TRUMP AHEAD?

[FlashDangerpants]

The objective definition is "premeditated killing." I think I gave that, did I not. I also explained why that's wrong. Man is created in the image of God, given life by God, and rightfully belongs to God, so to kill him is to act contrary to God. Locke said the same thing, actually.

That definition is inadequate. Killings in self defence are not murders, so your minimum viable definition would be "unjustified premeditated killing".

I considered adding that word in. It seemed unnecessary, but if you insist, fine. My comment would be that self-defense isn't premeditated. It may well be involuntary, in fact. But if you schemed to lead somebody to come into your house, and then you shot him and claimed self-defense, then you would still be a murderer.

There are other such cases. But we needn't get lost in the details here. We should keep things as clear as we can.

The phrase "premeditated murder" isn't redundant because murders can be spontaneous or premeditated so long as there is malice in the act itself. So you really should just go with "unjustified killing". Unless you want to capture the deliberate aspect in which case unjustified deliberate killing.

[Gary Childress]

I gave you my working definition of what murder is, what is yours? I'm interested in this "objective" definition you have. What is the objective definition of murder?

The objective definition is "premeditated killing." I think I gave that, did I not. I also explained why that's wrong. Man is created in the image of God, given life by God, and rightfully belongs to God, so to kill him is to act contrary to God. Locke said the same thing, actually.

OK. But you aren't against all pre-meditated killing, correct? I mean, if Israel is killing children in Gaza then you have no serious objection, correct? You're also not against the killing of any and every living being, correct? People engage in premeditated killing of other animals, so you need to refine your definition to take those things into account or do you believe premeditated killing of anything and anyone is murder?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You guys are being silly. The •murder• IC refers to is quite clear. You are just being difficult.

Enough …

[Immanuel Can]

The phrase "premeditated murder" isn't redundant...

Nobody said it was. I said the word "unjustified" was potentially opening 'cans of worms' that are easier not to open. Every murderer can "justify" his actions, if "justification" means no more than to explain a reason he wanted to do it. But real "justification" takes a lot more than that.

But I did consider including it, because it does play a role. For example, if one kills in order to protect an innocent from being killed, that's justifiable. It's not "self-defense," but it's certainly defense of the life of another against a violent attacker. Again, though, we get into these particulars where we can get distracted, so I chose not to raise the word.

But if you want it back in, go ahead.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's not a strategy or resolution. The study of science and psychology led me to the understanding that Western philosophy is simply fundamentally untenable due to its dualistic thinking. It just doesn't fit the known world. It's not capable of fitting it. I discovered nondual thinking before I even realized that it's already known in some parts of the East.

Once you established non-duality as a mode of thought — what then for your existential philosophy? Or your relations to the Occidental canon and perspectives? What would a non-dual perspective portend for social relations and social organization?

[Harbal]

Well what we know morality "is not," is "subjective." And we know that, because there isn't even one little precept that Subjectivism can require of us.

Can you explain why not being able to require anything of you makes my moral opinions not moral? I don't see the logic.

If Subjectivism were applied, you can't even require something of yourself.

Unless you have a court order, or something, I think you will find that I can carry on requiring whatever I like of myself.

You're getting your only guidance from your feelings

Yes, I realise that's the part you are finding difficult to understand.

To know whether you were experiencing a moral or immoral feeling, you would have to consult something that transcends your feelings, and, so to speak, judges them,

I certainly wouldn't go to the same consultant that you've been seeing.

And then you might explain why the fact that you can't come up with one little so called objective precept that can require anything of me doesn't make that precept similarly morally invalid.

Easy. Because precepts that are objective are universal and stable for everybody. Feelings are judged by them. If I "feel like" murdering, that won't make murder right...it will still be objectively evil.

You say all abortion is objectively evil but that doesn't require me to agree with you, so it appears that "objectivism" doesn't pass your moral test, either.

I can't quite work out how yet another rascally little word managed to sneak its way into the wrong definition in the dictionary.

Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Again the dictionary fails.

Me, struggling to keep a straight face.

Do you really want to go with a definition like that?

I'm afraid I don't have your confidence when it comes to challenging dictionaries.

[FlashDangerpants]

I gave you my working definition of what murder is, what is yours? I'm interested in this "objective" definition you have. What is the objective definition of murder?

The objective definition is "premeditated killing."

If the objective definition of murder were in fact "premeditated killing" then prmeditated murder would be "premeditated premeditated killing", which is redundant...

The phrase "premeditated murder" isn't redundant...

Nobody said it was.

Your inadequate definition entails that it would be.

I said the word "unjustified" was potentially opening 'cans of worms' that are easier not to open.

The truth is the truth whether you find it convenient or not. Murder is by definition unjustified killing and you can tell this is true because all unjustified killings are murders and no justified killings are.

[Harbal]

Man is created in the image of God, given life by God, and rightfully belongs to God,

And does God have any documentary proof of ownership?

Indeed He does.

You're "made in his image," in that unlike lower animals, you have personhood, self-knowledge, volition, freedom, moral awareness and responsibility. That makes humans quite unique among creatures in this world. The stamp of His work is on all of us.

It's my own fault for asking a silly question.

[FlashDangerpants]

You guys are being silly. The •murder• IC refers to is quite clear. You are just being difficult.

Enough …

IC is clearly wrong. Killings that are justified aren't murders, killings that are unjustified are murders, this is entirely obvious.

[Immanuel Can]

Can you explain why not being able to require anything of you makes my moral opinions not moral? I don't see the logic.

If Subjectivism were applied, you can't even require something of yourself.

Unless you have a court order, or something, I think you will find that I can carry on requiring whatever I like of myself.

Heh. You're not "requiring" anything of yourself at all. Your feelings might change in the next five minutes, and feelings are all you have. There's no external metric, you say, by which you can be judged to be moral, and the internal one is clearly highly variable.

You're getting your only guidance from your feelings

Yes, I realise that's the part you are finding difficult to understand.

Only because it's silly. Your feelings are ephemeral, as are all feelings.

To know whether you were experiencing a moral or immoral feeling, you would have to consult something that transcends your feelings, and, so to speak, judges them,

I certainly wouldn't go to the same consultant that you've been seeing.

So far as I can tell, you have none at all. But that's the great thing about objective morality...it's the same for everybody.

You say all abortion is objectively evil but that doesn't require me to agree with you,

Agreement is irrelevant. If you don't agree, you'll murder babies. If you do agree, you won't. But you don't ultimately answer to me, though you would answer for that choice, of course.

I'm afraid I don't have your confidence when it comes to challenging dictionaries.

Fair enough. Since I understand how dictionaries are assembled, I guess I lack your blind trust in their pronouncements.

[Immanuel Can]

"premeditated premeditated killing", which is redundant...

You've lost me. I never used any such phrase.

The truth is the truth whether you find it convenient or not.

Ah. Now we agree.

[FlashDangerpants]

You've lost me.

That's becaue you ignore all context as a tactic.

[Alexiev]

In many ways, and pre-eminently, in the person of Jesus Christ. See Hebrews 1: 1-3.

I get it. But, of course, Jesus' statements are second hand. They were probably remembered by his followers, and then written down 60 years later. It'sdubious to think they were remembered perfectly, although the faithful probably tried to remember the exact words.

Then Mohammed is not a prophet to anybody but Arabic speakers. To everybody else, he's incomprehensible, you're saying. And that's bad, because as you know, the Koran is the lone "miracle" that is supposed to validate his credentials. Without it, he would not be recognizable as a prophet at all, even to Arabic speakers. So to most of the world, he will never be a prophet, if what you say is correct. They cannot perceive his "miracle,"and thus have no reason to believe the words ascribed to him in the Koran.

But I'll bet you think he's supposed to be a prophet to everybody. But he can't be, if what you say is true.

You lose your bet. However, Jews are required to learn Hebrew for Bar Mitzvahs. Muslims all learn Arabic to read the Quran, and that's not so horrible, is it? Translation is always a problem. Poetry -- and the Bible is filled with poetry -- is notoriously difficult to translate. A poem's "meaning" cannot be expressed in different words. The meaning involves not only the meaning of the words, but the sounds and the rhythms in which they are expressed. Paraphrase is inadequate.

Because translations (proper ones) are not translations of translations, but translations of the text. As such, the more of them there are, the more accurate the translations possible become.

And no book in the history of the world has been more often, more carefully translated than the Bible. That's just an empirical fact. You might argue you don't agree with what the Bible says, but you can't fault the effort put into translating what was said. Literally nothing has had more, or more careful, or more expert attention more often.

Of course. And some claim the translations of the Bible are "inspired". That's why the translations of the Bible are both more accurate and more poetic than those of the Quran. Nonetheless, to think that Jesus "speaks to you" through an English translation of a book written in Greek 60 years after Jesus died is a bit of a stretch. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John, 1. What does this mean? I'll grant that I don't know the original Greek, but I see it as meaning that God and culture are one. The "objective" morality that derives from God is the objective morality that derives from our cultural heritage. Language ("the Word") is, after all, the essence of culture.

[Immanuel Can]

You've lost me.

That's becaue you ignore all context as a tactic.

No...because you're making no sense.

[Atla]

It's not a strategy or resolution. The study of science and psychology led me to the understanding that Western philosophy is simply fundamentally untenable due to its dualistic thinking. It just doesn't fit the known world. It's not capable of fitting it. I discovered nondual thinking before I even realized that it's already known in some parts of the East.

Once you established non-duality as a mode of thought — what then for your existential philosophy? Or your relations to the Occidental canon and perspectives? What would a non-dual perspective portend for social relations and social organization?

Ugh sorry.. these topics are too big to get into here. Nondualism is a whole different world, and yet it's the same world. Did you know that you probably also were a nondualist once, for a short time, in very early childhood, before it got overwritten..