Killing: When/If It's Ok?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]kamui wrote:
That’s what i thought.

You just admitted that :

-morality does indeed exist
-that it was universal
-that the source of morality was human nature.

Here :

To move the thread along its intended subject, what type of enforcement do you think is best for those that murder and crimes involving the death of fellow people?

Do you agree with categorizations like second degree murder and manslaughter and first degree murder?

Do we all agree that there are some people who will never look back at their transgressions and feel remorse or do you think that everyone can be conditioned to feel these feelings?

The problem I see with sociopaths is that they are masters of deceiving therapist into thinking that they’re better and manipulating those who don’t understand the concept of sociopathy.

And these aren’t just questions to Kamui, they’re for all. I’ll address them the best I can when I get a chance.

162

[quote]kamui wrote:
Objective : what does not depend on our subjectivity.
Subjectivity : the “individual” (idiosyncrasic, personnal) part of the mind.
[/quote]

So, objectivity is anything that is not dependant on one’s sense of individuality (ego)?
All right, but I don’t see how this definition allows for objective morality. Take numbers for example. If there were no minds capable of computing ‘1+1=2’, would one plus one still equal two? No. Not because it doesn’t make sense, it does, but because the question is wrong. The question is not a question rooted in reality. It is dependant on a mind to draw subjective meaning from objective… objects and so to ask the question both requires and assumes subjectivity. Just because something makes sense, or is true, doesn’t make it objective.

If I say “Blue is a better colour than yellow”, is blue objectively better than yellow? No. Is it objectively true that I think blue is better than yellow? Also no. It’s a fact, but that fact is based on my sense of individuality, therefore it is subjective. Just like with numbers; “2” is not an objective truth, nor are the two “1’s” that make it. They are concepts dependant on my ability to dissect and categorize reality. Without the “me” part, there are no divisions in reality.

That’s how I know there is no objective reality. Without the subjective, morality vanishes. The universe remains, but all our concepts disappear. The only way there can be an objective morality is if there is a God who wove morality into the fabric of the universe while creating it.

[quote] Now, I will probably have to define every word I used in these definitions.
[/quote]

Don’t get snippy with me. If you feel this is repetitive, it’s your own fault. My questions are clear, your answers are not.

[quote] I could play such socratic games. But not with someone who already rejected the very idea of an universal rule.
[/quote]

I don’t even know if I’ve rejected the idea of a universal rule because I have no idea what it is, and given the amount of weaselling you do when I ask, I’m starting to think you don’t either.

163

[quote]kamui wrote:
That’s what i thought.

You just admitted that :

-morality does indeed exist
-that it was universal
-that the source of morality was human nature.

Here :

I make no edicts about compassion, so there is no moral code here. All there is here is a man who acts out of compassion and suspects that others, at their core, will act likewise. I don’t call people who act without without compassion “immoral”, nor do I think of compassionate people as “moral”. I cast no value judgement on either of them. If you define this as morality anyway, that’s fine, but you’re the only one I know who does.

164

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
That’s what i thought.

You just admitted that :

-morality does indeed exist
-that it was universal
-that the source of morality was human nature.

Here :

I make no edicts about compassion, so there is no moral code here. All there is here is a man who acts out of compassion and suspects that others, at their core, will act likewise. I don’t call people who act without without compassion “immoral”, nor do I think of compassionate people as “moral”. I cast no value judgement on either of them. If you define this as morality anyway, that’s fine, but you’re the only one I know who does. [/quote]

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.

Now, you may or may not elaborate a systematic and explicit “code” on this basis.
If you do, the principle of your action will be in harmony with your “natural state” of compassion.
If you do not, your actions will be less principled, and sometimes they will be inconsistent with your “natural state”. Your compasionnate self will naturally feel bad about your non-compassionate actions.
Your choice.
But you better do it. And you probably do it. Even if you deny it for ideological reasons.

165

[quote]So, objectivity is anything that is not dependant on one’s sense of individuality (ego)?
All right, but I don’t see how this definition allows for objective morality. Take numbers for example. If there were no minds capable of computing ‘1+1=2’, would one plus one still equal two? No. Not because it doesn’t make sense, it does, but because the question is wrong. The question is not a question rooted in reality. It is dependant on a mind to draw subjective meaning from objective… objects and so to ask the question both requires and assumes subjectivity. Just because something makes sense, or is true, doesn’t make it objective.
[/quote]

“it is dependant on a mind”, maybe.
it’s not dependent on an ego.

A proposition is objectively true when it’s (invariably) true for every possible mind, regardless of its individual (variable) dispositions.

You “refute” my argument using your (previous) definition. Not mine.

[quote]
If I say “Blue is a better colour than yellow”, is blue objectively better than yellow? No. Is it objectively true that I think blue is better than yellow? Also no. It’s a fact, but that fact is based on my sense of individuality, therefore it is subjective.[/quote]

no, your preference is subjective (based on your sense of individuality).
But the fact that you have this preference is a fact, and a fact is objective by definition. It’s an irreversible event. It’s true when it happens, and it remains true that it happened. Nothing (and no thought) will change that.

[quote]
Just like with numbers; “2” is not an objective truth, nor are the two “1’s” that make it.[/quote]

it’s not a truth at all. Since it’s not a proposition. But it’s an object. And as such, it’s obviously objective.

[quote]
They are concepts dependant on my ability to dissect and categorize reality. Without the “me” part, there are no divisions in reality.[/quote]

without the cognitive faculty of the mind, there are no divisions in reality. But this cognitive faculty is not “yours”. It has nothing to do with “you” and “me”. It an universal and structural function of “being a mind”. It’s common to every actual mind, and every possible mind. And as such, it’s objective.

166

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
That’s what i thought.

You just admitted that :

-morality does indeed exist
-that it was universal
-that the source of morality was human nature.

Here :

I make no edicts about compassion, so there is no moral code here. All there is here is a man who acts out of compassion and suspects that others, at their core, will act likewise. I don’t call people who act without without compassion “immoral”, nor do I think of compassionate people as “moral”. I cast no value judgement on either of them. If you define this as morality anyway, that’s fine, but you’re the only one I know who does. [/quote]

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.

Now, you may or may not elaborate a systematic and explicit “code” on this basis.
If you do, the principle of your action will be in harmony with your “natural state” of compassion.
If you do not, your actions will be less principled, and sometimes they will be inconsistent with your “natural state”. Your compasionnate self will naturally feel bad about your non-compassionate actions.
Your choice.
But you better do it. And you probably do it. Even if you deny it for ideological reasons.[/quote]

No, you have the wrong idea of what compassion is. Compassion is about sympathy for the suffering of others and the desire to alleviate said suffering. If I were to say that suffering is “bad”, it would not be to demonize suffering or the people who cause suffering, rather it’s just the recognition that suffering is undesirable. Undesirable doesn’t mean “wrong” or “immoral” either. It means just that – undesirable. My personal preferences desire suffering not.

I have no principles or pre-made rules for defining my actions because every rule has an exception. Every moralist agrees that killing is wrong, but everyone has a thousand exceptions to that rule. Some even go so far as to split “killing” from “murder”. The result is the same, but the justifications are different.

I say, cut the middle man out. If you have to extensively evaluate every situation to make sure whether or not said situation is an exception to your rule, why not just drop the rule? You’ll be doing the same thing anyway, just without the extra layer of bullshit. Just as I don’t see any objective necessity for morality, so to do I not see any subjective necessity for morality.

It’s utterly superfluous.

167

this “sympathy for the suffering of others” is not a “neutral” feeling. it’s loaded negatively.
Saying that “suffering is undesirable” is a (negative) moral judgement. And formulated like this, a quite absolute one.

You can not “desire to alleviate suffering” without thinking that “suffering should be alleviated” at the same time. Which is a (positive) moral judgement. And the basis of a possible behavioral code.

The only way to achieve this would be to only feel and never think.
Why not, i suppose, but that’s quite a strange goal.

168

[quote]kamui wrote:

“it is dependant on a mind”, maybe.
it’s not dependent on an ego.

A proposition is objectively true when it’s (invariably) true for every possible mind, regardless of its individual (variable) dispositions.

You “refute” my argument using your (previous) definition. Not mine.
[/quote]

When I say “ego”, I’m referring to ones sense of self.
I don’t agree with you here, but this issue comes up again later in this comment so I won’t bother here.

Not true. The synapses and neurons that contain this thought are objective, but the actual thought itself is on the subjective experience side of the equation. Being factual is not the same as being objective. If your definition of factual and objective are the same, then fine, but all you’ve done is lowered the bar below what most moral objectivists are trying to get over.

If you have no problem with this, that’s fine too, but you still have the task of justifying why morality as you see it (the altruistic kind) is the one true morality and not any other kind.

[quote]
it’s not a truth at all. Since it’s not a proposition. But it’s an object. And as such, it’s obviously objective. [/quote]

All right, go ahead and show me a “2”. “2” absolutely is a proposition. It is the proposition that this squiggly line should be symbolic of the concept of duality, because that’s what "two’ is; a concept. There is no such thing as “two” outside of our minds. To say so assumes the very thing you’re trying to argue against.

I don’t agree with this either. The extent to which humans view the universe as either wholistic or atomistic is not uniform across all of humanity or even within an individual, nor is there any necessity for it to be.

169

Hmm.
I do think that killing is wrong.
But i’m in the minority here. Alone with Fletch maybe.
It’s actually a quite rare position.

Many chrisians for example do not think that killing is wrong. They think that “murder” is wrong. And it’s not really “spliting things”. it’s a real, fundamental difference.

The difference is here : for them, life is NOT the basis and the ultimate criterium of intrinsic value. They value the soul, the will of God or “spiritual life” over life itself. See Tiribulus’s posts for example.
On other words, they think that life has only an extrinsic value.

Now, neither I nor them have a “thousand exceptions” to our rules.
For them murder is wrong, and it’s wrong without exception.
For me, killing is wrong, and it’s wrong without exception.

Their rule is obviously wrong, because it’s based on the fact that they value non-existent things. Which sometimes lead them to disregard the value of very real things. And very real lives.
But that’s another story.

170

[quote]kamui wrote:

this “sympathy for the suffering of others” is not a “neutral” feeling. it’s loaded negatively.
Saying that “suffering is undesirable” is a (negative) moral judgement. And formulated like this, a quite absolute one.

You can not “desire to alleviate suffering” without thinking that “suffering should be alleviated” at the same time. Which is a (positive) moral judgement. And the basis of a possible behavioral code.

The only way to achieve this would be to only feel and never think.
Why not, i suppose, but that’s quite a strange goal.
[/quote]

All you’re doing here is taking my personal preference and saying “there, that is your morality”.

Watch, I will do the same to you and you will see why I find your argument underwhelming.

You don’t like chocolate? That dislike is loaded negatively. Saying that you dislike chocolate is a negative moral judgement.

You can’t desire alleviating unwanted chocolate consumption without thinking that unwanted chocolate consumption should be alleviated, which is a positive moral judgement.

So, do you agree that your chocolate hating ways are a form of moral choice?

The question don’t make sense, and it doesn’t make sense because I’m throwing morality onto something that doesn’t need morality thrown onto it to function.

When you say my personal preference in reference to suffering is morality based, it sounds to me much the same way that me saying “Your ice-cream preference in reference to chocolate is morality based” would sound to you.

171

[quote]kamui wrote:

Hmm.
I do think that killing is wrong.
But i’m in the minority here. Alone with Fletch maybe.
It’s actually a quite rare position.

Many chrisians for example do not think that killing is wrong. They think that “murder” is wrong. And it’s not really “spliting things”. it’s a real, fundamental difference.

The difference is here : for them, life is NOT the basis and the ultimate criterium of intrinsic value. They value the soul, the will of God or “spiritual life” over life itself. See Tiribulus’s posts for example.
On other words, they think that life has only an extrinsic value.

Now, neither I nor them have a “thousand exceptions” to our rules.
For them murder is wrong, and it’s wrong without exception.
For me, killing is wrong, and it’s wrong without exception.

Their rule is obviously wrong, because it’s based on the fact that they value non-existent things. Which sometimes lead them to disregard the value of very real things. And very real lives.
But that’s another story. [/quote]

The outlook is different, but the result is the same. That isn’t ‘all that’ fundamental of a difference if you ask me, but that’s just my opinion.

For the sake of convenience I’m going to use the word ‘killing’ to plainly mean “ending a living things life”.

Do you contend that killing in self-defence is immoral?

172

Yes, but i never said the contrary.
You’re just trying to reinject the difference between material and ideal here. While we were not speaking about it.

[quote]
Being factual is not the same as being objective. If your definition of factual and objective are the same, then fine, but all you’ve done is lowered the bar below what most moral objectivists are trying to get over.[/quote]

Being objective is not the sameas being factual. But being factual implies being objective.
And i have not “lowered th bar below what most moral objectivists are trying to get over”. I simply replaced a goal post most moral nihilists are fallaciously trying to move.

If “2” was a proposition, i could show you a “2”. The very fact that i can’t proves that it’s not a proposition. There is no affirmation in “2”. “2” doesn’t propose anything by itself. it can only be used to propose/affirm something else. Hence it’s an object.

the fact that “this squiggly line should be symbolic of the concept of duality” is not a proposition. it’s the arbitrary convention that link a signifier to a signified to make a sign.

I never said that “two” exists outside of our minds. Again, it doesn’t need to exists “out there”, nor physically, to be objective.

[quote]
I don’t agree with this either. The extent to which humans view the universe as either wholistic or atomistic is not uniform across all of humanity or even within an individual, nor is there any necessity for it to be. [/quote]

Irrelevant here.
Holism and atomism both make divisions and distinctions. They only disagree on their ontological nature.

173

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Hmm.
I do think that killing is wrong.
But i’m in the minority here. Alone with Fletch maybe.
It’s actually a quite rare position.

Many chrisians for example do not think that killing is wrong. They think that “murder” is wrong. And it’s not really “spliting things”. it’s a real, fundamental difference.

The difference is here : for them, life is NOT the basis and the ultimate criterium of intrinsic value. They value the soul, the will of God or “spiritual life” over life itself. See Tiribulus’s posts for example.
On other words, they think that life has only an extrinsic value.

Now, neither I nor them have a “thousand exceptions” to our rules.
For them murder is wrong, and it’s wrong without exception.
For me, killing is wrong, and it’s wrong without exception.

Their rule is obviously wrong, because it’s based on the fact that they value non-existent things. Which sometimes lead them to disregard the value of very real things. And very real lives.
But that’s another story. [/quote]

The outlook is different, but the result is the same. That isn’t ‘all that’ fundamental of a difference if you ask me, but that’s just my opinion.

For the sake of convenience I’m going to use the word ‘killing’ to plainly mean “ending a living things life”.

Do you contend that killing in self-defence is immoral?[/quote]

Yep.
But letting yourself be killed would be exactly as immoral.
For the very same reason.

174

Correct.

[quote]
Saying that you dislike chocolate is a negative moral judgement.[/quote]

Nope.
Saying that i dislike chocolate is not the same thing than saying i dislike the suffering of others.

When we say “i dislike chocolate”, we say that we, personally, do not like eating chocolate.

Whn we say “i dislike the suffering of others”, we say that we do not like the suffering of anyone, anytime.

This first proposition doesn’t have an universal extension, and for this reason, it has nothing to do with morality.

You are playing with false analogies here.

[quote]
You can’t desire alleviating unwanted chocolate consumption without thinking that unwanted chocolate consumption should be alleviated, which is a positive moral judgement.[/quote]

Now, “unwanted chocolate consumption” and “the suffering of others” are indeed logically analogous.
And the quoted proposition is correct. That’s actually a positive moral judgement. And a correct one.

[quote]
The question don’t make sense, and it doesn’t make sense because I’m throwing morality onto something that doesn’t need morality thrown onto it to function.[/quote]

That’s what YOU did here, but that’s not what i was doing in my previous post.
It would be the case if your starting point were “i don’t like to suffer”. Then yes, my conclusions would be wrong.
But that’s not what you said. You said that your natural state has an human being was to feel some sympathy for the suffering of others and to dislike it.

175

[quote]kamui wrote:
Yes, but i never said the contrary.
You’re just trying to reinject the difference between material and ideal here. While we were not speaking about it. [/quote]

You never said the contrary? If the thought itself is subjective, then how is morality, given that moral distinctions are based in thought, objective?

Most? I though I was your first.

If your objective morality is only objective to the extent that it logically follows, then it’s underwhelmingly objective. Anyone can come up with a moral system with an internal consistency and claim it is the objective moral code.

Actually, I can’t even verify that your code has internal consistency, because you won’t tell me what constitutes a ‘universal rule’…

… What? Your definition of an object is something that can only be used to propose/affirm something else?
I always thought objects where things composed of matter. My mistake.

Also, this arbitrary convention of linking this symbol (2) to the concept of duality isn’t a proposition? It’s an objective edict? I think not. It is a proposition, the proposition being that this symbol (2) will stand for duality in this conversation. This line doesn’t objectively mean “two” as proved by the existence of alternative numerical system with their own versions of “2”. It’s simply a proposition that most of us agree to.

I can show you a rock. Does the fact that I can show you a rock make rocks a proposition and not objective objects?

[quote]
Irrelevant here.
Holism and atomism both make divisions and distinctions. They only disagree on their ontological nature.[/quote]

Granted, but if the extent to which we distinguish things is not objective, it doesn’t bode well for the consistency of your moral code.

Or maybe it does, I don’t know. I still don’t know exactly what a ‘universal rule’ is…

176

[quote]

To move the thread along its intended subject, what type of enforcement do you think is best for those that murder and crimes involving the death of fellow people?[/quote]

I do not pretend to know.
I do think that the size of our current political unit is too big to legitimately enforce anything.

[quote]
Do you agree with categorizations like second degree murder and manslaughter and first degree murder?[/quote]

I don’t know the US legal system very well.
But i think there is two very different issues here.

The first goal of a legal system is to “socially” say “what happened”. IE : to establish the truth.
For this reason, crime should always be legally described in the most accurate way and we should always try to determine precisely the intent or the lack thereof, etc.

However i’m not sure this question is essential to determine which punishment a crime should receive.
Actually intent and motives are extremely primitive concept. We only use them because we have nothing else.
When human sciences will emerge from their current prehistory we will probably need to replace them with more useful and accurate concepts. And our penal practices will probably change accordingly.

About sociopaths, a semi-serious, indirect answer :
we should read Homer again.
the epic poems of the ancients were often composed of two part. Like the Iliad and Oddysey.
In the first one, heroes leave their society and their homes to become more than human and less than human.
In the last one, the war is over, the heroes come back to their cities, their wives and their own humanity. Each island in Oddyseus’s journey is a step to regain its own humanity, after a “sociopathic” phase. And each island is needed.
Our schizophrenic civilization try to eliminate violence and, at the same time, it often tell and teach only the “Iliad” part of the stories.
No wonder we produce more and more monsters. No wonder we do not know anymore how to restore their humanity.

177

What does the size of a political unit have to do with ability to enforce the morality of killing people?

Why are intent and motive primitive? What would be a better way of looking at it?
How would human sciences ‘emerge from their current prehistory’? Or what do you think that would look like?

I’ve never thought about sociopathy like that. Would I be correct in assuming that you know that goes largely against the grain of what modern psychology believes a sociopath to be? At least the literature that I’ve glossed over.

178

[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.

[quote]
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.

179

[quote]kamui wrote:

Correct.

[quote]
Saying that you dislike chocolate is a negative moral judgement.[/quote]

Nope.
Saying that i dislike chocolate is not the same thing than saying i dislike the suffering of others.

When we say “i dislike chocolate”, we say that we, personally, do not like eating chocolate.

Whn we say “i dislike the suffering of others”, we say that we do not like the suffering of anyone, anytime.

This first proposition doesn’t have an universal extension, and for this reason, it has nothing to do with morality.

You are playing with false analogies here.

[quote]
You can’t desire alleviating unwanted chocolate consumption without thinking that unwanted chocolate consumption should be alleviated, which is a positive moral judgement.[/quote]

Now, “unwanted chocolate consumption” and “the suffering of others” are indeed logically analogous.
And the quoted proposition is correct. That’s actually a positive moral judgement. And a correct one.

I’m seeing your “universal rule” definition coming into play here. So because I don’t like suffering ever, that makes it universal and therefore moral?

What I don’t see is the necessity for calling this moral. My compassion is universal, but there’s no element of a “rule” to it. It’s automatic. Rules govern conduct and me being compassionate doesn’t proclaim any action as mandatory.

Also, if someone who didn’t like chocolate ate chocolate, would that be immoral, since it resulted in unwanted chocolate consumption?

Edit: I still don’t know why a proposition’s universality ‘should’ be the basis for defining something as moral or not. You say that not liking the suffering of others is a moral issue while disliking chocolate is not because the former has the aspect of universality, but why does that matter? Why is universality the defining factor?

180

[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.

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