why is murder wrong?

[Logik]

Are you saying that absence of a definition is a problem? Why?

Sure. Because then it's not apparent what acts are covered by your use of the word "murder". But you say that's not hard, so you must have a definition.

Go ahead.

It's not apparent what phenomena are covered by the word "blue" either.
It's not apparent what you mean by the word "mean". Those are not problems?
It's also not "apparent" how you use the word "apparent". Define that also.
Maybe define "define".

Surely you must have a definition for "meaning. Go right ahead. And please don't appeal to the circular definition in the dictionary.

Silly sophist. I wonder if you've even figured out that all semiotics is circular.

[Immanuel Can]

Go right ahead.

I'm happy to. As soon as you state your own unproblematic definition for "murder."

And if you can't now, I think it's pretty clear where we stand. Despite your protests to the contrary, you have none.

[Logik]

Go right ahead.

I'm happy to. As soon as you state your own unproblematic definition for "murder."

And if you can't now, I think it's pretty clear where we stand. Despite your protests to the contrary, you have none.

Look, sophist. You have made a claim - that the absence of a definition is a "problem".
I think you first need to define what a "problem" is and then JUSTIFY WHY the absence of a definition is a "problem".

I'll wait right here, but I won't hold my breath.

[Immanuel Can]

You need to state your definition of a "problem" first.

Not at all. I'm not the one who made the claim there's an unproblematic conception of "murder" -- you said that, and in fact, scoffed at the very idea it might be difficult at all.

[Logik]

Not at all. I'm not the one who made the claim there's an unproblematic conception of "murder" -- you said that, and in fact, scoffed at the very idea it might be difficult at all.

I never claimed that murder is problematic or unproblematic conception? You made that claim. Are you seriously this stupid?

I asked you to explain where you see a problem. You said:

Sure. Because then it's not apparent what acts are covered by your use of the word "murder".

OK. It is also not apparent what acts are covered by your use of the word "problem".

[Scott Mayers]

tell me
i say it's wrong cuz i own me and take a dim view of bein' deprived of my property...if it's wrong to whack me then it's wrong to whack the other guy (unless he really deserves it)

I was going to ask if you had a guilty conscious about something you had in mind. ....like if you had some hidden reason for asking.
So, tell me, does anyone 'deserve it'? If so, why?

[Immanuel Can]

Are you seriously this stupid?

I'm reminded of the old police films in which there was a car chase. The bad guys would be in front, pumping out bullets at the cops: and when the gun ran out, they'd always do the same thing -- they'd throw the gun.

When someone stoops from using reason to hurling abusive statements, it's like they just "threw the gun." It means there are no more rational "bullets."

So I'm fine with letting you go here. I feel no further need to make the point. Your real gun's out of ammo.

[Logik]

I'm reminded of the old police films in which there was a car chase. The bad guys would be in front, pumping out bullets at the cops: and when the gun ran out, they'd always do the same thing -- they'd throw the gun.

When someone stoops from using reason to hurling abusive statements, it's like they just "threw the gun." It means there are no more rational "bullets."

So I'm fine with letting you go here. I feel no further need to make the point. Your real gun's out of ammo.

That's a long-winded and metaphorical (but very poor) attempt at shifting the goal posts. Or is that admitting defeat? I don't know - you'll have to say it in a way that's clearly understood by everybody... like for example "Logik kicked my ass in this argument".

Not only is it not apparent on what acts are covered by your use of the word "problem", but you have only complicated matters further.
It is now also not apparent what acts are covered by your use of the word "rational".

Keep digging - I'll get you a shovel.

So I'm fine with letting you go here. I feel no further need to make the point. Your real gun's out of ammo.

Letting me go? You are handcuffed to me and I got the keys. You aren't going anywhere till we settle this

So far you owe us definitions for the following:
* problem
* rational

I will keep adding to this list as you keep digging.

Alternatively - you can agree or disagree with my knowledge-claim

I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

[henry quirk]

yep

different folks deserve it for different reasons (but that's between me and them)

-----

there's killin' as a defense of self, others, and property: not murder

there's killin' for gain: murder

there's killin' cuz some folks just plainly need to be dead: murder

I endorse the first & third.

[Impenitent]

murder is irrelevant (as is everything else) once one is dead...

-Imp

[prof]

I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

Some years back I wrote this. It's still relevant and true:

WHY MURDER IS WRONG

To be wrong is to violate a moral principle. such as "have respect." [Have respect for yourself and for fellow members of your in-group; and continuously strive to widen your in-group.]

To murder is to deliberately kill a conscious individual with malice aforethought.

To have malice is not to have respect. Therefore murder is wrong. ...by definition.

If a majority (or if a judge elected to represent and uphold the culture of the community) judges that "Murder is wrong" when polled, then it is also true by observation. This can be verified, in increasingly more-effective ways, as polling techniques are constantly improved and upgraded.

Comments are welcome!

[henry quirk]

"To murder is to deliberately kill a conscious individual with malice aforethought. To have malice is not to have respect. Therefore murder is wrong. ...by definition."

Mebbe so, prof.

Still, murder it may be: 'some folks just plainly need to be dead'.

[Logik]

Some years back I wrote this. It's still relevant and true:

WHY MURDER IS WRONG

To allow yourself to ask a "Why?" question is to allow the sophists to frame the debate. You lose.

To be wrong is to violate a moral principle. such as "have respect." [Have respect for yourself and for fellow members of your in-group; and continuously strive to widen your in-group.]

Why is violation of moral principles wrong?

To murder is to deliberately kill a conscious individual with malice aforethought.

Why is the deliberate killing with malice and aforethought murder?

To have malice is not to have respect.

Why is malice disrespectful.

Therefore murder is wrong. ...by definition.

Circular resoning is the product of a circular language.

You haven't solved anything - you have just stretched your argument wide enough so that you've lose track of the circularity and you feel good about it.

If murder is wrong BY DEFINITION, then all you are doing is justifying your DEFINITION. Not the wrongness of murder.

[Age]

I wonder if you've even figured out that all semiotics is circular.

But it is NOT.

"you" only BELIEVE it is.

[Age]

I think you first need to define what a "problem" is and then JUSTIFY WHY the absence of a definition is a "problem".

I'll wait right here, but I won't hold my breath.

'Problem', a question posed for solution.

WHY the absence of a definition is a 'problem' IS because without definition how will confusion be stopped/alleviated?