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

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

Post by Logik »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:12 pm 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'.
The human ideal is that "wrong" and "illegal" are overlapping sets. We understand why it doesn't work in practice - which is why jurisprudence is in constant flux. That said the common-law definition of murder hasn't changed for THOUSANDS of years!

So I am venturing a guess that we've gotten it (more or less) right.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:12 pm 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.
You are shooting your own argument down here. Even though the sky is not ALWAYS blue, it's SOMETIMES blue, and therefore the claim "the sky is blue" is rather imprecise and ambiguous yet you still seem to have NO strenuous objections to me saying "I know the sky is blue". It's even defined in the dictionary that way.

of a colour intermediate between green and violet, as of the sky or sea on a sunny day.

On the other hand, murder is ALWAYS wrong. In every country on Earth. In every Earth-colony in space. At every hour of every day. There are NO exceptions.

Yet you seem to have some objection to me saying "I know murder is wrong". See the inconsistency?

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:09 pm 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,
I don't know if you are actually aware of this, or if you are being contrarian for philosophy's sake. But I have to ask anyway.

Are you aware that ALL English is circular in the exact same way you have spotted a circularity in my definition? If you keep playing the "substitution" game you will figure out that words have no actual meaning. Because words define other words define other words, that define other words.
define. verb. State or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of
meaning. noun. What is meant by a word, text, concept, or action
Meaning is defined in terms of itself!!!!! Panic! Panic!

Language IS circular. This is called the symbol-grounding problem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem ). This is why the language games philosophers play are silly. The root-cause is well understood.

To put it bluntly: Yes! WE KNOW that words are IMPOSSIBLE to define precisely! Are you doing it to amuse yourself or what?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:09 pm
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 :?
I am not sure what is confusing you.

The notion of "right" and "wrong" is conceptual first. It cannot be defined precisely - BECAUSE language is circular.
The notion of "biased" vs "unbiased" is conceptual first. It cannot be defined precisely - BECAUSE language is circular.
Most if not all adjectives in spoken language are conceptual first. They cannot be defined precisely - BECAUSE LANGUAGE IS CIRCULAR.

And yet you seem to be perfectly happy to USE the phrases "non-biased language" and other adjectives without defining it (because you know you can't) to object to the imprecision of the definition of "murder".

The performative contradiction of this hypocrisy should hit you like a ton of bricks. Because I want to see you utter even a single sentence IF you were to abandon adjectives from your vocabulary.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

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

Post by DPMartin »

Logik wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:08 am
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.
the statements you've posted are not fact, just opinion. you maybe correct about what you think, but what you think here is only opinion, not fact.
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: Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:49 pm the statements you've posted are not fact, just opinion. you maybe correct about what you think, but what you think here is only opinion, not fact.
Is the above statement a fact or an opinion?

Can you define for us what a "fact" is?

Because I am not sure on what grounds you are rejecting the illegality of murder in 195 countries as "opinion".
Post Reply