Talking to a killer

[Arising_uk]

... and it's bad to kill people guided by luck when you kill them, ...

Sorry, don't understand what this means?

If that's what you are saying, then it's ok. But if you say that, with the chair you are dealing with reality, but with the person you are not doing so, if you say that ethics and morality aren't right or wrong and you can choose any ethic because they are all equal, and judge some ethics as good and others as bad is "wrong", that's wrong.

Why? You can choose any ethic or moral but if you choose one that the rest disagree with you might find yourself in trouble.

[TSBU]

... and it's bad to kill people guided by luck when you kill them, ...

Sorry, don't understand what this means?

If that's what you are saying, then it's ok. But if you say that, with the chair you are dealing with reality, but with the person you are not doing so, if you say that ethics and morality aren't right or wrong and you can choose any ethic because they are all equal, and judge some ethics as good and others as bad is "wrong", that's wrong.

Why? You can choose any ethic or moral but if you choose one that the rest disagree with you might find yourself in trouble.

With "no reason". Eating a chair made of food is a good idea. Eating a chair made of wood is a bad idea, even if the chair won't take revenge. What you are saying is "it's ok if they don't see that they are wrong, selling drugs to kids is ok, because they agree".

[Arising_uk]

With "no reason". Eating a chair made of food is a good idea. Eating a chair made of wood is a bad idea, even if the chair won't take revenge. ...

But it's not morally wrong is it.

What you are saying is "it's ok if they don't see that they are wrong, selling drugs to kids is ok, because they agree".

No, what I'm saying is that it is wrong if it is unlawful, regardless of what the person thinks. Now it might be a stupid law and as such it could be changed if enough people decide it should be, then it wouldn't be wrong to do it. Of course I understand the Kantian problem with this tho' but you appear to be looking for some mystical absolute 'right' and 'wrong' and personally I don't think this exists other than what we decide to make lawful and unlawful in a society. Could be wrong tho'.

[ken]

Obviously laws are decided by humans, but the issue of believing laws, solely, make up what is right and wrong is the fact that there are so many different cultures all with their own set of laws, which furrhermore are always changing, so which one is actually right and when, and which one is right and when?

Wouldn't that point to it being the case that there is no right one, just whatever the culture decides is the case at the present time.

Yes, and that is why I am questioning your belief that laws are what is right and wrong.

Can there be competing ethical and moral systems?

Yes, within a system of differing laws, as is obviously shown and proven with all the different ever-changing laws. But,
No, within a system of lore, which is one self-governed system that is in natural agreement and acceptance with all human beings.

I think so and this is why they can change over time.

But you were the one suggesting that laws are what makes up what is right and wrong. So, which one of those laws would you suggest that I and all others follow?

I suggest laws are not the answer and can make things far worse.

Is there universal consensus across cultures?

Yes.

I think there is some fairly common consensus and murder appears to be one.

And some laws say that it is all right to kill/murder a person who has killed/murdered another, or just attempted to kill/murder, or just even broke a law, or even just for revenge, or even just for food.

In all wars it is generally accepted that it is all right to kill/murder "others" who "we" are fighting against. And, the law will back us up. Human beings making decisions, based upon previous experiences, will never come to an agreement of what is actually right and wrong.

Laws interfere with and confuse the issue of common consensus. The common sense knowing of what is actually right and wrong within all of us, is what should be looked for, found, looked at and agreed upon, and then followed.

Also, if there is a fairly common consensus that murder is wrong, then when exactly does murder/killing become wrong? For example, if you allowed a child to die of starvation in your home would that be classed as murder or killing? And, when does the allowing of a child to die of starvation become acceptable and all right behavior?

Also, I think you will not have much luck in attempting to not be punished by a judicial system by saying, "I just killed the person, I did not murder them."

"I killed the person but they stepped out right in front of my car.", "I killed the person in self-defense", "I killed the person accidentally."

Ah okay I see what you mean now, as long as we are in agreement that 'negligent driving', 'killing in self-defense', and 'manslaughter', sometimes still results in punishment.

So, I do not know about you but, I still find it very hypocritical and extremely hilarious that some people still find it perfectly acceptable and even normal to (want to) kill another human being for the very reason that that human being killed another human being.

How about the eye-for-an-eye position?

That is the actual position that I find very hypocritical, and extremely hilarious. The stupidity of it speaks for itself, and the humorous factor also is, in the question when would it ever end?

Surely the actual obviousness of how the eye-for-an-eye position is one of the leading contributors for a considerable amount of the wrong human beings do, which has taken place throughout history and continues to take place now, has been recognized?

The actual stupidity of this is uncovered in the discovery of WHY the original human being killed and wanted to kill?

What makes the killing of (and the wanting to kill of) the original killer so absurd and so very hilarious is the fact that that human being is the key to stopping ALL future killings. That human being holds the "secret" knowledge of how to prevent ALL killings from ever happening again.

I'm all ears?

If you really want to listen and hear and thus also really want to know the answer, then you would ask the original killer the right clarifying questions, without any judgment nor any prejudiced view, and remain completely open throughout the whole experience.

[surreptitious57]

What makes the killing of ( and the wanting to kill of ) the original killer so absurd and so very hilarious is the fact that that human being is the
key to stopping ALL future killings. That human being holds the secret knowledge of how to prevent ALL killings from ever happening again

This is all rather idealistic but entirely unworkable in practice not least because psychopaths cannot be reasoned with
Human beings are not going to stop killing each other just because you erroneously think they have the means to do so

[TSBU]

With "no reason". Eating a chair made of food is a good idea. Eating a chair made of wood is a bad idea, even if the chair won't take revenge. ...

But it's not morally wrong is it.

I don't know what does "morallly wrong". ANd that's a comparation. Killing some people is ok, killing other people is not ok.

What you are saying is "it's ok if they don't see that they are wrong, selling drugs to kids is ok, because they agree".

No, what I'm saying is that it is wrong if it is unlawful, regardless of what the person thinks. Now it might be a stupid law and as such it could be changed if enough people decide it should be, then it wouldn't be wrong to do it. Of course I understand the Kantian problem with this tho' but you appear to be looking for some mystical absolute 'right' and 'wrong' and personally I don't think this exists other than what we decide to make lawful and unlawful in a society. Could be wrong tho'.

Well, what I'm saying is that that's a piece of shitm if law says "it's out of law to have sex with a man if you are a man" and you are a man and you love other man, then the law is wrong and you are not doing anything wrong when you fuck.
I'm not looking for some mystical absolute "right", I don't look for "rights", rights don't exist.
Eating a chair is bad, and kill some people is bad, Equally "absolutes". Of course you can have slaves if the law says that's a good idea, but "my law" says it isn't, because of logic. So you would be a chair made of food.

[ken]

What makes the killing of ( and the wanting to kill of ) the original killer so absurd and so very hilarious is the fact that that human being is the
key to stopping ALL future killings. That human being holds the secret knowledge of how to prevent ALL killings from ever happening again

This is all rather idealistic but entirely unworkable in practice not least because psychopaths cannot be reasoned with

Who said anything about reasoning with anyone, especially a person who has been judged as a psychopath?

I think you may have misunderstood Me. If we question a person who does something considered "wrong" and question them without any prejudice, preconceived ideas, threat of punishment, nor judgement in any way and remain completely OPEN to anything and all that is said, then the knowledge and know-HOW of how to prevent any considered "wrong" from ever happening again can and will be found. What human beings do with that knowledge and know-how is another matter.

I have never said it was workable nor would work. If previous behaviors are to go by, then human beings will just keep on going on abusing and killing each other just like they have been doing for centuries now

Human beings are not going to stop killing each other just because you erroneously think they have the means to do so

I never said anything about 'having the means to do so'.

With knowledge and/or know-how to do something, then that something can be created, achieved, and/or reached. If, however, human beings learn to stop only caring about themselves personally, and learn to care about and for future generations is another matter. We will just have to wait and see, but nothing will change if human beings do not learn how to find that "secret" knowledge I was referring to.

[TSBU]

Men (and women) cannot be fully controlled, there is not an absolute secret truth to controll everyone of them. You can know lot of them better, and it's highly easy to make a murderer in many cases, but you can't controll all of them.

[ken]

Men (and women) cannot be fully controlled, there is not an absolute secret truth to controll everyone of them. You can know lot of them better, and it's highly easy to make a murderer in many cases, but you can't controll all of them.

The absolute last thing this is about is 'control'. In fact trying to control others is a huge cause of why people misbehave the way they do in the first place.

[TSBU]

Men (and women) cannot be fully controlled, there is not an absolute secret truth to controll everyone of them. You can know lot of them better, and it's highly easy to make a murderer in many cases, but you can't controll all of them.

The absolute last thing this is about is 'control'. In fact trying to control others is a huge cause of why people misbehave the way they do in the first place.

Then shut up... you moron... this world hurts too much when you have a brain, I can't stand so much pain. There is noise everywere, stupid noise.