That depends on intention and also whether or not consent was involvedLogic wrote:
What I am asking is where loving murder comes on the scale
Assisted suicide would be higher up the scale than psychopathic butchery
That depends on intention and also whether or not consent was involvedLogic wrote:
What I am asking is where loving murder comes on the scale
You are blurring the lines between the act of killing and the crime of murder. The law is clear on this.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:01 am That depends on intention and also whether or not consent was involved
Assisted suicide would be higher up the scale than psychopathic butchery
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.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:44 am 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
What is our legal system if not an attempt to codify our morality?
And this is precisely my point. I can observe that person A is suffering, debt, sickness, psychological anguish, non-existing quality of life.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:44 am Painless method with full consent would not be murder in my eyes
Rather an act of kindness to stop someone from suffering anymore
Law is indeed the codification of morality but it is not something set in stoneLogic wrote:
What is our legal system if not an attempt to codify our morality ?
No it isn't. Can you think of any context in which murder is morally right?
When you can give me an example where murder is morally right then we can nitpick.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:47 am What happens for example when there is a conflict between someones morality and the law ?
There is, actually a very very simple answer: YOU get to be a grown up and decide what happens!surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:47 am 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
When the only way to escape my abusive captor is to murder them?Logik wrote: No it isn't. Can you think of any context in which murder is morally right? ...
Self-defence is not murder.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:49 pm When the only way to escape my abusive captor is to murder them?
Yes I can but even if I could not your argument would still be fallaciousLogic wrote:
Can you think of any context in which murder is morally right ?
Then do it! Falsification requires just one example. Just one black swan!surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:56 pm Yes I can but even if I could not your argument would still be fallacious
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.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:56 pm 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
Whose definition? Yours? Why is your definition better than our definition?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:56 pm Any deviation from that automatically renders morality subjective by definition
But you CAN'T morally justify murder!surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:56 pm The fact that I can morally justify murder immediately renders your argument invalid
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse,
What a ridiculously high bar!surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:56 pm So can you provide a sound logical argument that demonstrates morality is objective in every single possible example ?
It's not one example. It's 195 examples.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:56 pm Picking out just one example like murder is no more than cherry picking and does not address the question as intended
What about the legalisation of abortion or euthanasia ?Logic wrote:
So I think it is safe to assume that legalizing murder is not a popular idea among humans
Define "definitely". 100% certain? There's no room for idealism in this universe.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:41 pm 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 ?
If you can explain to the machine what "murder" is - then I can teach it that-it's wrong.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:41 pm Can you think of a non emotional argument a machine would understand given that it cannot understand morality ?
Can you provide a sound reason for the moral justification of free choice here ?Logic wrote:
If respecting free choice is what makes euthanasia moral then the same goes for abortion
The mothers body - the mothers choice
Your own words:surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 2:35 pm Can you provide a sound reason for the moral justification of free choice here ?
You are using consent (free will) to draw distinctions.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:01 am That depends on intention and also whether or not consent was involved
OK, show me a country, a community, a society which believes murder is morally right.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 2:35 pm That is to say one that will find universal consensus with precisely no deviation ?
Don't move the goal posts now. Is murder morally wrong - yes or no?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 2:35 pm Because if you can then why would some still think that abortion is morally wrong ?
Yes. The choice between outlawing and not-outlawing murder.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 2:35 pm 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