why is murder wrong?

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

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

Re: "How are you defining the word 'murder' here?"

Post by Logik »

Age wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:38 am I have said what I said and you have said what you said. "you" allege some ridiculous thing like "murder" is wrong. I am still waiting for you to tell me if "you" KNOW that murder is good and necessary and therefore NOT wrong.

Obviously "you" are WRONG. I am just waiting for you to SEE and UNDERSTAND this.
You don't practice what you preach. If you were TRULY OPEN then you must allow for the possibility that you are wrong.
I am TRULY OPEN. So open, in fact, that I am TELLING you what would convince me that I am wrong. I am telling you HOW to prove me wrong.

If you volunteer yourself for a public, live-stream beheading you will convince me that I am wrong! If you DO that then you will convince me that murder is not wrong.

Now, Mr "YOU MUST BE OPEN". Practice what you preach and tell us how to prove YOU wrong.
Age
Posts: 6252
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: "How are you defining the word 'murder' here?"

Post by Age »

Logik wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:03 am
Age wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:38 am I have said what I said and you have said what you said. "you" allege some ridiculous thing like "murder" is wrong. I am still waiting for you to tell me if "you" KNOW that murder is good and necessary and therefore NOT wrong.

Obviously "you" are WRONG. I am just waiting for you to SEE and UNDERSTAND this.
You don't practice what you preach. If you were TRULY OPEN then you must allow for the possibility that you are wrong.
I am TRULY OPEN. So open, in fact, that I am TELLING you what would convince me that I am wrong. I am telling you HOW to prove me wrong.

If you volunteer yourself for a public, live-stream beheading you will convince me that I am wrong! If you DO that then you will convince me that murder is not wrong.

Now, Mr "YOU MUST BE OPEN". Practice what you preach and tell us how to prove YOU wrong.
But with the definition of 'murder' that I am using I can NOT be WRONG.

The whole point of what I am getting at is that "you" can NEVER be WRONG because "you" are always changing the definitions "you" use for the words "you" use, and "you" NEVER let anyone else KNOW what definition/s "you" are using.

'Murder' is always, sometimes wrong, or never WRONG depending on what definition one is using for the word 'murder'.

"you" say 'murder' is WRONG, but "we" are unable to discuss this with "you" because "you" will NOT tell "us" what definition "you" are using for the word 'murder'.

'Murder' can be as good, necessary, and RIGHT just as much as can be bad, unnecessary, and WRONG.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: "How are you defining the word 'murder' here?"

Post by Logik »

Age wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:12 am But with the definition of 'murder' that I am using I can NOT be WRONG.
So much for being OPEN.
Age wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:12 am The whole point of what I am getting at is that "you" can NEVER be WRONG because "you" are always changing the definitions "you" use for the words "you" use, and "you" NEVER let anyone else KNOW what definition/s "you" are using.
That's a lie. I have told you at least 10 times before that I am not right. I am just less wrong than you.

Of course you aren't open enough to admit that you are wrong, so there's really no point in talking to you further. Is there?

You may be right. But if you can't communicate any of your knowledge to other people you are useless to us.
Age
Posts: 6252
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: "How are you defining the word 'murder' here?"

Post by Age »

Logik wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:55 pm
Age wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:12 am But with the definition of 'murder' that I am using I can NOT be WRONG.
So much for being OPEN.
Age wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:12 am The whole point of what I am getting at is that "you" can NEVER be WRONG because "you" are always changing the definitions "you" use for the words "you" use, and "you" NEVER let anyone else KNOW what definition/s "you" are using.
That's a lie. I have told you at least 10 times before that I am not right. I am just less wrong than you.

Of course you aren't open enough to admit that you are wrong, so there's really no point in talking to you further. Is there?

You may be right. But if you can't communicate any of your knowledge to other people you are useless to us.
How does the one called "logik" define the word 'murder'?
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: "How are you defining the word 'murder' here?"

Post by Logik »

Age wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:40 am How does the one called "logik" define the word 'murder'?
I don't. I have no definition for it. I don't need to have my own definition because the definition others have come up with is good enough for me.

I understand the meaning of "murder" in approximately the same way as all 195 countries on Earth who have outlawed it.
I understand the meaning of "murder" in approximately the same way common law has defined it for thousands of years.
Age
Posts: 6252
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: "How are you defining the word 'murder' here?"

Post by Age »

Logik wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:22 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:40 am How does the one called "logik" define the word 'murder'?
I don't. I have no definition for it. I don't need to have my own definition because the definition others have come up with is good enough for me.

I understand the meaning of "murder" in approximately the same way as all 195 countries on Earth who have outlawed it.
I understand the meaning of "murder" in approximately the same way common law has defined it for thousands of years.
And that was my point all along. What "you" understand and what "others" understand and mean can be two completely different things. If you do NOT provide the definitions that you are using, then, for as far as "others" are aware, you could NEVER be wrong. If definitions are NEVER discussed, then NO one is sure of what another is actually talking about, and meaning.

Without definitions absolutely any thing can be absolutely any thing. Of course a rough idea of what another is talking about, and meaning, can be grasped, but they are, at best, just guesses and assumptions, which obviously could be completely or partly wrong.

EVERY thing is relative to the the observer. The observer is the one who decides what means what. They have decided on the definitions to be used. The observer is, after all, the one who is forming, and/or has formed, A VIEW.

Your VIEW could be right or wrong, or partly right and wrong. Until you define the word 'murder', and clarify any further inquiries, I, for one, are NOT sure what you are actually saying and meaning. For example, another person has provided A definition for the word 'murder' and with that definition, although I would "normally" always say that murder is wrong, that person would have to admit that "murder" is perfectly acceptable, and not just that but actually expected also, by SOME, but completely WRONG by and from the perspective of SOME "other" people.

IF 'murder' is right OR wrong all depends on the perspective from what one is LOOKING FROM. A perspective is dependent upon the definitions and meanings that are being used. If we have NOT been informed of these things, then we are NOT really in a position to make comment.

Besides ALL of that, just because WHAT is made LAW does NOT imply that morally that it is right, or wrong. For example, if a very elderly parent or grandparent is extremely sick, in excruciating pain, dying, and their wish is to die, but so called "common" law calls the act of "assisting a person to die" 'murder' and you were to assist them to die, then is that "murder" wrong?

By the way I NEVER asked you for your own 'made up' definition. I just asked for the definition that you use, or are using (in this particular situation). If it is the same definition or not as "others" have already made up and are using or not, or if it is the same or not that any one uses or not is of NO importance at all. I just NEED to KNOW from your perspective the definition that you are using "here", in order for me to be able to answer your question properly and correctly.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: "How are you defining the word 'murder' here?"

Post by Logik »

Age wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:31 am And that was my point all along.
That was your lingguistic point. We know that language is imrpecise and that communication is hard.
Look past that.


Age wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:31 am What "you" understand and what "others" understand and mean can be two completely different things. If you do NOT provide the definitions that you are using, then, for as far as "others" are aware, you could NEVER be wrong. If definitions are NEVER discussed, then NO one is sure of what another is actually talking about, and meaning.
Except we aren't talking about the definition of murder. We are talking about the act of murder.

And as I keep pointing out over and over "Your hounour, that's not how I define murder so I haven't done anything wrong" is not a valid defence in court.
Age
Posts: 6252
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: "How are you defining the word 'murder' here?"

Post by Age »

Logik wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 6:38 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:31 am And that was my point all along.
That was your lingguistic point. We know that language is imrpecise and that communication is hard.
Look past that.


Age wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:31 am What "you" understand and what "others" understand and mean can be two completely different things. If you do NOT provide the definitions that you are using, then, for as far as "others" are aware, you could NEVER be wrong. If definitions are NEVER discussed, then NO one is sure of what another is actually talking about, and meaning.
Except we aren't talking about the definition of murder. We are talking about the act of murder.

And as I keep pointing out over and over "Your hounour, that's not how I define murder so I haven't done anything wrong" is not a valid defence in court.
So, based on what you keep referring back to, that is; "Your honor ...? then the answer to YOUR question; Why is murder wrong? IS solely because it is legally wrong.

Murder is NOT always wrong, morally and ethically. Murder is only wrong, legally.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: "How are you defining the word 'murder' here?"

Post by Logik »

Age wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:31 am So, based on what you keep referring back to, that is; "Your honor ...? then the answer to YOUR question; Why is murder wrong? IS solely because it is legally wrong.

Murder is NOT always wrong, morally and ethically. Murder is only wrong, legally.
ONLY? Where do laws come from?

Do WE, humans not define our laws? Do WE, humans not agree upon them, debate them and write them down? Do WE humans not grant authority to governments/courts/police officers to enforce the laws WE agreed upon?

I thought you said "that to which everybody agrees to" is truth?

Laws are human morals. Written down.

The definition of "murder" has been written in common law for thousands of years. It hasn't changed. So it sounds to me that we agree?
Age
Posts: 6252
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: "How are you defining the word 'murder' here?"

Post by Age »

Logik wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:08 am
Age wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:31 am So, based on what you keep referring back to, that is; "Your honor ...? then the answer to YOUR question; Why is murder wrong? IS solely because it is legally wrong.

Murder is NOT always wrong, morally and ethically. Murder is only wrong, legally.
ONLY? Where do laws come from?

Do WE, humans not define our laws? Do WE, humans not agree upon them, debate them and write them down? Do WE humans not grant authority to governments/courts/police officers to enforce the laws WE agreed upon?

I thought you said "that to which everybody agrees to" is truth?

Laws are human morals. Written down.

The definition of "murder" has been written in common law for thousands of years. It hasn't changed. So it sounds to me that we agree?
If that is what it sounds like to you, then so be it. But the Truth might actually be a bit different.

Sometimes murder is NOT at all wrong, morally and/or ethically. Murder can be good and right sometimes. As I have been saying.

Just because some thing is wrong, legally, that does NOT make it wrong, morally and/or ethically. Do you understand this? (I have ALREADY provided EXAMPLES and SHOWN why this is so. If you have NOT seen them, then let me know and I will RE-SHOW them for you).

And, conversely, just because some thing is right, legally, that does NOT make it right, morally and/or ethically, as well.

By the way "human morals" are NOT exactly the best guide for living the best life possible. For example, just LOOK AT the "world" in which you are living in now, when this is written. This "world", which you are in now, is the result of agreed upon "human morals".

'Morality and ethics' go way beyond "human morals". Human beings have so much more to learn and understand in this regard.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: "How are you defining the word 'murder' here?"

Post by Logik »

Age wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:43 am Sometimes murder is NOT at all wrong, morally and/or ethically. Murder can be good and right sometimes. As I have been saying.
The onus is on you to provide the counter-example.

Until you do. Murder is wrong. By agreement.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: "How are you defining the word 'murder' here?"

Post by -1- »

Logik wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:50 am
Age wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:43 am Sometimes murder is NOT at all wrong, morally and/or ethically. Murder can be good and right sometimes. As I have been saying.
The onus is on you to provide the counter-example.

Until you do. Murder is wrong. By agreement.
If I murder a murderer and I do not murder anyone else after; but the said murderer whom I murdered would have gone on to murder many others; then I wronged a wrongdoer, and I wonder if you agree, Logik, that in this case two wrongs make a right.

Assuming the murderer I've just murdered (in this thought experiment) was not capable of stopping himself from continually murdering others.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: why is murder wrong?

Post by -1- »

Re the previous post: think of assassination attempts on Hitler.

Incidently, what happened to Hitler's children? And grand- and great-grand children? Are they aware who they are, who one of their ancestors was? And what's their favourite breakfast cereal?
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: why is murder wrong?

Post by -1- »

My thought experiment can be taken one more step forward, Logic. You said, you don't want to toy with defining murder, since it has been codified and defined many ways, and the bulk of it is the same.

So if I murder a serial killer who would not stop his way, I am a murderer; but if I kill a serial murderer by execution, because I am the hangman, then I am not a murderer.

There is a difference in the MEANS only: the hangman is appointed by a body of judicial authority to kill; I am not appointed or licenced to murder. This IS a big difference.

So I can be tried and hanged for murder for murdering the murderer; but the hangman kills me (and not murders me; big difference, due to the many extant definitions of "murder" and "murderer") and walks away from my corps a free man.

It's all in the cultural norms, the differences lie in subtle cultural designations, an the entire dynamic and static of the social structure and consequences of actions in the designees of this structure is aptly expressed by our language.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: why is murder wrong?

Post by Logik »

-1- wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:43 am My thought experiment can be taken one more step forward, Logic. You said, you don't want to toy with defining murder, since it has been codified and defined many ways, and the bulk of it is the same.

So if I murder a serial killer who would not stop his way, I am a murderer; but if I kill a serial murderer by execution, because I am the hangman, then I am not a murderer.

There is a difference in the MEANS only: the hangman is appointed by a body of judicial authority to kill; I am not appointed or licenced to murder. This IS a big difference.

So I can be tried and hanged for murder for murdering the murderer; but the hangman kills me (and not murders me; big difference, due to the many extant definitions of "murder" and "murderer") and walks away from my corps a free man.

It's all in the cultural norms, the differences lie in subtle cultural designations, an the entire dynamic and static of the social structure and consequences of actions in the designees of this structure is aptly expressed by our language.
No. The difference is simply ergodic theory and utilitarianism. Allowing a murderer to remain free costs lives.
The longer he remains free - the more lives it costs.

The principle is NO HARM (in practice - least harm).

Thus we have a trolley problem. Let serial killer live. Incarcerate serial killer

Which choice leads to least harm. It's obvious.

I am against the death penalty, but if arresting a serial killer requires ending him - so be it.
Last edited by Logik on Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply