How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

[surreptitious57]

What I am asking is where loving murder comes on the scale

That depends on intention and also whether or not consent was involved
Assisted suicide would be higher up the scale than psychopathic butchery

[Logik]

That depends on intention and also whether or not consent was involved
Assisted suicide would be higher up the scale than psychopathic butchery

You are blurring the lines between the act of killing and the crime of murder. The law is clear on this.

Murder is the unlawful and intentional taking of another human's life. If assisted suicide is legally recognized then it's not murder.

[surreptitious57]

Assisted suicide over here is classed as murder so I am not blurring the lines
To avoid prosecution for any unlawful killing you have to leave the country

But your question is a moral one not a legal one and the answer is
Painless method with full consent would not be murder in my eyes
Rather an act of kindness to stop someone from suffering anymore

[Logik]

Assisted suicide over here is classed as murder so I am not blurring the lines
To avoid prosecution for any unlawful killing you have to leave the country

I don't know where "over here" is. Since ethics is always dealing with "ought" (e.g values) not "is" (e.g status quo) this is immaterial.

But your question is a moral one not a legal one

What is our legal system if not an attempt to codify our morality?

Painless method with full consent would not be murder in my eyes
Rather an act of kindness to stop someone from suffering anymore

And this is precisely my point. I can observe that person A is suffering, debt, sickness, psychological anguish, non-existing quality of life.
I can thus take it upon myself to end their suffering. Loving murder.

Thus drawing a barely-distinguishable nuance between "loving-murder" and "assisted suicide" - the difference being consent. Not any hierarchy of values, not any external, codified framework for ethics.

The fine line between right and wrong is a simple gesture of respect for free will. And that is all that is necessary for morality to emerge.

[surreptitious57]

What is our legal system if not an attempt to codify our morality ?

Law is indeed the codification of morality but it is not something set in stone
Morality is subjective and different people have different moral codes particulary those with belief systems
But the law has to apply equally to everyone regardless of morality otherwise it cannot function as intended

And it creates obvious problems :

What happens for example when there is a conflict between someones morality and the law ?
Do they obey their morality and break the law or disregard their morality and accept the law ?
There is no one simple universal answer to these questions and nor should they be treated as if there was

Furthermore as law is a codification of morality and morality is subjective by definition then law must also be subjective
This is why right and wrong cannot be treated objectively and why both law and morality are always in a state of change

[Logik]

Morality is subjective

No it isn't. Can you think of any context in which murder is morally right?

What happens for example when there is a conflict between someones morality and the law ?

When you can give me an example where murder is morally right then we can nitpick.

What happens for example when there is a conflict between someones morality and the law ?
Do they obey their morality and break the law or disregard their morality and accept the law ?
There is no one simple universal answer to these questions and nor should they be treated as if there was

There is, actually a very very simple answer: YOU get to be a grown up and decide what happens!

Follow your intuition or follow the law. Knowing full well that you will end up answering either to your conscience or to the law.

As an ex-police officer I can't even count the number of times I have been in the "accused" stand in a court of law. Accuses of assault, theft, attempted murder.

Accused many times - convicted never. That is what "innocent until proven guilty means".

[Arising_uk]

No it isn't. Can you think of any context in which murder is morally right? ...

When the only way to escape my abusive captor is to murder them?

[Logik]

When the only way to escape my abusive captor is to murder them?

Self-defence is not murder.

Unless, of course - you live in a fucked up country like the UK where personhood means nothing, and self-defence is not a constitutional human right

[surreptitious57]

Can you think of any context in which murder is morally right ?

Yes I can but even if I could not your argument would still be fallacious

For in order to demonstrate that morality is not subjective it would always have to be objective
That is to say that in every single possible example there would have to be a universal consensus

Any deviation from that automatically renders morality subjective by definition

The fact that I can morally justify murder immediately renders your argument invalid
You might not agree with my reasoning but that is actually irrelevant to your question

So can you provide a sound logical argument that demonstrates morality is objective in every single possible example ?
Picking out just one example like murder is no more than cherry picking and does not address the question as intended

[Logik]

Yes I can but even if I could not your argument would still be fallacious

Then do it! Falsification requires just one example. Just one black swan!

For in order to demonstrate that morality is not subjective it would always have to be objective
That is to say that in every single possible example there would have to be a universal consensus

Well, there are laws against murder established by majority-consensus. It's not "universal" but I am not seeing any political activism for legalizing murder. Are you? So I think it's safe to assume that "legalizing murder" is not a popular idea among humans.

Any deviation from that automatically renders morality subjective by definition

Whose definition? Yours? Why is your definition better than our definition?

If you think the philosophical "define X" game works in a court of law, then surely the most common defence in a murder trial would be "This isn't how I define murder".

The fact that I can morally justify murder immediately renders your argument invalid

But you CAN'T morally justify murder!

You can morally justify manslaughter. You can morally justify self-defence. You can't morally justify murder!

Because the moment you JUSTIFY it, then it stops being murder!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse,

So can you provide a sound logical argument that demonstrates morality is objective in every single possible example ?

What a ridiculously high bar!

Murder is illegal in every country and every elected judiciary on Earth. There. Evidence.
You want more evidence? Sorry. That's all I got.

Picking out just one example like murder is no more than cherry picking and does not address the question as intended

It's not one example. It's 195 examples.
195 different cultures.
195 different languages.
195 different societies.
Representative of 8 billion people living in them.
All agree that murder is wrong.

I can't give you any more because that's how many countries we have on Earth.

Can you think of a more morally heinous act than murder? Genocide? That's illegal too - it's a war-crime! So if all of humanity can come to a consensus on the worst possible acts of immorality and agree that it is "wrong" and "evil", then why do you say that morality is subjective?

[surreptitious57]

So I think it is safe to assume that legalizing murder is not a popular idea among humans

What about the legalisation of abortion or euthanasia ?

There are those who think they constitute murder and they are actually popular ideas contrary to what you say
Now you could claim that these are not the same as murder but not every one would agree with you about this

Shall we demonstrate this logically :

Person A says abortion / euthanasia is murder and should not be legalised
Person B says abortion / euthanasia is not murder and should be legalised

How can we demonstrate logically that one is definitely right and one is definitely wrong and which would it be ?
Can we actually demonstrate this ? What answer would a machine that did not understand human morality give ?
Can you think of a non emotional argument a machine would understand given that it cannot understand morality ?

[Logik]

How can we demonstrate logically that one is definitely right and one is definitely wrong and which would it be ?
Can we actually demonstrate this ? What answer would a machine that did not understand human morality give ?

Define "definitely". 100% certain? There's no room for idealism in this universe.

Discourse ethics is precisely how we decide ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_ethics ).

You seem to have taken a side already in regards to assisted suicide.
If respecting free choice is what makes euthanasia moral then the same goes for abortion.

The mother's body - the mother's choice.

Can you think of a non emotional argument a machine would understand given that it cannot understand morality ?

If you can explain to the machine what "murder" is - then I can teach it that-it's wrong.
The first problem is harder than the 2nd.

[surreptitious57]

If respecting free choice is what makes euthanasia moral then the same goes for abortion

The mothers body - the mothers choice

Can you provide a sound reason for the moral justification of free choice here ?
That is to say one that will find universal consensus with precisely no deviation ?
Because if you can then why would some still think that abortion is morally wrong ?

How can morality be claimed objective when it pertains to free will ?
That is to say the freedom to choose between two or more choices ?
By the laws of averages you are not going to get universal consensus
Because some will for what ever reason choose differently to others

Shall we ask a machine as humans are no good at this consensus thing ?

Machine : how can humans agree on morality when it cannot be objectively demonstrated ?
Answer : if it cannot be objectively demonstrated then universal agreement is not possible

Machine therefore agrees with me that morality is subjective not objective because it pertains to free will

[Logik]

Can you provide a sound reason for the moral justification of free choice here ?

Your own words:

That depends on intention and also whether or not consent was involved

You are using consent (free will) to draw distinctions.
If consent - then it's assisted suicide/euthanasia.
If no consent - then it's murder

That is to say one that will find universal consensus with precisely no deviation ?

OK, show me a country, a community, a society which believes murder is morally right.

Your criterion for "objectivity" sure seems to be 100% certainty. That's harmful idealism.

Because if you can then why would some still think that abortion is morally wrong ?

Don't move the goal posts now. Is murder morally wrong - yes or no?
Once we settle this, then we can decide whether abortion is murder or not.

That is to say the freedom to choose between two or more choices ?
By the laws of averages you are not going to get universal consensus

Yes. The choice between outlawing and not-outlawing murder.
So how come we don't have ANY countries in which murder is legal?

Out of 195 countries, by law of averages, surely 97 or so should have legalized murder.

[surreptitious57]

I am discussing morality while you are discussing murder so we cannot agree

But if everyone agrees that murder is wrong then why does this not equally apply to all morally questionable actions ?
For if there was universal agreement about morality then society would actually be the best that it could possibly be ?

The simple truth is that humans are just as capable of immoral acts as moral ones
And less their free will to make moral choices is removed this problem will remain