Why is Murder Wrong?

[eric42434224]

The problem for the moral relativist is they have no good answer to the two-part question: Is there anything wrong with an action (say murder) and if so why?

That's only a problem for you because you're demanding a 'satisfactory' answer to that question. I'd say there isn't one.

Exactly.

[lonestar]

This thread and all the others like it read to me like a debate on religion, morals and existence as conducted by robots.  It's like a Philip K. Dick novel or something.

I love it!!!


So, on the topic of the thread(remember that guys?), could the negative connotation of murder have evolved out of the development of human cultures?  How would murder, as a tool in a structured society, negatively affect that society, and how did this eventually evolve into the grand negative stigma that murder has now, as it did similarily with molestation and incest.

[Omega]

The problem for the moral relativist is they have no good answer to the two-part question: Is there anything wrong with an action (say murder) and if so why?

That's only a problem for you because you're demanding a 'satisfactory' answer to that question. I'd say there isn't one.

Uh, yes. I agree:

"The problem for the moral relativist is they have no good answer to the two-part question: Is there anything wrong with an action (say murder) and if so why?"

"Appealing to the relative whims of society or personal preferences doesn't provide satisfying answers."

Ergo murder is not wrong in moral relativism. Indeed nothing is either wrong or right.

[Omega]

So, on the topic of the thread(remember that guys?), could the negative connotation of murder have evolved out of the development of human cultures?  How would murder, as a tool in a structured society, negatively affect that society, and how did this eventually evolve into the grand negative stigma that murder has now, as it did similarily with molestation and incest.

On a naturalistic view, moral values are just the by-product of biological evolution and social conditioning. Just as a troop of baboons exhibit cooperative and even self-sacrificial behavior because natural selection has determined it to be advantageous in the struggle for survival, so their primate cousin Homo sapiens exhibit similar behavior for the same reason. As a result of sociobiological pressures there has evolved among Homo sapiens a sort of "herd morality," which functions well in the perpetuation of our species. But on an atheistic worldview, there doesn't seem to be anything about Homo sapiens that makes this morality objectively true. If I we were to rewind the tape of human evolution back to the beginning and start anew, people with very different set of moral values might well have evolved.

Certain actions such as incest or rape or murder may not be biologically and socially advantageous and so in the course of human history have become taboo, but that does nothing to show that rape or murder or incest is objectively wrong. The murderer or rapist who goes against the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.

[eric42434224]

This thread and all the others like it read to me like a debate on religion, morals and existence as conducted by robots.  It's like a Philip K. Dick novel or something.

I love it!!!


So, on the topic of the thread(remember that guys?), could the negative connotation of murder have evolved out of the development of human cultures?  How would murder, as a tool in a structured society, negatively affect that society, and how did this eventually evolve into the grand negative stigma that murder has now, as it did similarily with molestation and incest.

I think that is exactly how it evolved.  That is how ALL morals have evolved.

[Sigz]

And? I'm not seeing why this is a problem. You're not satisfied, but that doesn't make it an inconsistent worldview as you previously claimed.

[eric42434224]

The problem for the moral relativist is they have no good answer to the two-part question: Is there anything wrong with an action (say murder) and if so why?

That's only a problem for you because you're demanding a 'satisfactory' answer to that question. I'd say there isn't one.

Uh, yes. I agree:

"The problem for the moral relativist is they have no good answer to the two-part question: Is there anything wrong with an action (say murder) and if so why?"

"Appealing to the relative whims of society or personal preferences doesn't provide satisfying answers."

Ergo murder is not wrong in moral relativism. Indeed nothing is either wrong or right.

Nope.  It is thought of that way only from an objective moralists viewpoint.
I can think a murder is wrong.  So to me it is wrong.  I dont need it to be wrong for everyone else, like you do. 
Wierd how you cant accept that.

[the Catfishman]

Omega, do you think this 'problem' is inherent to an atheist world-view? or do you see a way objective morality can be compatible with being an atheist.

[Rathma]

Ergo murder is not wrong in moral relativism. Indeed nothing is either wrong or right.

u mad?

[Omega]

And? I'm not seeing why this is a problem. You're not satisfied, but that doesn't make it an inconsistent worldview as you previously claimed.

At this point, I'm just copy / pasting from my long post.

"Let the moral relativist be lied to, be the victim of false advertising, or of a crime and he instantly becomes a moral absolutist. A person’s reaction to what he considers unfair ethical treatment always betrays his true feelings on the matter of relative vs. objective moral laws....when things go wrong for him."

In moral relativism, you cannot condemn or praise any action.

[Omega]

Nope.  It is thought of that way only from an objective moralists viewpoint.
I can think a murder is wrong.  So to me it is wrong.  I dont need it to be wrong for everyone else

Precisely! This is moral relativism!

[eric42434224]

In moral relativism, you cannot condemn or praise any action.

yes we can.

Nope.  It is thought of that way only from an objective moralists viewpoint.
I can think a murder is wrong.  So to me it is wrong.  I dont need it to be wrong for everyone else

Precisely! This is moral relativism!

No fuc*ing sh*t.  That is what we have been telling you all along.
You subscribe to objective morals....we dont.

What is your point?

[Sigz]

As has been pointed out countless times before, when people who don't believe in objective morality say "murder is wrong" it's shorthand for saying "it is my personal opinion based on my own subjective beliefs that it is wrong to kill another person in cold blood." It's just that no one spells it out because most people don't need it spelled out for them.

[Omega]

Omega, do you think this 'problem' is inherent to an atheist world-view? or do you see a way objective morality can be compatible with being an atheist.

My fault is not superficially with atheism, it is with moral relativism / subjectivism.

But given atheism, it would be impossible to assert the existence of objective morality without appealing to a transcendent foundation for morality. Some atheists subscribe to what is known as Moral Platonism -- that objective moral values and duties just exist, without foundation. Moral Platonism, though, as I have argued in another thread, is unintelligible, unfeasible and provides no basis for moral duties. So as an atheist, you simply left with moral relativism, which, as I have just argued, is self-refuting and never lived out consistently by its alleged subscribers.

[Omega]

In moral relativism, you cannot condemn or praise any action.

yes we can.

Nope.  It is thought of that way only from an objective moralists viewpoint.
I can think a murder is wrong.  So to me it is wrong.  I dont need it to be wrong for everyone else

Precisely! This is moral relativism!

No fuc*ing sh*t.  That is what we have been telling you all along.
You subscribe to objective morals....we dont.

What is your point?

Eric, just read the really long post I made not too long ago. It addresses every little comment you've been writing. And if you still can't understand it, then just leave the thread because this is clearly going over you head.

[eric42434224]

What is clear is that you are on your second thread trying to show moral relativism is "self refuting", etc.  And it seems that most of what we are all telling you is either going over you head, or you are just too stubborn to accept it.

[kirksnosehair]

And once again we end up at the same place.   

[Sigz]

So as an atheist, you simply left with moral relativism, which, as I have just argued, is self-refuting and never lived out consistently by its alleged subscribers.

1) I showed why it isn't self-refuting and you ignored it. Moral relativism doesn't assert that no absolute truths exist, so it's not contradicting anything.

2) "The issue is not: Does Christian hypocrisy towards morality invalidate it?"

[eric42434224]

Omega, do you think this 'problem' is inherent to an atheist world-view? or do you see a way objective morality can be compatible with being an atheist.

My fault is not superficially with atheism, it is with moral relativism / subjectivism.

But given atheism, it would be impossible to assert the existence of objective morality without appealing to a transcendent foundation for morality. Some atheists subscribe to what is known as Moral Platonism -- that objective moral values and duties just exist, without foundation. Moral Platonism, though, as I have argued in another thread, is unintelligible, unfeasible and provides no basis for moral duties. So as an atheist, you simply left with moral relativism, which, as I have just argued, is self-refuting and never lived out consistently by its alleged subscribers.

moral relativism doesnt need to be "lived out consistently" by its subscribers.  it is fluid and changes.  pretty simple concept.....unless you are an objective moralist with the silly idea that relativism somehow isnt valid.

[yeshaberto]

In moral relativism, you cannot condemn or praise any action.

yes we can.

Nope.  It is thought of that way only from an objective moralists viewpoint.
I can think a murder is wrong.  So to me it is wrong.  I dont need it to be wrong for everyone else

Precisely! This is moral relativism!

No fuc*ing sh*t.  That is what we have been telling you all along.
You subscribe to objective morals....we dont.

What is your point?

Eric, just read the really long post I made not too long ago. It addresses every little comment you've been writing. And if you still can't understand it, then just leave the thread because this is clearly going over you head.

not an appropriate response to disagreement....warning issued

[Rathma]

Omega's threads are always made to present a point, not to actually have an argument. Hence the pages of fruitless "debate".

[yeshaberto]

Omega's threads are always made to present a point, not to actually have an argument. Hence the pages of fruitless "debate".

and statements like this don't help to create fruitful debate

[Zook]

This thread is dildos. I mean seriously, none of you arguing that murder is neither right or wrong would ever go kill an innocent person and not feel regret, remorse and absolute dread. And if you don't feel any of those things, then you're a fucking zombie.

Also, non-believers (atheists, agnostics, whatever) aren't moral-less without god. This shit has been discussed countless times. Just becuase we we don't believe in a god and it's divinely set laws doesn't mean we're soulless (for lack of a better word) monsters who feel no pain and don't know right from wrong.

My parents taught me right from wrong, and neither of them are religious either. Well, my mom is a practicing wiccan, but she didn't start that until much later in life.

[Omega]

not an appropriate response to disagreement....warning issued

Hang on

I ask someone who clearly is not understanding the topic to leave the thread while that person writes things like: "No fuc*ing sh*t.  That is what we have been telling you all along.
You subscribe to objective morals....we dont.

What is your point?"

And I get a warning? Seriously?

[yeshaberto]

Once again I find ironic that we are arguing whether it is right or wrong that there is a right or wrong

[Omega]

Oh, I wasn't being facetious. The moderation here is teetering on bi-polar.

[yeshaberto]

What is clear is that you are on your second thread trying to show moral relativism is "self refuting", etc.  And it seems that most of what we are all telling you is either going over you head, or you are just too stubborn to accept it.

this statement isn't any different than Omega's...knock it off!

[Aramatheis]

Thats cool.  But to say there is proof, is simply incorrect.  It may be what you call "proof" to yourself, but it is not what proof really means.


No, that is exactly what proof means.  I'm not sure why you are getting tripped up on semantics.

Semantics aside, you still haven't offered anything that constitutes proof of God's existence.

[Omega]

Thats cool.  But to say there is proof, is simply incorrect.  It may be what you call "proof" to yourself, but it is not what proof really means.


No, that is exactly what proof means.  I'm not sure why you are getting tripped up on semantics.

Semantics aside, you still haven't offered anything that constitutes proof of God's existence.

Don't let me do your extremely hard moderator work for you, yeshaberto, but what exactly does this query and its previous long, drawn out sub-discussion have to do with the topic?

[Scheavo]

Since you apparently forgot your own OP:

I'm interested to hear why the murdering of another human being is wrong in the context of your worldview.

God, at least for Bosk and you, is this context.

[yeshaberto]

Thats cool.  But to say there is proof, is simply incorrect.  It may be what you call "proof" to yourself, but it is not what proof really means.


No, that is exactly what proof means.  I'm not sure why you are getting tripped up on semantics.

Semantics aside, you still haven't offered anything that constitutes proof of God's existence.

Don't let me do your extremely hard moderator work for you, yeshaberto, but what exactly does this query and its previous long, drawn out sub-discussion have to do with the topic?

I am going to assume your sarcasm here and your bi-polar comment are meant in the best way.

[senecadawg2]

I'm amazed at how fast this conversation is moving. I leave for 2 hours and come back to find an additional 2 pages.

[kirksnosehair]

I'm amazed that every thread that Omega starts turns into an insult hurling contest.

[Omega]

Kirk, you too have contributed nothing to the topic at hand other than back-handed jabs and the occasional "facetious" post.

Yea, but don't worry; I'll get a warning for it, not you.

[yeshaberto]

I'm amazed that every thread that Omega starts turns into an insult hurling contest.

seriously?
warning issued