I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

I know that murder is wrong

Agree
2
100%
Disagree
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 2

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

Post by Logik »

Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse".
Murder is illegal in all 195 countries on Earth and so by the law of averages - it's not a fluke.

Jurisprudence aside, the following is a claim only in so far as it is a description of my own epistemic state.

I KNOW THAT MURDER IS WRONG.

If you agree, then I imagine there's nothing more to discuss/explain/philosophize about.

If you disagree, then tell us why.
DPMartin
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

Post by DPMartin »

all depends on what is "lawful" isn't it?

what happened to the Chinese at the hand of the Japanese solders in WWII was "lawful" or what happened to the Jews at he hand of the Germans at that same time was also lawful. you just might not know what murder is.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9921
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

sometimes a motherfucker just got to die...it's murder, but necessary nonetheless

Post by henry quirk »

'nuff said.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: sometimes a motherfucker just got to die...it's murder, but necessary nonetheless

Post by Logik »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:20 pm 'nuff said.
Sure. There's nothing we, society can do to prevent you from acting.

All "wrong" means in this case is that we'll throw you in a prison cell if/when we catch you and find you guilty.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

Post by Logik »

DPMartin wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:35 pm all depends on what is "lawful" isn't it?
No. It doesn't.

The "wrongness" of murder is a yes/no answer. Murder is illegal in ALL 195 countries on Earth. ALL.

You seem to be conflating the wrongness of murder with whether X (any particular action/deed) is classified as murder.
what happened to the Chinese at the hand of the Japanese solders in WWII was "lawful" or what happened to the Jews at he hand of the Germans at that same time was also lawful. you just might not know what murder is.
That is for society to decide a posteriori.

Was what what the Japanese did to the Chinese Murder? If yes - then it was wrong. Then we punish the Japanese accordingly.
Was what the Germans did to the Jews murder? If yes - then it was wrong. Then we punish the Germans accordingly.

In so far as I am aware "Your honour, I define 'murder' and 'lawful' differently to you" has never been a viable defense in any legal system. I see no reason to start now.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2059
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

Post by Scott Mayers »

Logik wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:18 am Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse".
Murder is illegal in all 195 countries on Earth and so by the law of averages - it's not a fluke.

Jurisprudence aside, the following is a claim only in so far as it is a description of my own epistemic state.

I KNOW THAT MURDER IS WRONG.

If you agree, then I imagine there's nothing more to discuss/explain/philosophize about.

If you disagree, then tell us why.
But as a logician, should you not notice that should you find some act 'justified' or relatively 'valid' to yourself or any group of agreeing parties, this just begs such decisions to kill outside the formal definition's range? You are begging "Murder" to be defined by some external agent's jurisdiction. Certainly if a country opts to go to war, they won't treat that killing as 'unjustified' regardless of whether it is by some external standards, such as the ones being targeted.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

Post by Logik »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:33 pm But as a logician, should you not notice that should you find some act 'justified' or relatively 'valid' to yourself or any group of agreeing parties, this just begs such decisions to kill outside the formal definition's range? You are begging "Murder" to be defined by some external agent's jurisdiction. Certainly if a country opts to go to war, they won't treat that killing as 'unjustified' regardless of whether it is by some external standards, such as the ones being targeted.
I am not doing that?

Is murder wrong? It's a yes/no question! In ALL 195 countries on Earth murder is deemed illegal. ALL!

Whether any particular act/deed X is classified as murder is a separate concern. That is why we have jurisprudence.

As a STATISTICIAN (not a logician!) I know that classification is separate from defining the classification rule!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_ ... acteristic
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2059
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

Post by Scott Mayers »

Logik wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:34 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:33 pm But as a logician, should you not notice that should you find some act 'justified' or relatively 'valid' to yourself or any group of agreeing parties, this just begs such decisions to kill outside the formal definition's range? You are begging "Murder" to be defined by some external agent's jurisdiction. Certainly if a country opts to go to war, they won't treat that killing as 'unjustified' regardless of whether it is by some external standards, such as the ones being targeted.
I am not doing that?

Is murder wrong? It's a yes/no question! In ALL 195 countries on Earth murder is deemed illegal. ALL!

Whether any particular act/deed X is classified as murder is a separate concern. That is why we have jurisprudence.

As a STATISTICIAN (not a logician!) I know that classification is separate from defining the classification rule!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_ ... acteristic
It is still definition begging. You may as well be asking, "Is a wrong act wrong?" because "murder" is defined as a 'wrong' act by default. If you are asking a question about morality, you require beginning on non-biased language about the most general expression of the act, "killing" itself. "Murder" by your definition is a subset of the class of "killing": "Killings that are deemed, 'wrong'."
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

Post by Logik »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:09 pm It is still definition begging.
Why?

I know the sky is blue.
I know murder is wrong.

Why is "the sky is blue" not definition-begging?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:09 pm You may as well be asking, "Is a wrong act wrong?" because "murder" is defined as a 'wrong' act by default.
No, it isn't. I gave you a definition above which was not circular.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:09 pm If you are asking a question about morality, you require beginning on non-biased language about the most general expression of the act, "killing" itself. "Murder" by your definition is a subset of the class of "killing": "Killings that are deemed, 'wrong'."
Observe the number of dualisms in a single one of your paragraphs.

biased vs non-biased
default vs non-default.
most-general vs least-general.
subset vs superset.

Have you defined ANY of those classifications?
Last edited by Logik on Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DPMartin
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

Post by DPMartin »

Logik wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:26 pm In so far as I am aware "Your honour, I define 'murder' and 'lawful' differently to you" has never been a viable defense in any legal system. I see no reason to start now.
then there you go, its who has the power to enforce what is agreed as murder isn't it? so murder and "justifiable homicide" for example is what ever power says it is. therefore, in the world who has the power to day says what murder is and that could change tomorrow what murder is just as who was in power yesterday said what murder is and is not. its not law its power, the group that has agreed to a set of rules can be overpowered by a greater power that changes the rules to their thinking. you can write law until you're blue in the face and without the power to enforce it, its just paper.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

Post by Logik »

DPMartin wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:25 pm then there you go, its who has the power to enforce what is agreed as murder isn't it? so murder and "justifiable homicide" for example is what ever power says it is. therefore, in the world who has the power to day says what murder is and that could change tomorrow what murder is just as who was in power yesterday said what murder is and is not. its not law its power, the group that has agreed to a set of rules can be overpowered by a greater power that changes the rules to their thinking. you can write law until you're blue in the face and without the power to enforce it, its just paper.
OK, but do you see any major opposition to the current, broadly-accepted definitions (as laid out in all 195 countries)?

If not - surely you are inventing a strawman?

And if the definition-on-paper doesn't matter surely you are shooting yourself in the foot?
Surely the UNDERSTANDING of "what murder is" exists elsewhere - not merely on the piece of paper on which it is defined.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2059
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

Post by Scott Mayers »

Logik wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:19 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:09 pm It is still definition begging.
Why?

I know the sky is blue.
I know murder is wrong.

Why is "the sky is blue" not definition-begging?
Murder is a 'comparable' subset of the class, "wrong things"; Murder is not outside the class "wrong things" by your definition because what is considered 'illegal' is the public's secular concept of what is 'wrong'.

In contrast, the sky is not a 'comparable' subset of "blue things" because the sky is not ALWAYS blue. The concept of the "sky" is not sufficient for it to mean a "blue thing exists" nor does its color define it; The mars sky happens to be red. So even if you restrict this to daytime, as in "the daytime sky", you'd have to continue adding further restrictions to your definition.

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:09 pm You may as well be asking, "Is a wrong act wrong?" because "murder" is defined as a 'wrong' act by default.
No, it isn't. I gave you a definition above which was not circular.
But you defined it as:
"Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse".
Murder is illegal in all 195 countries on Earth and so by the law of averages - it's not a fluke.
"unlawful killing" is what the concept, "murder", means. It is circular because it would then read by substitution:
Murder is defined as "the (murder) of another human without justification or valid excuse."
So this is circular. The extended qualification that it is "without justification or valid excuse" is also determined by such a law that prevents this type of killing. So you might alternatively change this to,
"Murder" is any killing not permitted by law.
What you probably mean is, "Do you believe killing is always wrong, even where the law deems it murder?"

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:09 pm If you are asking a question about morality, you require beginning on non-biased language about the most general expression of the act, "killing" itself. "Murder" by your definition is a subset of the class of "killing": "Killings that are deemed, 'wrong'."
Observe the number of dualisms in a single one of your paragraphs.

biased vs non-biased
default vs non-default.
most-general vs least-general.
subset vs superset.

Have you defined ANY of those classifications?
What :?
DPMartin
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

Post by DPMartin »

Logik wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:28 pm
DPMartin wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:25 pm then there you go, its who has the power to enforce what is agreed as murder isn't it? so murder and "justifiable homicide" for example is what ever power says it is. therefore, in the world who has the power to day says what murder is and that could change tomorrow what murder is just as who was in power yesterday said what murder is and is not. its not law its power, the group that has agreed to a set of rules can be overpowered by a greater power that changes the rules to their thinking. you can write law until you're blue in the face and without the power to enforce it, its just paper.
OK, but do you see any major opposition to the current, broadly-accepted definitions (as laid out in all 195 countries)?

If not - surely you are inventing a strawman?

And if the definition-on-paper doesn't matter surely you are shooting yourself in the foot?
Surely the UNDERSTANDING of "what murder is" exists elsewhere - not merely on the piece of paper on which it is defined.
na, if there be broadly-accepted definitions then you don't have 195 definitions. There is such a thing as a broadly-accepted definition, but not definitions, but rest assured there is 195 if that many, different definitions of what is classified as "murder" so depending on where you are standing on the planet and who has dominion of the ground your standing on, they are the definers of what murder is, until you leave their area of dominion.

even in the US there is the perception that is changing in the past 50 or so years that killing an animal is murder where as before it was irrelevant if an animal dies or how it dies unless its the property of a concerned owner.

a Buddhist's perception of "murder" is completely different then a tribal warrior's perception of murder. so broadly accepted? na. there may be cases in some societies where there is no murder. hence nothing is defined as murder. take a wild west scenario were there was no law no order only survival. now what happens there, in other societies is defined as murder but not there because the other societies have no execution of dominion in this case.


men need to coexist peacefully but the nature of flesh doesn't want a law. just look at what animals do to each other unless they fear harm or worse from each other.
The only way to stop it is to have enforceable agreement to not kill each other, and the protection is really the fear of the enforcement. for if there is no fear of enforcement then the agreement isn't valid, and mutual harm prevails. of which both require power.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

DPMartin wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:39 pm
Logik wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:28 pm
DPMartin wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:25 pm then there you go, its who has the power to enforce what is agreed as murder isn't it? so murder and "justifiable homicide" for example is what ever power says it is. therefore, in the world who has the power to day says what murder is and that could change tomorrow what murder is just as who was in power yesterday said what murder is and is not. its not law its power, the group that has agreed to a set of rules can be overpowered by a greater power that changes the rules to their thinking. you can write law until you're blue in the face and without the power to enforce it, its just paper.
OK, but do you see any major opposition to the current, broadly-accepted definitions (as laid out in all 195 countries)?

If not - surely you are inventing a strawman?

And if the definition-on-paper doesn't matter surely you are shooting yourself in the foot?
Surely the UNDERSTANDING of "what murder is" exists elsewhere - not merely on the piece of paper on which it is defined.
na, if there be broadly-accepted definitions then you don't have 195 definitions. There is such a thing as a broadly-accepted definition, but not definitions, but rest assured there is 195 if that many, different definitions of what is classified as "murder" so depending on where you are standing on the planet and who has dominion of the ground your standing on, they are the definers of what murder is, until you leave their area of dominion.

even in the US there is the perception that is changing in the past 50 or so years that killing an animal is murder where as before it was irrelevant if an animal dies or how it dies unless its the property of a concerned owner.

a Buddhist's perception of "murder" is completely different then a tribal warrior's perception of murder. so broadly accepted? na. there may be cases in some societies where there is no murder. hence nothing is defined as murder. take a wild west scenario were there was no law no order only survival. now what happens there, in other societies is defined as murder but not there because the other societies have no execution of dominion in this case.


men need to coexist peacefully but the nature of flesh doesn't want a law. just look at what animals do to each other unless they fear harm or worse from each other.
The only way to stop it is to have enforceable agreement to not kill each other, and the protection is really the fear of the enforcement. for if there is no fear of enforcement then the agreement isn't valid, and mutual harm prevails. of which both require power.
False, all differing conceptions of murder are rooted in proper context. Timing and proportion of one action to another is the fundamental quality that defines what murder is and is not. Morality, as action, is rooted in "time".
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

Post by Logik »

DPMartin wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:39 pm na, if there be broadly-accepted definitions then you don't have 195 definitions. There is such a thing as a broadly-accepted definition, but not definitions, but rest assured there is 195 if that many, different definitions of what is classified as "murder" so depending on where you are standing on the planet and who has dominion of the ground your standing on, they are the definers of what murder is, until you leave their area of dominion.
You are nitpicking for the sake of contrarianism.

Suppose your nitpickiness/contrarianism pisses me off enough that I come to your house, knock on your door and stab you in the face in anger and you die.
Do you think there is ANY one (out of 195) countries in which I will not be tried/convicted for murder based on my actions?

You seem to be claiming that BECAUSE we have 195 different definitions none of them have any overlap, which is absolute horseshit.
DPMartin wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:39 pm even in the US there is the perception that is changing in the past 50 or so years that killing an animal is murder where as before it was irrelevant if an animal dies or how it dies unless its the property of a concerned owner.
And what you are doing here is even worse. It's because the definition is not perfect - you are rejecting it in its entirety.

You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

DPMartin wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:39 pm a Buddhist's perception of "murder" is completely different then a tribal warrior's perception of murder. so broadly accepted? na.
More nitpicking/contrarianism. Same example as above. To claim "completely different perception" is to claim "no overlap". Nonsense.
DPMartin wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:39 pm there may be cases in some societies where there is no murder.
More nonsense. There is NO country on Earth where murder is legal.

DPMartin wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:39 pm The only way to stop it is to have enforceable agreement to not kill each other, and the protection is really the fear of the enforcement. for if there is no fear of enforcement then the agreement isn't valid, and mutual harm prevails. of which both require power.
Which is what I said? So I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing.


Was what what the Japanese did to the Chinese Murder? If yes - then it was wrong. Then we punish the Japanese accordingly.
Was what the Germans did to the Jews murder? If yes - then it was wrong. Then we punish the Germans accordingly.
Post Reply