Killing: When/If It's Ok?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Not necessarily bad, but if you happened upon someone who was tortured to death in a brutal way, I think you just see the vileness of it.[/quote]

Oh, like when I found I saw my uncle who had his skin ripped from his body while he was alive? Or, maybe all the Saints who were burned alive? Maybe those who were killed by Hitler?

I didn’t want to use this example, but if you see a dead woman who was mutilated and killed with a broom handle for example (this is a real example too) you feel sickened, and I felt that such a thing was so vile, and this sort of thing happens on such a large scale that it’s hard to imagine that a good God wouldn’t intervene.

If a greater good would come out of it, not hard to imagine.

That’s all. For Marines, this is a motivational/memorial video. But try to imagine seeing the level of destruction and death everyday. Try to make sense of how God fits into that picture when you see mangled bodies and maggots eating corpses… It’s difficult…

Yes, seeing destruction and death everyday is hard.

This video is quite graphic, but I think it might give you the tiniest window of understanding of what I’m talking about. Don’t dare watch it unless you are okay with seeing a bit of death and gore.

I’ve seen plenty of death and gore. I don’t need a motivational video to get a window of it.

[TigerTime]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Compassion is the feeling and/or the idea that the sufferings of others are bad and/or wrong.
It’s already a moral judgement. the concept of “good” and “bad” are already there, even if they are only implicit at this point.
[/quote]

Not to throw a wrench into this wonderful conversation with TigerTime.

But, I think I have compassion, but I don’t think suffering is inherently bad.[/quote]

Nor do I.[/quote]

But, unlike BC, you said that we don’t need a moral code because compassion is our natural state.
If suffering isn’t inherently bad, how do we know when it is, and when it’s not ?

[/quote]

Well, you could always ask the individual if they think it’s bad. That has been the point I’ve been pushing all along, has it not?[/quote]

That’s exactly what the golden rule say. And it’s a moral code.
So “all along”, we have evolved from “moral nihilism” to an altruism based on human nature, informed and regulated by reciprocity. IE : Some kind of secular humanism.
Like i said : “welcome to the club”. [/quote]

The golden rule is, “treat others as you would like to be treated”. This has nothing to do with my outlook and I don’t know how you got this out of the comment you’re responding to.

If my outlook has a rule it would be, “treat others the way they want to be treated. Or, don’t. Your choice.”[/quote]

You would like to be treated the way you want to be treated, right ?
So you would like to be treated the way you said you would treat others.
Ergo, you treat others the way you would like to be treated.

the rule of your outlook is a tautology removed from the golden rule.
Essentially the same thing. [/quote]

Absolutely… so long as you completely ignore the “Or don’t…” part, that is.

Either you think I’m an idiot, or debating the T-Nation half-wits has made you sloppy. [/quote]

Now you’re making it sound like “do” and “don’t” are morally equivalent.
But given your own premises, it’s clearly not the case.

If you “don’t”, you go against your natural state, against human nature. IE : you act in a less human(e) way.
Again, that’s exactly how most secular humanisms explain and express morality.
[/quote]

“Do” and “don’t” are morally equivalent, because I don’t consider either one moral or immoral.

Like I said, being compassionate doesn’t dictate any particular action. Maybe someone is suffering, maybe doing something about it isn’t logical. I don’t have to act in accordance with how I feel. To even marry one course of action to how I feel is a logical error. There really is no such thing as “acting in accordance with how I feel” unless I set some objective standard for myself, which means not doing something isn’t going against my nature. What “my nature” is cannot even be determined until I act or do not act anyway. Your projecting the idea of “my nature” onto an outside standard, so what your saying only makes sense if you assume the very thing you’re trying to prove.

You insinuate this is morality because it’s universal, but you still haven’t made the case for why universality is/ should be the foundation of objective morality as opposed to any other possible standard. All this other stuff is meaningless if your premise doesn’t at least follow logically.

[kamui]

[quote]
Like I said, being compassionate doesn’t dictate any particular action. Maybe someone is suffering, maybe doing something about it isn’t logical.[/quote]

Yet, according to yourself :
“Compassion is about sympathy for the suffering of others and the desire to alleviate said suffering.”

[quote]
I don’t have to act in accordance with how I feel. To even marry one course of action to how I feel is a logical error. There really is no such thing as “acting in accordance with how I feel” unless I set some objective standard for myself, which means not doing something isn’t going against my nature. What “my nature” is cannot even be determined until I act or do not act anyway. Your projecting the idea of “my nature” onto an outside standard, so what your saying only makes sense if you assume the very thing you’re trying to prove.[/quote]

It’s not about your individual and personnal nature.
It’s about your nature as an human being.
Since, you “contend that man’s natural state is that of compassion”.
There is YOUR standard, not mine. I’m not projecting it, i’m only quoting it.

Acting to alleviate the suffering of others is humane. Not doing it is not humane.
That follows directly from your own definitions.

[quote]
You insinuate this is morality because it’s universal, but you still haven’t made the case for why universality is/ should be the foundation of objective morality as opposed to any other possible standard. All this other stuff is meaningless if your premise doesn’t at least follow logically. [/quote]

Which other possible standard ?
It’s the meaning of the word. That’s all. I don’t have “to make the case for it”.

As long as we speak about non-universal rules, we are not speaking about morality.
Maybe we are speaking about ethics, ethology, customs, traditions, habits, game rules, laws, deontology, etc. But morality is something else : an universal rule.
By definition.

[TigerTime]

[quote]kamui wrote:
Yet, according to yourself :
“Compassion is about sympathy for the suffering of others and the desire to alleviate said suffering.”
[/quote]

So?

It’s not about your individual and personnal nature.
It’s about your nature as an human being.
Since, you “contend that man’s natural state is that of compassion”.
There is YOUR standard, not mine. I’m not projecting it, i’m only quoting it.

Acting to alleviate the suffering of others is humane. Not doing it is not humane.
That follows directly from your own definitions.

There’s more that goes into a man than compassion. Different people happen to be different. Sure, we all have compassion and I believe that if you don’t condition a man otherwise he will be compassionate, but if and how they act on it comes down to more than just compassion. I can conceive of a situation where not attempting to alleviate ones suffering can be preferred. A martial arts student training his mabu stance is suffering tremendously. His teacher could easily knock him over and alleviate his suffering, but he wants the student to acheive greater mental fortitude, so he both allows and demands said suffering.

Now, the teacher isn’t being particularly humane, but there’s nothing “bad” about it and I see no reason to call it immoral. It’s just people doing things. No need to give certain actions more weight than they already have.

Which other possible standard ?
It’s the meaning of the word. That’s all. I don’t have “to make the case for it”.

As long as we speak about non-universal rules, we are not speaking about morality.
Maybe we are speaking about ethics, ethology, customs, traditions, habits, game rules, laws, deontology, etc. But morality is something else : an universal rule.
By definition.

Any subjective-moralist would disagree with you. Morality is about creating principles based on distinguishing good from bad. It’s a method for governing behaviour. It doesn’t have to be objective and many people think it isn’t, so yes, you have to make the case for your position.

Even if you define morality in such a way that makes it objective, you still have to both argue its necessity and make the case for why your moral system is logically inescapable as the only possible objective moral system.

[kamui]

I can conceive of a situation where not attempting to alleviate ones suffering can be preferred. A martial arts student training his mabu stance is suffering tremendously. His teacher could easily knock him over and alleviate his suffering, but he wants the student to acheive greater mental fortitude, so he both allows and demands said suffering.

In this case the sifu is definitey acting out of compassion, and trying to alleviate ones suffering.
But the real suffering here is not the pain produced by the mabu stance. It’s the mental weakness of his student.
Also, in this case, the student has chosen his suffering. It does not go against his will, and as such, mabu training doesn’t violate the golden rule.
It’s not realy an exception to your rule-that-you-won’t-acknowledge-as-a-rule.

Any subjective-moralist would disagree with you.

Nope.
“Subjective-moralists” could not disagree with me.
Subjective-anything-ists can not disagree with anyone about anything.
They can give their subjective opinion. They can hear mine. But that’s all.
They can’t “disagree”.
The very fact of disagreeing implies that one believes in objective truth, objective reality and objective morality.

[quote]
Morality is about creating principles based on distinguishing good from bad. It’s a method for governing behaviour. It doesn’t have to be objective and many people think it isn’t, so yes, you have to make the case for your position.[/quote]

If morality is about “creating principles”, if it’s a “method for governing”, then morality is normative.
Which is obviously impossible if morality is subjective.

[TigerTime]

[quote]kamui wrote:

In this case the sifu is definitey acting out of compassion, and trying to alleviate ones suffering.
But the real suffering here is not the pain produced by the mabu stance. It’s the mental weakness of his student.
Also, in this case, the student has chosen his suffering. It does not go against his will, and as such, mabu training doesn’t violate the golden rule.
It’s not realy an exception to your rule-that-you-won’t-acknowledge-as-a-rule.
[/quote]

There are people who would not trade suffering now for mental strength later. I don’t view these people as more or less moral than the student or his teacher.

When I say humans are compassionate animals, it’s not an edict, it’s just my observation. Some people really aren’t compassionate whatsoever. I don’t think these people are lesser than anyone else.

In your mind, trends become rules that have exceptions. In my mind, since there will be exceptions there is no point in making a rule as each situation will have to be weighed anyway.

Nope.
“Subjective-moralists” could not disagree with me.
Subjective-anything-ists can not disagree with anyone about anything.
They can give their subjective opinion. They can hear mine. But that’s all.
They can’t “disagree”.
The very fact of disagreeing implies that one believes in objective truth, objective reality and objective morality.

These are arguments against something I am not, so I’m not going to waste my time fighting someone else’s battle.

[pat]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
If it’s my personal preference to rape somebody, that’s still an immoral act. [/quote]

Well, to you. The rapist doesn’t see a problem in it. Casting your opinion on objective things doesn’t make your opinion objective. It’s still your personal preference to live in a society where people don’t rape each other. [/quote]

Are you serious trying to argue that rape is ok as long as the rapist is cool with it? You don’t see the fail in that?[/quote]

You miss my point. The rapist has his own idea of morality. It just so happens that, to him, rape is okay (at least when he does it).

What makes your morality more legitimate? You say your morality is based on what causes ‘harm’, but who are you to say that harm is the foundation of objective morality? I don’t see what’s objective about it. [/quote]

I don’t own a morality, I am subject to it just like everybody else. And to say that one person’s opinion is as good as another when it comes to morality is patently false. Does rape cause harm to another being? Yes. Is it a willful act? Yes.
If you have a victim who was grievously harmed, then that act was evil. To try and mock up some justification to support a failing paradigm and some sort of intellectual exercise is utter horseshit.
In that world, it doesn’t matter what you do or whom you do it to, it’s all permissible. It’s a great stance if your trying to justify assholes like Stalin. Stalin sure didn’t mind killing all those people, didn’t bother him one bit. Must have been moral then.
[/quote]

I missed the part where you logically proved harm is the objective standard for morality. [/quote]

Yes you did.[/quote]

But only because you haven’t actually done it yet.[/quote]

Earlier in the thread, I did. You simply missed it or ignored it. I don’t feel obligated to repeat it. For the record, it’s not ‘harm’ alone. It’s harm freely done by a sentient being to another with intent. I expressed all of this, clearly.

[pat]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
the command “Rape !” can not become an universal rule.
the command “Rape !” would destroy the very possibility of an universal rule.
Therefore, rape is immoral.

Regardless of what rapists think/feel about it. [/quote]

Rape cannot be a universal rule, or YOU can’t conceive of rape being a universal rule?
[/quote]
Maybe you can’t but I can… It’s not that hard really. But I am enjoying your slow motion train wreck of massively tortured reasoning.

There are several species of mammals, insects, fish, etc. whose entire mating system is rape-based. Whose to say we won’t follow sometime in our future?

Red Herring. The mating habits of other animals are not in question, nor is it even remotely relevant. Maybe you need to rape to propagate the species, most of us engage in the standard pair-bonding rituals that are native to humans.

In fact rape hasn’t exactly been a rare occurrence throughout human history. Only recently has rape been thoroughly demonized, and that’s really only in the developed nations.

Rape has been demonized? LOL!!! How dare we demonize it!

[quote]

Furthermore, what your saying wouldn’t make rape objectively immoral anyway. You’d just be deriving an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’, which is equally as superfluous as pat’s argument.

Rape cannot become a universal rule, why? Because most people won’t get behind rape as a moral act? Well, what if they do, one day, get behind rape? Did the fabric of reality change? No? Well then I guess it wasn’t all that objective after all.[/quote]

People’s agreement or disagreement is completely irrelevant to whether an act is immoral or not. Further, with this line of reasoning, you can hold no one accountable who wrongs you, because by your own definition, wrong doesn’t exist. So if somebody, robs your house and kills your family, you have no reason to be pissed off about it…It didn’t bother them one bit, so it’s cool.
If your girl friend cheats on you, don’t get mad.

This is some of the worst reasoning I have heard about this topic…[/quote]

I’m going to ignore this entirely. Not because of anything you said or didn’t say, but because this wasn’t your post to respond to and I don’t have the time to engage in multiple debates with you on the same damn topic – in the same damn thread nonetheless. [/quote]

"What’s the matter Colonial Sanders, Chicken? ~ Space Balls.

[pat]

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Also, why does anything need to be labelled as either moral or immoral? People don’t like being raped; Is that not enough to oppose rape? [/quote]

Because with out it, all action is valid. Simply not liking something is not a basis for morality. It’s not morality at all. It’s likes and dislikes and nothing more.
Some people don’t like load music? Should, therefore load music be labeled immoral? People don’t like mosquitoes, are they immoral?

Your slippery-slope leads to a cesspool. [/quote]

Some people like being raped?
[/quote]

Then it’s not rape. By definition, the rapee, doesn’t like it, or it’s consentual sex. Otherwise it’s at worst, role play. To which I say, to each his/ her own.

[pat]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
Well, golly, I can’t figure out why more people don’t want to sign up to the “damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t” moral code you’re pitching here.[/quote]

I take that you never had to kill to defend your life. If you did, you would know that you’re indeed “damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t” in such circumstances. Regardless of your moral code or lack thereof.

See Jewbacca’s post in this topic. Ask anyone who actually experienced such situations.

Letting yourself be killed is immoral for the same reason? The same reason as what? The same reason as killnig is immoral or the same reason as killing in self defence is immoral?[/quote]

Both.

So it’s immoral to be killed because it results in death? Is that what I am to understand?[/quote]

It’s suicide by proxy.

[TigerTime]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
If it’s my personal preference to rape somebody, that’s still an immoral act. [/quote]

Well, to you. The rapist doesn’t see a problem in it. Casting your opinion on objective things doesn’t make your opinion objective. It’s still your personal preference to live in a society where people don’t rape each other. [/quote]

Are you serious trying to argue that rape is ok as long as the rapist is cool with it? You don’t see the fail in that?[/quote]

You miss my point. The rapist has his own idea of morality. It just so happens that, to him, rape is okay (at least when he does it).

What makes your morality more legitimate? You say your morality is based on what causes ‘harm’, but who are you to say that harm is the foundation of objective morality? I don’t see what’s objective about it. [/quote]

I don’t own a morality, I am subject to it just like everybody else. And to say that one person’s opinion is as good as another when it comes to morality is patently false. Does rape cause harm to another being? Yes. Is it a willful act? Yes.
If you have a victim who was grievously harmed, then that act was evil. To try and mock up some justification to support a failing paradigm and some sort of intellectual exercise is utter horseshit.
In that world, it doesn’t matter what you do or whom you do it to, it’s all permissible. It’s a great stance if your trying to justify assholes like Stalin. Stalin sure didn’t mind killing all those people, didn’t bother him one bit. Must have been moral then.
[/quote]

I missed the part where you logically proved harm is the objective standard for morality. [/quote]

Yes you did.[/quote]

But only because you haven’t actually done it yet.[/quote]

Earlier in the thread, I did. You simply missed it or ignored it. I don’t feel obligated to repeat it. For the record, it’s not ‘harm’ alone. It’s harm freely done by a sentient being to another with intent. I expressed all of this, clearly.[/quote]

Yeah, you’ve stated that harm towards a sentient being blah blah blah before, but I don’t see the logical necessity. What makes harm a more valid basis for morality than compassion or ‘universality’, for example?

[TigerTime]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
the command “Rape !” can not become an universal rule.
the command “Rape !” would destroy the very possibility of an universal rule.
Therefore, rape is immoral.

Regardless of what rapists think/feel about it. [/quote]

Rape cannot be a universal rule, or YOU can’t conceive of rape being a universal rule?
[/quote]
Maybe you can’t but I can… It’s not that hard really. But I am enjoying your slow motion train wreck of massively tortured reasoning.

There are several species of mammals, insects, fish, etc. whose entire mating system is rape-based. Whose to say we won’t follow sometime in our future?

Red Herring. The mating habits of other animals are not in question, nor is it even remotely relevant. Maybe you need to rape to propagate the species, most of us engage in the standard pair-bonding rituals that are native to humans.

In fact rape hasn’t exactly been a rare occurrence throughout human history. Only recently has rape been thoroughly demonized, and that’s really only in the developed nations.

Rape has been demonized? LOL!!! How dare we demonize it!

[quote]

Furthermore, what your saying wouldn’t make rape objectively immoral anyway. You’d just be deriving an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’, which is equally as superfluous as pat’s argument.

Rape cannot become a universal rule, why? Because most people won’t get behind rape as a moral act? Well, what if they do, one day, get behind rape? Did the fabric of reality change? No? Well then I guess it wasn’t all that objective after all.[/quote]

People’s agreement or disagreement is completely irrelevant to whether an act is immoral or not. Further, with this line of reasoning, you can hold no one accountable who wrongs you, because by your own definition, wrong doesn’t exist. So if somebody, robs your house and kills your family, you have no reason to be pissed off about it…It didn’t bother them one bit, so it’s cool.
If your girl friend cheats on you, don’t get mad.

This is some of the worst reasoning I have heard about this topic…[/quote]

I’m going to ignore this entirely. Not because of anything you said or didn’t say, but because this wasn’t your post to respond to and I don’t have the time to engage in multiple debates with you on the same damn topic – in the same damn thread nonetheless. [/quote]

"What’s the matter Colonial Sanders, Chicken? ~ Space Balls.[/quote]

Well, since Kamui has bailed on this thread I guess I can engage you in this conversation.

Having emotions like anger and sadness do not prove morality exists or that it is objective.

[TigerTime]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
Well, golly, I can’t figure out why more people don’t want to sign up to the “damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t” moral code you’re pitching here.[/quote]

I take that you never had to kill to defend your life. If you did, you would know that you’re indeed “damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t” in such circumstances. Regardless of your moral code or lack thereof.

See Jewbacca’s post in this topic. Ask anyone who actually experienced such situations.

Letting yourself be killed is immoral for the same reason? The same reason as what? The same reason as killnig is immoral or the same reason as killing in self defence is immoral?[/quote]

Both.

So it’s immoral to be killed because it results in death? Is that what I am to understand?[/quote]

It’s suicide by proxy.[/quote]

Big deal. It’s your own life. Without appealing to God, how can you oppose ending your own life?

[Tiribulus]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< Big deal. It’s your own life. Without appealing to God, how can you oppose ending your own life?[/quote]I oppose LIVING my own life without God to say nothing of ending it.