why is murder wrong?

[-1-]

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.

taking the thought experiment a step further: in my previous post I showed that murder is illegal; and execution of a murderer is not illegal.

That hinged on the MEANS of the killing: one was legal, one was a murder and illegal, and both killings were performed on a serial murderer.

The question was, however, not about the legality, but about the morality of murder.

Both the hangman and the murderer who kill each a serial murderer, do the RIGHT THING because they both put a stop to a lot of future murders.

And here's the difference between law and morals. The murderer who murdered the serial killer acted illegally, but morally.

THEREFORE we can't practically declare that all law is derived from public morality. Because in this example the law condemns the murderer of the serial murderer, but the ethical judgment condomnes him.

[Logik]

taking the thought experiment a step further: in my previous post I showed that murder is illegal; and execution of a murderer is not illegal.

I am against the death penalty, so there's that.

[-1-]

Since murder and killing are both based on public morals, according to you, and since one is legal and the other one is not legal, you find yourself in a true paradox: legal laws are both moral and immoral, or else, morality is both legal and illegal; this is a true paradox.

[-1-]

taking the thought experiment a step further: in my previous post I showed that murder is illegal; and execution of a murderer is not illegal.

I am against the death penalty, so there's that.

It's not a valid argument here; you have already given up your own opinion as immaterial when you deflected the onus to define murder and to public definitions.

Your opinion that you are agains the death penalty is absolutely irrelevant, because you made it so.

[Logik]

It's not a valid argument here; you have already given up your own opinion as immaterial when you deflected the onus to define murder and to public definitions.

Your opinion that you are agains the death penalty is absolutely irrelevant, because you made it so.

What an absolutist way to think about the world.

Shame.

Despite me saying that "muder is wrong" is a separate concern from whether "X is murder" you insist on conflating them.

Naturally. That's the only way can argue against my position

There is no empirical evidence that punishing murderers with death has any measurable effect on the actual murder rates in any country.
IF the death penalty leads to reduction of violence/murder rates then you might have a valid position, but it doesn't.

Therefore the death penalty is pure bloodlust with absolutely zero measurable positive impact on society.

And one has to ask: If it doesn't benefit society then why are you doing it?

[-1-]

There is no empirical evidence that punishing murderers with death has any measurable effect on the actual murder rates in any country.

This is true, but a valueless argument. There is no empirical evidence, because there is no control subject. A significant empirical evidence can only be established between an actual measurement and an expected one, or between two actual measurements.

In one country the murder rate can only be seen to change sufficiently vis-a-vis the death penalty if there is data BEFORE the policy change or reversal of the death penalty and AFTER the reversal of the death penalty. Other factors must be coutned, which obscure the statistical significance.

A revolution, a system change, a natural disaster -- these all effect the murder rate. Also, historical distance. Economic state of affairs. War. There are many, many factors that affect the murder rate, and to single out any one of them as a metric is a ridiculous argument if you don't mind me saying so.

Your argument is not valid because it requires for its proof a set of data which is clearly not available. At all.

[Logik]

There is no empirical evidence that punishing murderers with death has any measurable effect on the actual murder rates in any country.

This is true, but a valueless argument. There is no empirical evidence, because there is no control subject. A significant empirical evidence can only be established between an actual measurement and an expected one, or between two actual measurements.

There's no room for such idealism in this universe. Isolating variables and statistical regression will have to do.

In one country the murder rate can only be seen to change sufficiently vis-a-vis the death penalty if there is data BEFORE the policy change or reversal of the death penalty and AFTER the reversal of the death penalty. Other factors must be coutned, which obscure the statistical significance.

So count them. Factor in the variance across all of those variables. Normalize it. Add a margin of error.

That's exactly statistics is for. Amplifying signal - reducing noise.

A revolution, a system change, a natural disaster -- these all effect the murder rate. Also, historical distance. Economic state of affairs. War. There are many, many factors that affect the murder rate, and to single out any one of them as a metric is a ridiculous argument if you don't mind me saying so.

Your argument is not valid because it requires for its proof a set of data which is clearly not available. At all.

Make lemonade.

What you are arguing for is 'Lets kill murderers even though we don't have any data that it does anything".

You aren't even trying. Perhaps it will incentivise you to know that all systems make errors. Therefore death penalty results in non-zero innocent people being killed by the system.

[-1-]

What an absolutist way to think about the world.

Shame.

Despite me saying that "muder is wrong" is a separate concern from whether "X is murder" you insist on conflating them.

Naturally. That's the only way can argue against my position

You are trying to move the goal posts. You clearly said,

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.

This is what you said. And now you have the AUDACITY to call me an absolutist, (as if that were a shameful thing... yes, you did say "shame"... well, then shame you called is on you, because you are the absolutist. You called me an absolutist because I refuse to accept your NEW demand, that is, to accept that murder is always wrong.

If anyting is absolutist, then it's your utterance and opinion is, that murder is always wrong.

You called me an absolutist because for some illogical "reason" you claim that I conflate "murder is wrong" with "X is murder".

Here you have gone out on a tangent that will send you into orbit. You are completely obsessed with being right, with winning arguments, and when you are cornered, and defeated, like I said in the past, you go into a fit of narcissistic rage.

This is just one example of many.

[Logik]

What an absolutist way to think about the world.

Shame.

Despite me saying that "muder is wrong" is a separate concern from whether "X is murder" you insist on conflating them.

Naturally. That's the only way can argue against my position

You are trying to move the goal posts. You clearly said,

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.

Not at all. I think you are trying to REMOVE the goal posts. Because I also clearly said:

Whether murder is wrong has nothing to do with whether "X is murder"

"Is murder wrong?" is a yes/no question. No "Why" required.

Why is murder wrong is non-sensical. I KNOW that murder is wrong.
Why is abortion murder? that is a valid question.

This is what you said. And now you have the AUDACITY to call me an absolutist, (as if that were a shameful thing... yes, you did say "shame"... well, then shame you called is on you, because you are the absolutist. You called me an absolutist because I refuse to accept your NEW demand, that is, to accept that murder is always wrong.

Indeed. Because you are straw-manning my argument.

If anyting is absolutist, then it's your utterance and opinion is, that murder is always wrong.

You called me an absolutist because for some illogical "reason" you claim that I conflate "murder is wrong" with "X is murder"

Yeah. Funny thing that objective morality. It has little room for 'maybe'.

Here you have gone out on a tangent that will send you into orbit. You are completely obsessed with being right, with winning arguments, and when you are cornered, and defeated, like I said in the past, you go into a fit of narcissistic rage.

This is just one example of many.

Well, defeat me then.

Tell me why killing a serial killer is murder.

To call it out as 'narcissistic rage' is just ad-hominem.

[-1-]

What you are arguing for is 'Lets kill murderers even though we don't have any data that it does anything".

If that's what you get from my posts, then you've just proved your intellectual poverty. No, this is not an argument that I'm proposing in our debate here; it is a statement of apparent fact.

You aren't even trying. Perhaps it will incentivise you to know that all systems make errors. Therefore death penalty results in non-zero innocent people being killed by the system.

This is a completely irrelevant statement. You are arguing with empty words, without reason, you are falling into the void with your words.

I am sorry, Logik, but I don't argue with simpleton naysayers. If you get a valid argument, I'll reply to it, but I don't have the time for fools who hide behind glib and believe they can snow-job everybody else.

[Logik]

I am sorry, Logik, but I don't argue with simpleton naysayers. If you get a valid argument, I'll reply to it, but I don't have the time for fools who hide behind glib and believe they can snow-job everybody else.

Then I want you to hear you say it loud and clear. Reject the wrongness of murder.

Don't hide behind philosophical platitude.

State it as clearly as you can that 'some murder is not wrong' and provide an example.

Because it sure seems the only way you know how to win arguments is through nitpicking edge cases.

[-1-]

To call it out as 'narcissistic rage' is just ad-hominem.

I am sorry, I ought to have made that clearer. That utterance by me was not a part of the argument; it is, instead, outside the topic of the debate, and I am calling an apparent fact (apparent as it appears on many pages of this forum). Therefore it is NOT an ad hominem; it is merely my opinion of you, and not a fact, and not a part of the argument at hand, it is instead how I perceive you judging from your going from debating reasonably, switching consistently abruptly to empty glib and invalid claims, when you are cornered and defeated.

[-1-]

I am sorry, Logik, but I don't argue with simpleton naysayers. If you get a valid argument, I'll reply to it, but I don't have the time for fools who hide behind glib and believe they can snow-job everybody else.

Then I want you to hear you say it loud and clear. Reject the wrongness of murder.

Don't hide behind philosophical platitude.

State it as clearly as you can that 'some murder is not wrong' and provide an example.

Because it sure seems the only way you know how to win arguments is through nitpicking edge cases.

All you have to do to get that is to read the preceding posts. I ain't going to repeat myself because you ask for it.

Obviously you are trying to pretend there was nothing valid said, or else you are indeed nothing else but glib. Even at the best of times.

[Logik]

I am sorry, I ought to have made that clearer. That utterance by me was not a part of the argument; it is, instead, outside the topic of the debate, and I am calling an apparent fact (apparent as it appears on many pages of this forum).

You mistake a sanctimonious p**** (a.k.a objective moralist) for a narcissist. Of course - it's your prerogative to hold whatever opinions of me you wish and hurl whatever pejorative or DSM diagnosis you managed to Google. Doesn't bother me one bit.

The Precautionary and No-harm/beneficence principles stand at the foundation of ethics in modern society. The intentions behind these principles can be traced in just about every society since Ur-Nammu, Hammurabi and all the Cuneiform laws. Human lives matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficence_(ethics)

To ignore this fact requires some serious philosophical blinkers.

The precautionary principle is precisely why the Boeing 737 MAX is grounded world-wide.

Therefore it is NOT an ad hominem; it is merely my opinion of you, and not a fact, and not a part of the argument at hand, it is instead how I perceive you judging from your going from debating reasonably, switching consistently abruptly to empty glib and invalid claims, when you are cornered and defeated.

Indeed. Because an objective moralist understands first and foremost that the outcome matters far more than the 'logic' and 'reasaon' behind it.

You strike me as one of those gullible philosophers who pursue ideals at all cost.

Such as the ideal of logical consistency.
Or the ideal of a 'valid and sound claims'.
Or the ideal of justification.
Or the ideal of the unbiased observer.
Or the ideal of sincerity and depth.

You seek some perfect ritual that can tell you what is 'right' and 'wrong' and that will tell you how to act in the world. Bad news - doesn't exist. You actually have to use brain to compute the consequences of your actions. And in complex domains you have to look way past your nose.

Or maybe you are just being contrarian for philosophy's sake - I can't tell, so I am taking you on your word.

If your well-justified, consistent, valid/sound, unbiased, sincere and deep argument leads you to act in a way that results in harm - your argument is wrong. Irrespective of how many people agreed with you.

if X is a virtue (love, compassion, empathy) and X leads to harm . X is immoral. This is consequentialism 101.

So yeah, I know what 'harm' means. I know what 'right' and 'wrong' means (approximately not precisely).
If you present me with any argument which concludes that 'murder is right' - that is a sure sign your argument is wrong.

The fundamental difference between our positions is that that you are trying to get to morality, whereas I start with morality and work my way back.

Is it confirmation bias? Fuck yeah! Survivorship bias is a desirable trait in this universe.

Rationality is Systematized Winning.

How do I define Winning? In a moralist-Darwinian/risk-management/harm-reduction framework. Everything else is instrumental.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4ARtkT3 ... ed-winning

If you fail to achieve a correct answer, it is futile to protest that you acted with propriety

If you fail to conclude that murder is wrong, it's futile to protest that your argument is appropriate!

How you define "winning" makes all the difference in the way you play the game.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6ddcsdA ... ationality

Yes, there are various thought experiments in which some agents start out with an advantage - but if the task is to, say, decide whether to jump off a cliff, you want to be careful not to define cliff-refraining agents as having an unfair prior advantage over cliff-jumping agents, by virtue of their unfair refusal to jump off cliffs. At this point you have covertly redefined "winning" as conformance to a particular ritual of cognition. Pay attention to the money!

You are here to win arguments. Only, if you win the "murder is right" argument - you've won nothing but a Darwin award.

That is how misguided philosophy is when arguing against objective morality.

Philosophers have been staring at the is-ought gap for centuries. How is it that none of you "wise" men figured out you can just jump across?

[prof]

.

To be wrong is to violate a moral principle. such as "have respect." [When expanded this principle reads: 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. {This is not enough; we also want "murder is wrong" to betrue by observation. So read further....}

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 fact can be verified, in increasingly more-effective ways, as polling techniques are constantly improved and upgraded. If a proposition is true both by definition and by observation then it is true. Therefore Murder is (morally) wrong.


Here is what I learned lately from Eodnhoj7 from logik, and from other writers at this Forum:

When other individuals are stupid, or they goof-up, they are just making mistakes – which is something I do myself. Here is an idea for everyone you meet to consider:

Morality (and avoiding mistakes) is in our best-interest !!!

To learn about morality, its meaning and its structure, see Chapter Three in this paper:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf

Your views and reviews.....