First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Is it wrong? Is murder, rape, marital infidelity, etc., wrong?
Posted 2/1/10

wrench246 wrote:


Maybin wrote:


wrench246 wrote:

When I say 'hurt' I mean make a less favorable situation not cause emotional problems. When you kill someone the population decreases. A lower population is disadvantageous because There is one less person available in the world that can help you, there is one less person paying taxes, one less person contributing to the economy, or you may feel guilty, etc. I know not everybody feels guilty after committing murder so I said 'MAY feel guilty'.


How does one person help me? Does he give me money?
Service my house? Pay my bills?

One person would not be missed in a vastly OVERpopulated earth. Yes, people make up governments which then contribute back to the people, however, unless you argued that many of people (around hundreds or thousands) were to be killed then I would understand but if it's only one person, he won't be missed economically or socially unless he is one of high popularity or wealth.

We non-important regular no-bodies will be missed by nobody but our families. Not publicly, not economically. There will be no less money in my pocket moreover anymore I have to pay to the government because the mailman got offed by crazy Joe for not delivering the mail on time, unless there is a mass trend. That one person will easily be replaced.


Individuals' absences may be negligible but I don't see how you would benefit from killing anybody.

There is no way to determine how many are killed before it makes a significant impact on society so we should not allow any murders ever.
Yes there is, and you provided that scenario in the form of killing your would-be assassin via self-defense. If you can't be certain that he won't come at your life again(there's a first time for everything), then the only way to be sure is to stop him dead in his tracks. That's how nature does it, and so is how we humans do it.
402 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Gotham
Offline
Posted 2/1/10

DomFortress wrote:


wrench246 wrote:


Maybin wrote:


wrench246 wrote:

When I say 'hurt' I mean make a less favorable situation not cause emotional problems. When you kill someone the population decreases. A lower population is disadvantageous because There is one less person available in the world that can help you, there is one less person paying taxes, one less person contributing to the economy, or you may feel guilty, etc. I know not everybody feels guilty after committing murder so I said 'MAY feel guilty'.


How does one person help me? Does he give me money?
Service my house? Pay my bills?

One person would not be missed in a vastly OVERpopulated earth. Yes, people make up governments which then contribute back to the people, however, unless you argued that many of people (around hundreds or thousands) were to be killed then I would understand but if it's only one person, he won't be missed economically or socially unless he is one of high popularity or wealth.

We non-important regular no-bodies will be missed by nobody but our families. Not publicly, not economically. There will be no less money in my pocket moreover anymore I have to pay to the government because the mailman got offed by crazy Joe for not delivering the mail on time, unless there is a mass trend. That one person will easily be replaced.


Individuals' absences may be negligible but I don't see how you would benefit from killing anybody.

There is no way to determine how many are killed before it makes a significant impact on society so we should not allow any murders ever.
Yes there is, and you provided that scenario in the form of killing your would-be assassin via self-defense. If you can't be certain that he won't come at your life again(there's a first time for everything), then the only way to be sure is to stop him dead in his tracks. That's how nature does it, and so is how we humans do it.



Killing in self defense is not murder.
Posted 2/2/10 , edited 2/2/10

wrench246 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


wrench246 wrote:



Individuals' absences may be negligible but I don't see how you would benefit from killing anybody.

There is no way to determine how many are killed before it makes a significant impact on society so we should not allow any murders ever.
Yes there is, and you provided that scenario in the form of killing your would-be assassin via self-defense. If you can't be certain that he won't come at your life again(there's a first time for everything), then the only way to be sure is to stop him dead in his tracks. That's how nature does it, and so is how we humans do it.



Killing in self defense is not murder.
And isn't it killing all the same?

Killing is an act condemned by some religions, whereas murder is legally defined as a crime punishable by law. So just which one are you referring to?
402 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Gotham
Offline
Posted 2/2/10 , edited 2/2/10

DomFortress wrote:


wrench246 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


wrench246 wrote:



Individuals' absences may be negligible but I don't see how you would benefit from killing anybody.

There is no way to determine how many are killed before it makes a significant impact on society so we should not allow any murders ever.
Yes there is, and you provided that scenario in the form of killing your would-be assassin via self-defense. If you can't be certain that he won't come at your life again(there's a first time for everything), then the only way to be sure is to stop him dead in his tracks. That's how nature does it, and so is how we humans do it.



Killing in self defense is not murder.
And isn't it killing all the same?

Killing is an act condemned by some religions, whereas murder is legally defined as a crime punishable by law. So just which one are you referring to?




No, it isn't the same.

Murder- the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

Killing- to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay


These are my definitions of those words. And if you don't agree then this conversation is at a dead end.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 2/2/10
The taking of a human life is recognised as homicide in law. Homicide has a number of subcategories such as murder, manslaughter, infanticide, culpable homicide and so on and so forth. Manslaughter and culpable homicide are essentially the same in that they involve the taking of life either by mistake - through negligence or when in a specific state of mind, such as immediately after witnessing the sexual infidelity of a spouse. Infanticide I need not explain, it is obvious. And finally, murder is the taking of life most commonly with quite serious intent (the mental element varies).

For the purposes of this topic it is highly irrelevant which scenario we are talking about as killing is either wrong or it is not. If life should not be taken, then we can consider that to apply to all forms of homicide and so even when defending yourself, you are still committing a moral wrong, even if it is done in pursuance of avoiding or mitigating a greater wrong. If it is not wrong then it is simply not wrong and it cannot apply to any form of homicide however gruesome.
Posted 2/2/10

wrench246 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


wrench246 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


wrench246 wrote:



Individuals' absences may be negligible but I don't see how you would benefit from killing anybody.

There is no way to determine how many are killed before it makes a significant impact on society so we should not allow any murders ever.
Yes there is, and you provided that scenario in the form of killing your would-be assassin via self-defense. If you can't be certain that he won't come at your life again(there's a first time for everything), then the only way to be sure is to stop him dead in his tracks. That's how nature does it, and so is how we humans do it.



Killing in self defense is not murder.
And isn't it killing all the same?

Killing is an act condemned by some religions, whereas murder is legally defined as a crime punishable by law. So just which one are you referring to?




No, it isn't the same.

Murder- the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

Killing- to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay


These are my definitions of those words. And if you don't agree then this conversation is at a dead end.
Go and reread your post, as many times as you need to. Until you can spot your own inconsistency here when you wrote: "I don't see how you would benefit from killing anybody".

You're the one that's not clear with your concept, so why are you blaming me for?
402 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Gotham
Offline
Posted 2/3/10

DomFortress wrote:


wrench246 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


wrench246 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


wrench246 wrote:



Individuals' absences may be negligible but I don't see how you would benefit from killing anybody.

There is no way to determine how many are killed before it makes a significant impact on society so we should not allow any murders ever.
Yes there is, and you provided that scenario in the form of killing your would-be assassin via self-defense. If you can't be certain that he won't come at your life again(there's a first time for everything), then the only way to be sure is to stop him dead in his tracks. That's how nature does it, and so is how we humans do it.



Killing in self defense is not murder.
And isn't it killing all the same?

Killing is an act condemned by some religions, whereas murder is legally defined as a crime punishable by law. So just which one are you referring to?




No, it isn't the same.

Murder- the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

Killing- to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay


These are my definitions of those words. And if you don't agree then this conversation is at a dead end.
Go and reread your post, as many times as you need to. Until you can spot your own inconsistency here when you wrote: "I don't see how you would benefit from killing anybody".

You're the one that's not clear with your concept, so why are you blaming me for?



Sorry I missed that. When I first said 'kill' I meant murder.

1814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/15/10
To avoid anarchy and for the sake of social stability some kind of basic right and wrong concept has to exist. I realize that in today's society everything is considered relative, but this belief can only be held because the judicial system only uses the currency of absolutes. The statement, "I am only certain that nothing is certain" is an oxymoron. Such a statement could not be made without some kind of concept of absolutes.

Thus the idea that there is no right or wrong is illogical because it assumes that it is absolutely right in its belief. True relativism admits that it cannot know for certain that absolutes are incorrect; therefore, in order to logically support itself it allows them. These relativistic arguments are also in danger of circular reasoning. Basically this view negates itself at every turn.

Certainly there is such a thing as right and wrong -- it's the basis of society after all, not the fanciful imaginings of philosophy.
12544 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Chicago
Offline
Posted 2/15/10 , edited 2/16/10
All that crap is wrong, why is this even a debate?

Intentional homcide wrong
Rape wrong
Infedelity wrong

You can justify it all you like but its still wrong.

Now WHY is the true question.

To observe the single consciousness I think you should observe the collective and ask...

Why does the majority see that is wrong and not vice versa?

Why are most people are born empathetic than psycopathic (lacking in conscience and empathy)?

Why are most communites situated to help and protect internally rather then intentially hurt internally?

It would seem that humans are more inclined to empathize with others than disconnect emotionally.

That trait seems to be needed for us to co-exist with out killing everyone off.

Which seems to be a self-preservation trait.

Which seems to stem from the ID.

Which might mean (for the most part) we are programed to adapt / survive and we realize that is the most effective way.

So is it wrong? According to your (well-adjusted) ID yes.
505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Offline
Posted 4/7/10
"Wrong" and "right" do exist, however they're just ideas that have developed over time, and have changed in order to bend with society's ever-changing ways. If you think about it, what's "wrong" is based on what will hurt people. Murder, rape, infidelity, and everything else that is "bad" will end up with someone getting severely punished or hurt. That's why it's considered "wrong".

What's "right" is what is considered to make people happy. If you find a wallet and return it to the person who lost it, then it's "right" since the person will be glad to have found their wallet, and you yourself might get some kind of fulfilment.

That's what I think, anyways. Nowadays, with all the violence and sex and horrible things happening, it's hard to see what's wrong and what's right anymore.
Posted 4/7/10

sakumaniac wrote:

"Wrong" and "right" do exist, however they're just ideas that have developed over time, and have changed in order to bend with society's ever-changing ways. If you think about it, what's "wrong" is based on what will hurt people. Murder, rape, infidelity, and everything else that is "bad" will end up with someone getting severely punished or hurt. That's why it's considered "wrong".

What's "right" is what is considered to make people happy. If you find a wallet and return it to the person who lost it, then it's "right" since the person will be glad to have found their wallet, and you yourself might get some kind of fulfillment.


That's what I think, anyways. Nowadays, with all the violence and sex and horrible things happening, it's hard to see what's wrong and what's right anymore.
I digress that logic based on the fact that this analogy will only allow people to obey their most immediate desire, which will devalue moral actions or even worst corrupt ethics altogether.

For example, what if to the individuals who committed those wrong acts became addictive to what they did? Because they were anticipating the immediate pleasures that derived from the acts themselves. Especially when this is proven to be possible in one of my topic:

DomFortress wrote:

In my past topic of Entitlement VS Altruism, I briefly mentioned that neurophysiology had discovered the part of our brain that anticipates rewards, which can result to our entitlement/addiction behaviors. And what the original function that part of our brain was intended for by nature:

... a NIH research had discovered the region of the human brain that anticipates rewards, called the nucleus accumbens. Assuming this relatively primitive part of our brain is what's responsible for our entitlement behaviors, such as shopaholic, alcoholic, and substances abuse. We can see just how it came a long sway from its original function favored by nature, as an organ that produces sexual desire as well as monogamy/commitment in a relationship.

Now this part of our brain is also responsible for committing ourselves into repetitive behavior regarding simple tasks, all through its involvement with the natural brain chemical reaction called the dopamine. This was mentioned in another one of my topic called "The Psychology of Happiness is a Fuzzy Logic":

... let's look back in 1954 at McGill University, the year that James Olds with his team of psychologists accidentally found what he believed to be the pleasure central in rats' brains:

However, when we read further into the article, we discover that thanks to today's neurophysiology, that part of our brain is actually responsible for our "seeking" and "wanting" behaviors. And not for the sake of pleasure. But what we should take with us is the fact that our brains can easily be hijacked into repetitive seeking and wanting behaviors, due to chemical imbalance of dopamine in our brains.

Assuming that we now know everything there needs to know about how addiction works in our brains thanks to natural science, I would like you to watch a seven part student work documentary on the Vancouver Downtown East Side Homelessness, called the "Street of Plenty" by Corey Ogilvie and the brothers Misha & Alex Kleider. Afterward, please do feel free to take all the time that you'll need in order for you to compose yourself, before you resume reading the rest of my topic.

What Misha Kleider said about the cause of homelessness is indeed true: a lost of dignity due to addiction. And what's more is the fact that we shouldn't stop only there, when we are all drowning in a society of addictions a plenty. We hijacked our freedom into "doing whatever that one wants to be incentive/entitle/addictive of getting" with capitalism and materialism. As opposed to the philosopher Immanuel Kant illustrated freedom as something that I would refer to as "dignifying humanity with moral reasoning".
Furthermore, as you can see for yourself, if what you expect the "right" thing to do is whatever that makes you happy, then the biological respond of the human's brain towards pleasures and desires will be the only merit of goodness. And when desires and pleasures can be derived from both "right" and "wrong" acts, there's no point in not doing anything. Because all actions can be entertaining if the situation permits itself; the anticipation of sensual pleasure is in and of itself the ultimate desire to be totally selfish.

Therefore this is also why moral and ethic had always prize selflessness as the standard of "don't do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself."
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 4/15/10

JRtheThird wrote:

All that crap is wrong, why is this even a debate?

Intentional homcide wrong
Rape wrong
Infedelity wrong

You can justify it all you like but its still wrong.


That instantaneously triggered my facepalm sanity protection system to shield my sensitive mind from the sheer stupidity that oozes if not radiates from your post. I can justify it all I like, but it's still wrong? That doesn't even constitute an argument.


sakumaniac wrote:

"Wrong" and "right" do exist, however they're just ideas that have developed over time, and have changed in order to bend with society's ever-changing ways. If you think about it, what's "wrong" is based on what will hurt people. Murder, rape, infidelity, and everything else that is "bad" will end up with someone getting severely punished or hurt. That's why it's considered "wrong".

What's "right" is what is considered to make people happy. If you find a wallet and return it to the person who lost it, then it's "right" since the person will be glad to have found their wallet, and you yourself might get some kind of fulfilment.

That's what I think, anyways. Nowadays, with all the violence and sex and horrible things happening, it's hard to see what's wrong and what's right anymore.


1, I am not asking whether we can conjure up such concepts in our minds, because it is apparent that we can, else we wouldn't be discussing this here. What I am asking is whether in the absence of everything else, in a vacuum, objectively, is there right and wrong? And why? I am asking if infidelity in society A is wrong just like in society B on a different planet with different species and culture and biology and so on and so forth. Objectively, can it be said that murder is wrong from behind a veil of ignorance?

2, That's somewhat utilitarian. Watch out though, utilitarianism can be very intrusive and it doesn't generally give a toss about what you may want.

3, Violence, sex and horrible things are nothing new. In fact, a successful siege back in the days was quite an experience for the aggressor troops, apparently. All sorts of fun.
Posted 4/15/10 , edited 4/15/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:



1, I am not asking whether we can conjure up such concepts in our minds, because it is apparent that we can, else we wouldn't be discussing this here. What I am asking is whether in the absence of everything else, in a vacuum, objectively, is there right and wrong? And why? I am asking if infidelity in society A is wrong just like in society B on a different planet with different species and culture and biology and so on and so forth. Objectively, can it be said that murder is wrong from behind a veil of ignorance?

2, That's somewhat utilitarian. Watch out though, utilitarianism can be very intrusive and it doesn't generally give a toss about what you may want.

3, Violence, sex and horrible things are nothing new. In fact, a successful siege back in the days was quite an experience for the aggressor troops, apparently. All sorts of fun.
3. What's Grand Theft Auto from Rock Star Production.

2. The player gets rewarded with fake money and points for doing all kinds of devious acts and then some. Including bonus missions from selling drugs to producing pornography for earning more in-game carnage.

1. Hey, it's only a game where nobody gets physically hurt. Not like one shouldn't know the difference between facts from fictions.

Now let's run that through in proper order, only this time in the defense of against violent video game:

1. It's game company exploiting people's desire for sex and violence.

2. The player wants sex and violence without causing real death nor drama, game developers like real money for their services of providing devious game play.

3. What's Grand Theft Auto from Rock Star Production.

I do like playing courtroom, can we do it again?
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.