kill another human, which it is, but never actually justify it aside from that. "Well, it's just obvious, you know? I mean, I wouldn't want to be murdered!"

I'm interested to hear why is the murdering of another human being wrong according to your own moral standards?

No one would accept being the victim of a murder (unless, in the rare circumstance that it furthers their goal of suicide). So - given that - if one were to say that someone else's murder was acceptable, but not their own, they would be contradicting themselves, i.e., they would be wrong. In other words, I could not say that my murder would be unacceptable while simultaneously asserting that someone else's murder is acceptable. If I did, I would be wrong. Humans inevitably will assert that their own suffering and annihilation is unacceptable, therefore all unnecessary murder is wrong.

That's a bit simplistic.
Because it was brief.

Would it be unacceptable to want Hitler to have died just before he starting a chain of events leading to signing off on the holocaust?

Put simply, just as no one would accept their own destruction, people don't accept the destruction of innocents. To say that Hitler should live but his victims should die would be a contradiction - thus wrong. To say Hitler should die so his victims could have lived would be a statement consistent with human beliefs.


Also, if you plan to kill yourself, is it hypocritical to not want everyone else to kill themselves?

Most people kill themselves out of despair - to end their suffering. Presumably, most other people are not in this state of mind so I don't see the hypocrisy.

Actually, I don't really understand why you bring this up. Maybe you could offer an example that would clarify your argument.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:29:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 9:49:39 PM, vbaculum wrote:
In other words, the Boss says not to murder so it objectively morally wrong. It's an appeal to law fallacy. It's like saying, "Murder is illegal so it objectively morally wrong". The state is replaced my Yahweh of course, but the fallacious logic is the same.

This reeks of the Euthyphro dilemma...
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:30:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:58:03 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/8/2012 4:54:23 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Because there is an objective set of moral values and duties which we all, for the most part, intuitively recognize and which are decreed by a moral law-giver (namely -- God).

Thank you for answering :)

No problem, hizzle fo nizzle
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 10:22:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:54:23 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/8/2012 4:48:20 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/8/2012 4:47:20 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Given naturalism, there would be no reason not do kill someone (especially if it results in your self-interest or self-gain) if you can get away with it.

You're so silly, SD. I don't want to hear what you think other people think. I want to hear what YOU think! Why do you think murder is wrong?

Because there is an objective set of moral values and duties which we all, for the most part, intuitively recognize and which are decreed by a moral law-giver (namely -- God).

This.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 10:55:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What SD said.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 12:15:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/9/2012 1:02:20 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I ask my victims the same question every time and their answer is never good enough.

So true..
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 2:34:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 3:52:20 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Why is stabbing someone in the chest repeatedly with a butcher's knife until said person dies morally wrong? It may have been presented in an over-the-top fashion, but this is a serious question.

Many people think it's just "prima facie" wrong to kill another human, which it is, but never actually justify it aside from that. "Well, it's just obvious, you know? I mean, I wouldn't want to be murdered!"

I'm interested to hear why is the murdering of another human being wrong according to your own moral standards?

Who said it is wrong? As long as morale is not objective, murder will not be wrong to me. Doesn't mean I'll go arround killing people, though.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 2:59:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/9/2012 2:34:38 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Who said it is wrong? As long as morale is not objective, murder will not be wrong to me. Doesn't mean I'll go arround killing people, though.

I agree with you. I objective moral values and duties don't exist, then nothing is prohibited nor obligatory, "good" or "evil," "wrong" or "right."

But, hypothetically speaking, if you could kill someone very rich and steal their money in such a way that would guarantee you never getting caught, why shouldn't you?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 3:56:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/9/2012 2:59:45 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/9/2012 2:34:38 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Who said it is wrong? As long as morale is not objective, murder will not be wrong to me. Doesn't mean I'll go arround killing people, though.

I agree with you. I objective moral values and duties don't exist, then nothing is prohibited nor obligatory, "good" or "evil," "wrong" or "right."

But, hypothetically speaking, if you could kill someone very rich and steal their money in such a way that would guarantee you never getting caught, why shouldn't you?

Promotion of healthy society, emotive reasons, intuition & the fact that I'm not a bast@rd who needs heteronomous morality to tell me that if I want others to be happy I can't be a bastárd to other people.

Also, I worked out how to get round the filter easier. Awesome.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 4:17:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/9/2012 2:59:45 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/9/2012 2:34:38 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Who said it is wrong? As long as morale is not objective, murder will not be wrong to me. Doesn't mean I'll go arround killing people, though.

I agree with you. I objective moral values and duties don't exist, then nothing is prohibited nor obligatory, "good" or "evil," "wrong" or "right."

But, hypothetically speaking, if you could kill someone very rich and steal their money in such a way that would guarantee you never getting caught, why shouldn't you?

Because I am a human raised in a society where killing is bad. I have emotions.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 5:05:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/9/2012 2:34:38 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Who said it is wrong? As long as morale is not objective, murder will not be wrong to me. Doesn't mean I'll go arround killing people, though.

You don't believe murder is wrong, even in your subjective opinion? It's okay to kill people?
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 7:57:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 3:52:20 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Why is stabbing someone in the chest repeatedly with a butcher's knife until said person dies morally wrong? It may have been presented in an over-the-top fashion, but this is a serious question.

Many people think it's just "prima facie" wrong to kill another human, which it is, but never actually justify it aside from that. "Well, it's just obvious, you know? I mean, I wouldn't want to be murdered!"

I'm interested to hear why is the murdering of another human being wrong according to your own moral standards?

Killing a person is wrong because it frustrates their desires to continue living. It also deprives them of the good of life, all the experiences they would have otherwise been able to enjoy and accumulate they have now been robbed of.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 9:34:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/9/2012 7:57:38 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Killing a person is wrong because it frustrates their desires to continue living. It also deprives them of the good of life, all the experiences they would have otherwise been able to enjoy and accumulate they have now been robbed of.

But if objective moral values and duties do not exist, then why would ending a life or depriving someone of a life be objectively wrong?
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 9:37:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/9/2012 3:56:13 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Promotion of healthy society

No one would know

emotive reasons

Unimportant to someone who sees morality as nothing but a man-made construct.

intuition & the fact that I'm not a bast@rd who needs heteronomous morality to tell me that if I want others to be happy I can't be a bastárd to other people.

Don't...know...how...to...respond

Also, I worked out how to get round the filter easier. Awesome.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 9:41:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/9/2012 4:17:53 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Because I am a human raised in a society where killing is bad. I have emotions.

Given naturalism, there's just no way you can derive moral values or duties from a test tube. You cannot get an ought from an is. Science is morally neutral. It follows immediately that moral values and duties don't really exist. They're just illusions of human beings. Even if the naturalist is willing to go beyond the bounds of science, why think, given a naturalistic worldview, that human beings are morally valuable? On a naturalistic view, moral values are just the by-product of biological evolution and social conditioning. Just as a troop of baboons exhibit cooperative and even self-sacrificial behavior because natural selection has determined it to be advantageous in the struggle for survival, so their primate cousin Homo sapiens exhibit similar behavior for the same reason. As a result of sociobiological pressures there has evolved among Homo sapiens a sort of "herd morality," which functions well in the perpetuation of our species. But on an atheistic worldview, there doesn't seem to be anything about Homo sapiens that makes this morality objectively true. If I we were to rewind the tape of human evolution back to the beginning and start anew, people with very different set of moral values might well have evolved.

For us to think that human beings are special or that our morality objectively true is to succumb to the temptation to speciesism, an unjustified bias toward one's own species. So if there is no God, any basis for regarding the herd morality evolved by Homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. Take God or objective morality out of the picture, and all you're left with is an apelike creature on a speck of dust beset with delusions of moral grandeur.

Certain actions such as incest or rape or murder may not be biologically and socially advantageous and so in the course of human history have become taboo, but that does nothing to show that rape or murder or incest is objectively wrong. The murderer or rapist who goes against the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.

So while it would obviously be inconvenient to the person being murdered to have his or her life taken away, there's no reason, given naturalism, to see murder as objectively wrong. While most people would obviously rather live than die, this gives us no reason to see murder as objectively wrong if morality is seen as nothing but a man-made construct. While a society may not function too well with a bunch of murderers (or if murder impedes an idea of progress), that doesn't mean that murder is objectively wrong.