Why is Murder Wrong?

[eric42434224]

And what if a god exists that decrees that murder is okay, even if other gods say it's wrong? Is that god wrong? or are the other gods wrong? I don't like truth/morality arguments told from a religious perspective because there are, apparently, an infinite number of 'correct' interpretations based on whatever it is you decide to believe in.

Funny how that the "objective" morality from ones god is so subjective, as it all depends on which god you subscribe to.   

[Scheavo]

yessir, this is just one of several reasons why I am a vegan.

aren't plants worthy of the same protection?

Eating fruit off of a plant does not kill it, nor does picking the flower off of a plant.

So is it ok to eat an animal if I just eat the toes?

Bad comparison. Plants are not sentient beings, because they posses no nervous system. Sense of self (consiousness), is derived from the brain. Without brains, there is absolutely no evidence that plants can feel anything. On the other hand, if I were to cut your fingers off (pun intended), you would most certainly feel it. If you provide proof for me that plants are sentient beings, then I may reconsider.

https://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/stefano_mancuso_the_roots_of_plant_intelligence.html

Sentience? I can't "prove" beyond a shadow of a doubt that anyone other than me is conscious. It's not really possible. So, if there's no real test to do it towards other humans, how then am I supposed to prove to you that plants are conscious? I can only ask that you look at the facts, that there is something more to plants than what we normally give them credit for, and that possibly this makes them "conscious" on some level.

It's not just me that believes that pigs, cows, and chickens are not conscious. Animal consciousness is a very specific term, and in order for an animal to be conscious, it must generally pass a few benchmark tests. Most animals with consciousness are mammals (the Eurasian Magpie is the only bird to have been labelled conscious, by the by). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Cognition#Consciousness

I would just point out that you said "believes," and avoided stating anything factual. It's reasonable, and in line with evolution, to imagine that most, if not all, animals are conscious, it's just that said consciousness may not be what we experience. After all, our experiences are only experienced after being filtered through our brains, and often after our thoughts are modified into a human language.

What you seem to be pointing more to, is not consciousness, but self-consciousness. Not awareness, but being aware that we are aware.

Until we actually answer what consciousness is - which we really have no clue about as of right now - we can't possibly say what is not conscious.

[bosk1]

And what if a god exists that decrees that murder is okay, even if other gods say it's wrong? Is that god wrong? or are the other gods wrong? I don't like truth/morality arguments told from a religious perspective because there are, apparently, an infinite number of 'correct' interpretations based on whatever it is you decide to believe in.

Irrelevant because no other god exists.

The only problem, is that traffic laws are written and enforced by entities that we know exists.

Which is why it is such a great analogy.  We can have the same level of confidence and certainty that God is real and that his laws are just.

No, you can't.

Sorry, but you are mistaken.  I can and do. 

[eric42434224]

The only problem, is that traffic laws are written and enforced by entities that we know exists.

Which is why it is such a great analogy.  We can have the same level of confidence and certainty that God is real and that his laws are just.

No, you can't.

Sorry, but you are mistaken.  I can and do.
[/quote]

Excuse me, I should have said WE cant.  You may be able to convince yourself, but not everyone is capable of taking that leap of faith.

[bosk1]

Yeah, you can.  There's little "leaping" involved.  Just take a look at the eyewitness accounts for yourself.  They are many, and quite convincing.

[eric42434224]

Yeah, you can.  There's little "leaping" involved.  Just take a look at the eyewitness accounts for yourself.  They are many, and quite convincing.

Yes, YOU can.  For someone like you they are convincing.  But there is a BUTTLOAD of leaping  .  I can touch a cop or a judge.

[theseoafs]

It's not just me that believes that pigs, cows, and chickens are not conscious. Animal consciousness is a very specific term, and in order for an animal to be conscious, it must generally pass a few benchmark tests. Most animals with consciousness are mammals (the Eurasian Magpie is the only bird to have been labelled conscious, by the by). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Cognition#Consciousness

I would just point out that you said "believes," and avoided stating anything factual. It's reasonable, and in line with evolution, to imagine that most, if not all, animals are conscious, it's just that said consciousness may not be what we experience. After all, our experiences are only experienced after being filtered through our brains, and often after our thoughts are modified into a human language.

What you seem to be pointing more to, is not consciousness, but self-consciousness. Not awareness, but being aware that we are aware.

Until we actually answer what consciousness is - which we really have no clue about as of right now - we can't possibly say what is not conscious.

You are clever to take issue with my terminology. The fact of the matter is that consciousness is made up -- it doesn't exist in any kind of concrete way. We made up consciousness. Roughly, from a purely psychological-scientific point of view, consciousness is "knowing that you exist as a physical being on a physical plane, and that you can interact with things on that physical plane"; consciousness and self-consciousness are about the same thing under the proper definition.

If we go back to the beginning of the conversation (I've noticed that discussions on DTF tend to drift away from where they started, rather than being resolved. Rather odd.), we'll find that all I was really saying was that seneca was wrong to say that we shouldn't harm animals because they're "conscious", because most of the animals we eat are not, by the proper scientific definition of the term, "conscious". It was a semantic issue. We've defined consciousness to be a certain thing and many of the animals which seneca labeled as "conscious" and as "having a sense of self" just aren't, under the scientific definition. And what's the point of this discussion if we're not going to employ science and logic?

EDIT: You can find more on the scientific definition of consciousness here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Defining_consciousness

[bosk1]

Yeah, you can.  There's little "leaping" involved.  Just take a look at the eyewitness accounts for yourself.  They are many, and quite convincing.

Yes, YOU can.  For someone like you they are convincing.  But there is a BUTTLOAD of leaping  .  I can touch a cop or a judge.

You can touch a lawyer too.  If you want to. 

[eric42434224]

Yeah, you can.  There's little "leaping" involved.  Just take a look at the eyewitness accounts for yourself.  They are many, and quite convincing.

Yes, YOU can.  For someone like you they are convincing.  But there is a BUTTLOAD of leaping  .  I can touch a cop or a judge.

You can touch a lawyer too.  If you want to. 

I need an adult!

[Zook]

Eyewitness accounts? Kinda like all those alien abductions?

Yeah, you can.  There's little "leaping" involved.  Just take a look at the eyewitness accounts for yourself.  They are many, and quite convincing.

Yes, YOU can.  For someone like you they are convincing.  But there is a BUTTLOAD of leaping  .  I can touch a cop or a judge.

You can touch a lawyer too.  If you want to. 

I need an adult!

lol Gohan

[Scheavo]

Depending upon what you mean by saying consciousness is "made up," I might agree with you... or I might completely disagree with you. Our concept of consciousness is a fabrication, but as Descartes showed us centuries ago, we cannot doubt that we exist - or more properly, I cannot doubt that I exist. The nature of that consciousness is given, it was given to me, and it's all I've ever known.

consciousness and self-consciousness are about the same thing under the proper definition.

I think there's enough wiggle room to seperate the two, but they are highly related - and the difference between the two may just be a language to express consciousness.

because most of the animals we eat are not, by the proper scientific definition of the term, "conscious".

But there isn't any science behind that claim. This is an assumption, one that's rarely been terribly challenged by peole - and when it is challenged, it usually shows itself to be a falsehood.

All the reasoning we use to apply unconsciousness to animals can be equally applied to humans, if using the right perspective. We are not nearly as free as we usually like to think we are, and we are a creature of instinct as much as any animal. If you'd like an interesting book on the matter, I'd suggest The Animal that Therefor I Am by Jacques Derrida. It's a little weird (pretty quickly he's talking about a cat looking at him naked), but he does a good job of tearing apart the false dichotomy, where man is something other than nature, and somehow special, unique or holding some traits most animals don't have.

As a side note, ever hear about that autistic girl who helped ranchers develop better methods of corralling cows? She got "in the mindset" of a cow, looking through the world as if she was a cow, and suggested adjustments to the system that worked. If humans can imagine themselves, correctly, in a cows shoes, why assume that cows are completely unconscious, or aware - especially when they show signs of individuality?

[Omega]

The importance of the question of whether objective moral values and duties exist is immeasurable and depending on how you answer is extremely significant. Haha, nuts! Get it? Cuz you said nu... nutty...

For you. It bears no importance or relevance to most of us. You seem to fail to grasp that.

rumborak

Sorry didn't notice this (and I thought you had me on your "don't engage in dialogue at any cost" list).

Rumborak, how you answer the question "do objective moral values and duties exist?" determines whether it is truly wrong to murder someone or not.

[theseoafs]

Depending upon what you mean by saying consciousness is "made up," I might agree with you... or I might completely disagree with you. Our concept of consciousness is a fabrication, but as Descartes showed us centuries ago, we cannot doubt that we exist - or more properly, I cannot doubt that I exist. The nature of that consciousness is given, it was given to me, and it's all I've ever known.

consciousness and self-consciousness are about the same thing under the proper definition.

I think there's enough wiggle room to seperate the two, but they are highly related - and the difference between the two may just be a language to express consciousness.

because most of the animals we eat are not, by the proper scientific definition of the term, "conscious".

A But there isn't any science behind that claim. This is an assumption, one that's rarely been terribly challenged by peole - and when it is challenged, it usually shows itself to be a falsehood.

All the reasoning we use to apply unconsciousness to animals can be equally applied to humans, if using the right perspective. We are not nearly as free as we usually like to think we are, and we are a creature of instinct as much as any animal. B If you'd like an interesting book on the matter, I'd suggest The Animal that Therefor I Am by Jacques Derrida. It's a little weird, but he does a good job of tearing apart the false dichotomy, where man is something other than nature, and somehow special, unique or holding some traits most animals don't have.

C As a side note, ever hear about that autistic girl who helped ranchers develop better methods of corralling cows? She got "in the mindset" of a cow, looking through the world as if she was a cow, and suggested adjustments to the system that worked. If humans can imagine themselves, correctly, in a cows shoes, why assume that cows are completely unconscious, or aware - especially when they show signs of individuality?

A couple things:

A You say there isn't any science behind the claim that some animals are not conscious. This is not true. There is no "assumption" whatsoever. It's all definitional: one day, psychologists said that "all things that are conscious will do X, Y, and Z", and from then on all things that did X, Y, and Z were called conscious, and that's that. All I'm talking about, and all I've been talking about for the last two pages, has been whether the animals in question meet the requirements for what we defined to be consciousness. You seem to be arguing that science somehow badly or incorrectly defined consciousness, but the spiritual or dualist definition of consciousness doesn't have much to do at all with the scientific definition. So what exactly are you saying here?

B Sounds interesting. I'll try to find it at the library.

C No, I've not heard of this story. Maybe you should elaborate, but I can imagine myself in a rock's shoes as well. To me, "showing signs of individuality" doesn't really mean anything substantial; maybe cows have quirks because of their upbringings or youths or genes, but that doesn't mean the cows understand their quirks or the quirks of other cows or how their own quirks make them different.

[Scheavo]

C No, I've not heard of this story. Maybe you should elaborate, but I can imagine myself in a rock's shoes as well. To me, "showing signs of individuality" doesn't really mean anything substantial; maybe cows have quirks because of their upbringings or youths or genes, but that doesn't mean the cows understand their quirks or the quirks of other cows or how their own quirks make them different.

I never said you did, but I see how I was unclear about it. Consciousness has degrees, so to say that two things are both conscious is not to say they are the same, but of the same kind - or, conversely, the difference between my consciousness and a cows is not one of kind, but of degree.

It isn't that they understand their quirks - it's that they have quirks. I'm not saying they're vastly intelligent animals, just that they are aware, they have feelings, etc - and it is those feelings which we humans can relate to. Can you relate to how a rock feels? And no, I don't think rocks feel, or are conscious, and I'm willing to bet you don't think so either.

[Omega]

I find it amusing that someone could read the Bible and then argue morality is objective.

If you think that's what I'm doing, you're sorely mistaken.

[Omega]

So for those of us who don't believe in God, is murder still wrong, and why?  Serious question.

If God does not exist, then you are forced to see morality as nothing but a subjective human construct which cannot tell you what actions are objectively "right" or "wrong" and you lose yourself in moral relativism.

[Omega]

the question of whether objective moral values and duties exist is an incredibly important question

Not really.

Yes.

How you answer the question determines if murdering someone is objectively wrong.

[Scheavo]

the question of whether objective moral values and duties exist is an incredibly important question

Not really.

Yes.

How you answer the question determines if murdering someone is objectively wrong.

Why does it matter if it's objectively wrong? If it's "subjectively wrong," it's still wrong.

Are you proposing murders would go up without an objective belief in making murder wrong? Or that you would go around killing people if God didn't command you not to?

[GuineaPig]

I find it amusing that someone could read the Bible and then argue morality is objective.

If you think that's what I'm doing, you're sorely mistaken.

Your belief that objective morality exists does not stem from your religion?

[Omega]

And what if a god exists that decrees that murder is okay, even if other gods say it's wrong? Is that god wrong? or are the other gods wrong? I don't like truth/morality arguments told from a religious perspective because there are, apparently, an infinite number of 'correct' interpretations based on whatever it is you decide to believe in.

This is the Euthyphro dilemma which goes a little like this:

1.) Is something good because God wills it?
2.) Or does God will something because it is good?

If you affirm the first one, then what is good becomes arbitrary (as God could have willed that murder is good and then we would be morally obligated to murder).

If you affirm the latter, then what is good or bad is independent of God.

While it seems as if there's no way to escape either of the two horns of the Euthyphro Dilemma, the dilemma is a false a one.

There's a third alternative, namely that God wills something because He is good. God's own nature is the standard of goodness and His will is an expression of His nature.

[hefdaddy42]

the question of whether objective moral values and duties exist is an incredibly important question

Not really.

Yes.

How you answer the question determines if murdering someone is objectively wrong.

Wrong is wrong.  Objective, schmobjective.

Seriously, this doesn't matter at all, to anyone, in real life.  Only in philosophy class.  Most people just accept that it's wrong and go from there.

[Omega]

And what if a god exists that decrees that murder is okay, even if other gods say it's wrong? Is that god wrong? or are the other gods wrong? I don't like truth/morality arguments told from a religious perspective because there are, apparently, an infinite number of 'correct' interpretations based on whatever it is you decide to believe in.

Funny how that the "objective" morality from ones god is so subjective, as it all depends on which god you subscribe to.   

You're confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology (namely the nature of reality with how we come to know of it).

[Omega]

Your belief that objective morality exists does not stem from your religion?

It stems from my belief of God and because its existence is (as I would argue) sufficiently clear (some philosophy helps, too).

[Omega]

Wrong is wrong.  Objective, schmobjective.

Seriously, this doesn't matter at all, to anyone, in real life.  Only in philosophy class.  Most people just accept that it's wrong and go from there.

The Unexamined Life is not worth living.

[Omega]

You've basically hit the nail on the head here, Omega. There's nothing here I disagree with. You're right to notice that morality, from a naturalistic point of view, doesn't exist.

Thank you, theseoafs, for being seemingly the only atheist who can at least understand the significance of objective and subjective morality. And no, this is not sarcasm.

[hefdaddy42]

Wrong is wrong.  Objective, schmobjective.

Seriously, this doesn't matter at all, to anyone, in real life.  Only in philosophy class.  Most people just accept that it's wrong and go from there.

The Unexamined Life is not worth living.

My life isn't unexamined.

[ehra]

You've basically hit the nail on the head here, Omega. There's nothing here I disagree with. You're right to notice that morality, from a naturalistic point of view, doesn't exist.

Thank you, theseoafs, for being seemingly the only atheist who can at least understand the significance of objective and subjective morality. And no, this is not sarcasm.

I can comprehend perfectly fine how it's "significant," the problem is that you can't make a single rational argument for why a world governed by subjective morality means you have to be accepting of any and all view points.

[GuineaPig]

Your belief that objective morality exists does not stem from your religion?

It stems from my belief of God and because its existence is (as I would argue) sufficiently clear (some philosophy helps, too).

Well then, I'm not clear which is more silly: taking the lesson of moral objectivity from a book like the Bible, or taking it from human history.

[Super Dude]

Omega, I hate to break up the discussion, particularly for something like this, but you realize you can quote multiple people in a single post right? And you can edit that same post so you don't have to quadruple post.

[senecadawg2]

I tend to agree with Scheavo's view on the difficulty in defining the true meaning of 'conscious', and that there are certain degrees to which that conscious can exist.

On another note, I just watched an interesting 10 episode web series (for a total of 1 hour) about an angst-ridden hit man (kiefer sutherland aka Jack Bauer) who confesses his sins to a preacher, leading to a discussion the ethics of murder. An interesting find for me after spending a large part of my day following this thread. It's on Netflix instant play.

[yeshaberto]

sounds interesting...what is title?

[the Catfishman]

So for those of us who don't believe in God, is murder still wrong, and why?  Serious question.

If God does not exist, then you are forced to see morality as nothing but a subjective human construct which cannot tell you what actions are objectively "right" or "wrong" and you lose yourself in moral relativism.

the bold part is where you lose me, do you have any evidence to back this up? is there really any evidence that people who believe in objective morality make different moral decisions than people who do not believe in objective morality? 

the question of whether objective moral values and duties exist is an incredibly important question

Not really.

Yes.

How you answer the question determines if murdering someone is objectively wrong.

and if you can't see a difference in the way people act with or without believing in objective morality is knowing it really that important? of is it a (fun) philosophical exercise?

[ZBomber]

The only problem, is that traffic laws are written and enforced by entities that we know exists.

Which is why it is such a great analogy.  We can have the same level of confidence and certainty that God is real and that his laws are just.

No, you can't.

Sorry, but you are mistaken.  I can and do.

Yeah, you can.  There's little "leaping" involved.  Just take a look at the eyewitness accounts for yourself.  They are many, and quite convincing.

No. That is why it is faith. Religion is faith based because it is something that can't really be proven. Whether or not your god is real, it is still something based entirely on putting your faith into something that can't ever be 100% proven one way or the other by humans, and won't really be known until we die (if then, even). What makes your eyewitness accounts anymore credible than one who claims the same for any god that isn't yours? If it was as cut and dry as you are making it out to be, then everyone in the whole world would follow the same god, the same religion and hardly anyone would doubt or be a nonbeliever. Clearly that is not the case.

Again, I'm not talking about how you personally feel about it and what you firmly believe to be true, but in general terms of something being a universal accepted fact.

[AndyDT]

Now, given naturalism, there's just no way you can derive moral values or duties from a test tube. You cannot get an ought from an is. Science is morally neutral.

Science isn't the totality of existence either. Arugably the premise of the topic might be an example of "mentalization" which,  according to David Hawkins, is something the ego does for a pay-off so that's an even narrower view of existence.

[Aramatheis]

No. That is why it is faith. Religion is faith based because it is something that can't really be proven. Whether or not your god is real, it is still something based entirely on putting your faith into something that can't ever be 100% proven one way or the other by humans, and won't really be known until we die (if then, even). What makes your eyewitness accounts anymore credible than one who claims the same for any god that isn't yours? If it was as cut and dry as you are making it out to be, then everyone in the whole world would follow the same god, the same religion and hardly anyone would doubt or be a nonbeliever. Clearly that is not the case.

Again, I'm not talking about how you personally feel about it and what you firmly believe to be true, but in general terms of something being a universal accepted fact.

Reported for being logical