Killing: When/If It's Ok?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[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.

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.

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…

122

[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.

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.

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.

123

[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.

124

[quote]kamui wrote:

Rape could only be an universal rule if everyone agreed to be raped. Which is absurd. [/quote]

Nor would it be, like, rape.

Nor would murder under similar circumstances be properly called murder.

Nor robbery, robbery. Nor abuse. Nor false witness. Nor adultery.

And on and on.

And the bottom line, TT, is that, no matter how idealistic your beliefs, YOU still believe in absolutes.

Hell, you said so yourself, when you claimed not to have a price.

125

600×776 43.5 KB

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Yes.[/quote]

Why do you believe that? [/quote]

All life is precious and we are all united. [/quote]

No, why do you believe that the ends justify the means?[/quote]

Well, if one commits a lesser evil that prevents a greater evil, than a right action has been made. There is less evil than there would have been otherwise. [/quote]

How do you know that it was a greater evil/lesser evil?[/quote]

It’s not easy a lot of the time. History can be a good guide. I’d say morals and ethics evolve in a manner very similar to the universe and biology. From experience meant in a very general way, we as a piece of nature continue to refine our concept of evil, greater evils, and good.

I would know that if I had a chance to assassinate Stalin, that would be the right thing to do so millions of lives could be saved. But… then again, possibly an even worse dictator would take over I would’ve committed the crime of killing and facilitated even more evil and just royally screw everything up.

Sorry, I don’t really have a good answer.[/quote]

No. We can’t decide. An evil means makes an evil end. I’ll explain more later.

126

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Yes.[/quote]

Why do you believe that? [/quote]

All life is precious and we are all united. [/quote]

No, why do you believe that the ends justify the means?[/quote]

Well, if one commits a lesser evil that prevents a greater evil, than a right action has been made. There is less evil than there would have been otherwise. [/quote]

How do you know that it was a greater evil/lesser evil?[/quote]

It’s not easy a lot of the time. History can be a good guide. I’d say morals and ethics evolve in a manner very similar to the universe and biology. From experience meant in a very general way, we as a piece of nature continue to refine our concept of evil, greater evils, and good.

I would know that if I had a chance to assassinate Stalin, that would be the right thing to do so millions of lives could be saved. But… then again, possibly an even worse dictator would take over I would’ve committed the crime of killing and facilitated even more evil and just royally screw everything up.

Sorry, I don’t really have a good answer.[/quote]

No. We can’t decide. An evil means makes an evil end. I’ll explain more later.[/quote]

I don’t think we decide what’s moral and immoral. Only that we make discoveries in morality in a somewhat similar way we make discoveries about the natural world. And even in Christianity, all the evil of humanity will be made to work towards God’s glory.

127

[quote]kamui 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? 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?

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.
[/quote]

Even if the human mating system was entirely “rape-based”, it would still not be an universal rule. A male “rule” maybe. ie 50% universal, at best.

No.
“universal rule” is the definition of morality.
If “rape” is incompatible with “universal rule”, then “rape” is incompatible with “morality”.
It’s only basic logic.

There is no “is” and no “ought” here. You’re free to think that morality doesn’t exist. Or doesn’t apply. But the word morality has a meaning, and you’re not free to redefine it. Nor to define it illogically.

[quote]
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]

Rape can not become an universal rule because you can not will something that goes against your will (per definition).

Rape could only be an universal rule if everyone agreed to be raped. Which is absurd. [/quote]

You keep saying this term, “universal rule”. What is a “universal rule”? Is it something universally agreed upon as being moral? And the inverse, is an immoral act one that is universally viewed as immoral? What are the qualifications for a “universal rule”?

Furthermore, who are you to say that morality should be based on these “universal rules”? From what are you concluding that “universal rules” (whatever they may be), are the foundations of morality? I just don’t see the logical necessity.

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?

128

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Rape could only be an universal rule if everyone agreed to be raped. Which is absurd. [/quote]

Nor would it be, like, rape.

Nor would murder under similar circumstances be properly called murder.

Nor robbery, robbery. Nor abuse. Nor false witness. Nor adultery.

And on and on.

And the bottom line, TT, is that, no matter how idealistic your beliefs, YOU still believe in absolutes.

Hell, you said so yourself, when you claimed not to have a price. [/quote]

I also admitted it’s easy for me to make such a declaration. I have no price now, but I also have no motivation, so my ‘lack of price’ means nothing.

The only absolute I’ve been able to find is that I have awareness of existence, and I’m not all too sure about the “I” part.

129

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< I don’t think we decide what’s moral and immoral. Only that we make discoveries in morality in a somewhat similar way we make discoveries about the natural world. And even in Christianity, all the evil of humanity will be made to work towards God’s glory. [/quote]Very Good Fletch. Ya make me proud. You are of course 100% correct.

130

[quote]
You keep saying this term, “universal rule”. What is a “universal rule”? Is it something universally agreed upon as being moral? And the inverse, is an immoral act one that is universally viewed as immoral?[/quote]

no, you are speaking about customs and taboos, and social consensus.
That would be an “is”. Not an “ought”.
What we agree upon doesn’t matter. See BC’s post.

[quote]
What are the qualifications for a “universal rule”?[/quote]

something everyone ought to do, under similar circumstances.

[quote]
Furthermore, who are you to say that morality should be based on these “universal rules”? From what are you concluding that “universal rules” (whatever they may be), are the foundations of morality? I just don’t see the logical necessity.[/quote]

It’s the very definition of the word “morality”.
if something is not a rule, then it’s not an “ought”, and it’s not morality
If an “ought” is not universal, it’s not morality either. It’s deontology.

[quote]
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]

Theoretically, you can say that there is no “i ought”, only “i want” and i “don’t want”.
But theoretically only. If you’re not a sociopath, you would be lying to yourself.
Heck, even sociopaths can understand morality. They are just unable to experience the natural feelings related to it.

131

[quote]kamui wrote:

something everyone ought to do, under similar circumstances.

[/quote]

Well, how do we know what we “ought” to do? What are the standards?

… You say that morality is defined by universal rules and when I ask you what ‘universal rules’ are you say “they are the definition of morality”. Do you not see how that is an inadequate answer?

The rest doesn’t clear anything up either. If something is not a rule, then it is not an ought. Great, but what constitutes a ‘rule’? And are you implying that rules = oughts? Well, how do we know what we “ought” to do? I don’t know what your basing this moral code on.

What I want to know is, what are the qualifications needed for something to be a ‘universal rule’?

I don’t know what you’re talking about. If you think I’m saying there are no "I ought"s, etc. then you don’t know what I’m saying.

I see no objective standard for morality. Given this, I’ve concluded that there is none and therefore all moral codes are subjective. Since they are subjective, they are based on the individual (their preferences). Since “personal preferences” are already a thing, tagging on the term “moral” is just an egotistical attempt at having your personal preferences imposed on others as objective rules. If this is not the case, then the term “moral” is pointless. There’s no need to call an act “moral” when your morality is entirely relative to yourself. – This is what I’m saying.

132

[quote]
Well, how do we know what we “ought” to do? What are the standards?[/quote]

I already gave you
-a way to know what we don’t ought to do (ie : what is amoral, at best)
here :

-a way to know what we ought to not do. (ie : what is immoral)
here

Now, if you want to know what we positively ought to do, you just need to translate this in positive terms.
Which leave you with the “golden rule” in its positive form : “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.”

[quote]
… You say that morality is defined by universal rules and when I ask you what ‘universal rules’ are you say “they are the definition of morality”. Do you not see how that is an inadequate answer?[/quote]

no, you said “who are you to …”. My answer is “i’m only someone who understand the word”.
Perfectly adequate answer.

[quote]
I don’t know what you’re talking about. If you think I’m saying there are no "I ought"s, etc. then you don’t know what I’m saying.

I see no objective standard for morality. Given this, I’ve concluded that there is none and therefore all moral codes are subjective. Since they are subjective, they are based on the individual (their preferences). Since “personal preferences” are already a thing, tagging on the term “moral” is just an egotistical attempt at having your personal preferences imposed on others as objective rules. If this is not the case, then the term “moral” is pointless. There’s no need to call an act “moral” when your morality is entirely relative to yourself. – This is what I’m saying. [/quote]

You say that there is no objective standard for morality.
The only logical consequence of this position is that there is no “oughts”. Only “wants”.
Maybe YOU don’t know what you’re saying.

You can’t say that “morality is subjective”. Saying this is only a convoluted way to say that it doesn’t exist at all.

Morality is objective OR it doesn’t exist.
Precisely because a preference is not a rule. And a rule is not a preference.

Let’s say you’re playing chess.
The other player do a forbidden move with his queen.
You remind him about the rules.
Can he say that you’re doing “an egotistical attempt at having your personal preferences imposed on others as objective rules” ?
Nope.
It’s the rule of chess. Period.
Even if the rule is “man made”, it’s not “subjective”. it’s not arbitrary.
Because it’s a rule.
If you don’t follow it, you’re either cheating or playing another game.

It’s the same thing with morality, at another, universal, scale.
If you don’t follow it, you’re either cheating (being immoral) or playing another game (being amoral).

133

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Yes.[/quote]

Why do you believe that? [/quote]

All life is precious and we are all united. [/quote]

No, why do you believe that the ends justify the means?[/quote]

Well, if one commits a lesser evil that prevents a greater evil, than a right action has been made. There is less evil than there would have been otherwise. [/quote]

How do you know that it was a greater evil/lesser evil?[/quote]

It’s not easy a lot of the time. History can be a good guide. I’d say morals and ethics evolve in a manner very similar to the universe and biology. From experience meant in a very general way, we as a piece of nature continue to refine our concept of evil, greater evils, and good.

I would know that if I had a chance to assassinate Stalin, that would be the right thing to do so millions of lives could be saved. But… then again, possibly an even worse dictator would take over I would’ve committed the crime of killing and facilitated even more evil and just royally screw everything up.

Sorry, I don’t really have a good answer.[/quote]

No. We can’t decide. An evil means makes an evil end. I’ll explain more later.[/quote]

An evil means means an evil end? This doesn’t seem right, just as good intentions don’t always result in good results or ends, bad intention doesn’t always equate to bad results.

Hypothetical here, is it an evil end if someone commits the evil act of stealing your luggage which contains your passport, wallet and boarding passes if it prevents you from crashing and dying the plane flight you missed as a direct result of the theft? If you remain alive, was that an evil thing that happened or was it an, “other than evil” end that resulted from an evil intent?

Intention is a tricky thing.

134

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

something everyone ought to do, under similar circumstances.

[/quote]

Well, how do we know what we “ought” to do? What are the standards?

… You say that morality is defined by universal rules and when I ask you what ‘universal rules’ are you say “they are the definition of morality”. Do you not see how that is an inadequate answer?

The rest doesn’t clear anything up either. If something is not a rule, then it is not an ought. Great, but what constitutes a ‘rule’? And are you implying that rules = oughts? Well, how do we know what we “ought” to do? I don’t know what your basing this moral code on.

What I want to know is, what are the qualifications needed for something to be a ‘universal rule’?

I don’t know what you’re talking about. If you think I’m saying there are no "I ought"s, etc. then you don’t know what I’m saying.

I see no objective standard for morality. Given this, I’ve concluded that there is none and therefore all moral codes are subjective. Since they are subjective, they are based on the individual (their preferences). Since “personal preferences” are already a thing, tagging on the term “moral” is just an egotistical attempt at having your personal preferences imposed on others as objective rules. If this is not the case, then the term “moral” is pointless. There’s no need to call an act “moral” when your morality is entirely relative to yourself. – This is what I’m saying. [/quote]

Non religious here, I’m just going to chime in and say we do have a tendency to do good as human beings. I arrived at this conclusion based on this article I read a few years ago- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?pagewanted=all

We are social, political and intelligent animals with a tendency to try to do good, some of us try to be rational (though some prefer faith). You might be able to figure out what it is to be a good human being.

Maybe you decide a good human has friends they value as equals.

to be a good organism we should be healthy and viable.

The list can go on and on based on biological functions and norms for human beings based off of our tendency to be good, and off of biological and cognitive functions as humans.

If you don’t believe in “good” maybe you can at least believe we are hard wired to be a certain way in general, and if we deviate from a mean or median of what is normal, then maybe a value judgement can be made off of that.

135

Universal maxims? Are we getting Kantian here? Categorical imperative?

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

A more elegant version of the golden rule… Even though Kant was racist and religious, he is among the greatest Philosophers.

136

My wife and I have a living will , she will have the sole responsibility to decide for me if I am unable. I am not sure but Gordan Liddy used to claim the commandment was " Thou salt commit no murder"

137

Even Wikipedia has this right. Like REALLY right: You shall not murder: “The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.”

138

[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.

139

[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.

140

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< I don’t think we decide what’s moral and immoral. Only that we make discoveries in morality in a somewhat similar way we make discoveries about the natural world. And even in Christianity, all the evil of humanity will be made to work towards God’s glory. [/quote]Very Good Fletch. Ya make me proud. You are of course 100% correct.
[/quote]

I’m careful these days about what I do and don’t say about Christianity lol.