Why is Murder Wrong?

[Ryzee]

I'm asking this question in all sincerity, and forgive me if I come off as stupid because I can't help it because I am stupid- but what is the point of all of these objective morality threads/arguments?  Is it a long-winded way for religious people to "prove" that they're "right" and non-believers/non-religious people are "wrong?"  I'm honestly wondering because I'm not sure, I skim through these threads and they never make any sense to me.

[rumborak]

There's a distinct "my firetruck is bigger" element to it, yeah.

rumborak

[eric42434224]

I'm asking this question in all sincerity, and forgive me if I come off as stupid because I can't help it because I am stupid- but what is the point of all of these objective morality threads/arguments?  Is it a long-winded way for religious people to "prove" that they're "right" and non-believers/non-religious people are "wrong?"  I'm honestly wondering because I'm not sure, I skim through these threads and they never make any sense to me.

Some people feel the need to believe in a god, and to have concrete "objective" moral rules given to them by said god.
That is totally cool with me.

Some people need to prove that their god and those objective morals exist, and cant accept that there are those that believe, nor need, neither.

[Omega]

Because, as is demonstrable, the question of whether objective moral values and duties exist is an incredibly important question, whether you realize it or not. Regardless, although I think that objective moral values and duties clearly do exist (for example, we have a duty to love a child rather than to abuse and murder it, or that the crimes of the Nazi regime were objectively wrong, regardless if even a majority of society were to agree or were to be brainwashed into believing that they were right -- etc), we must come to understand and help people realize what it means if morality is subjective. It may very well be the case that morality is nothing but an illusion -- we must simply understand what it would mean if this is true.

[ehra]

It just seems as if the reasons Omega needs an objective morality is becuase a perspective morality (not the same thing as subjective) isn't firm enough, and doesn't allow you to make statements like "murder is wrong." We can come up with many ways to demonstrate to someone that murder is wrong, and we don't need to introduce God into the equation. As long as we teach those lessons, we'll be in the same position as if we taught God, as far as I can see.

Call it "Subjective Morality" or "Perspective Morality" or "Schmespectic Schmorality," if there are no objective moral values and duties, then no actions are either prohibited nor obligatory, "wrong" or "right," "good" or "evil."

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.

EVERY time this conversation comes up, you show time and time again you can not come up with an argument about how a group of people deciding that they're not going to put up with any murder in a world with "subjective morality" isn't logically sound. Each and every argument you end up making amounts to "it's not objective so it makes no sense" which is hilarious coming from someone posing on a fansite dedicated to a band.


edit:

I'm asking this question in all sincerity, and forgive me if I come off as stupid because I can't help it because I am stupid- but what is the point of all of these objective morality threads/arguments?  Is it a long-winded way for religious people to "prove" that they're "right" and non-believers/non-religious people are "wrong?"  I'm honestly wondering because I'm not sure, I skim through these threads and they never make any sense to me.

Pretty much. The end result of the argument would be "our social rules wouldn't make sense if morality is subjective, thus it must be objective so obviously God exists. Checkmate atheists."

[bosk1]

Hearing that divinely ordained morals are necessary is like hearing from a drug addict that it's the drug that calms him down, and thus he recommends it to everyone, because without it he would go apeshit. Whereas all the clean people stand there scratching their heads, because they're totally fine without it.

rumborak

I don't think anyone (other than Omega) said that having divinely ordained morals, as you put it, is "necessary."  Rather, simply that divinely ordained morals simply are.

I'm asking this question in all sincerity, and forgive me if I come off as stupid because I can't help it because I am stupid- but what is the point of all of these objective morality threads/arguments?  Is it a long-winded way for religious people to "prove" that they're "right" and non-believers/non-religious people are "wrong?"  I'm honestly wondering because I'm not sure, I skim through these threads and they never make any sense to me.

I don't think there is a point, other than Omega seems obsessed with arguing over the issue.  And while a good number of the rest of us religious folk may think his reasoning is a bit nutty, we generally agree with a few of his conclusions.

[rumborak]

Hearing that divinely ordained morals are necessary is like hearing from a drug addict that it's the drug that calms him down, and thus he recommends it to everyone, because without it he would go apeshit. Whereas all the clean people stand there scratching their heads, because they're totally fine without it.

rumborak

I don't think anyone (other than Omega) said that having divinely ordained morals, as you put it, is "necessary."  Rather, simply that divinely ordained morals simply are.

I'm asking this question in all sincerity, and forgive me if I come off as stupid because I can't help it because I am stupid- but what is the point of all of these objective morality threads/arguments?  Is it a long-winded way for religious people to "prove" that they're "right" and non-believers/non-religious people are "wrong?"  I'm honestly wondering because I'm not sure, I skim through these threads and they never make any sense to me.

I don't think there is a point, other than Omega seems obsessed with arguing over the issue.  And while a good number of the rest of us religious folk may think his reasoning is a bit nutty, we generally agree with a few of his conclusions.

Are for you, though. Not for me, or the majority of Earth's population.

rumborak

[Omega]

I don't think anyone (other than Omega) said that having divinely ordained morals, as you put it, is "necessary."

Nope. I didn't.

I don't think there is a point, other than Omega seems obsessed with arguing over the issue.  And while a good number of the rest of us religious folk may think his reasoning is a bit nutty, we generally agree with a few of his conclusions.

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...

[rumborak]

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

[bosk1]

Hearing that divinely ordained morals are necessary is like hearing from a drug addict that it's the drug that calms him down, and thus he recommends it to everyone, because without it he would go apeshit. Whereas all the clean people stand there scratching their heads, because they're totally fine without it.

rumborak

I don't think anyone (other than Omega) said that having divinely ordained morals, as you put it, is "necessary."  Rather, simply that divinely ordained morals simply are.

I'm asking this question in all sincerity, and forgive me if I come off as stupid because I can't help it because I am stupid- but what is the point of all of these objective morality threads/arguments?  Is it a long-winded way for religious people to "prove" that they're "right" and non-believers/non-religious people are "wrong?"  I'm honestly wondering because I'm not sure, I skim through these threads and they never make any sense to me.

I don't think there is a point, other than Omega seems obsessed with arguing over the issue.  And while a good number of the rest of us religious folk may think his reasoning is a bit nutty, we generally agree with a few of his conclusions.

Are for you, though. Not for me, or the majority of Earth's population.

rumborak

Well, no.  If they exist, they exist for all.  Truth is truth whether you, I, or anyone else choose to acknowledge it or make up our own subjective truth or not.

[senecadawg2]

So murdering human beings against their will is wrong?
What about murdering other sentient beings against their will (cows, pigs, chickens, etc.).
Just how hypocritical is this kind of thinking?

[Gorille85]

this thread is a perfect example of why i don't hang out in this part of the forum

[bosk1]

So murdering human beings against their will is wrong?
What about murdering other sentient beings against their will (cows, pigs, chickens, etc.).
Just how hypocritical is this kind of thinking?

Not very.  They're yummy.

[bosk1]

this thread is a perfect example of why i don't hang out in this part of the forum

Thanks for that.  Your comment added a lot to the discussion.

[rumborak]

Well, no.  If they exist, they exist for all.  Truth is truth whether you, I, or anyone else choose to acknowledge it or make up our own subjective truth or not.

Problem is, there are a lot of other ones. You might believe your particular set of moral codes is the most important, but to me it's just a zoo of relics from ancient peoples.
If you can convince me somehow that the Buddhist morals are objectively inferior to the Christian ones, then we're talking. Otherwise it's just you and your (obviously) biased statements.

rumborak

[senecadawg2]

So murdering human beings against their will is wrong?
What about murdering other sentient beings against their will (cows, pigs, chickens, etc.).
Just how hypocritical is this kind of thinking?

Not very.  They're yummy.

I asked my buddy the same question the other day and his answer was that we are more evolved beings and therefore are not at a fault for exerting our superior intelligence on other animals. Seems like a pretty good answer, and probably a very common idea, but it certainly presents a problem.

If little autistic girls were also 'yummy', why shouldn't I be able to eat them in peace?

[Omega]

So murdering human beings against their will is wrong?
What about murdering other sentient beings against their will (cows, pigs, chickens, etc.).
Just how hypocritical is this kind of thinking?

Indeed. It's called speciesism -- an unjustified and arbitrary apportionment of value to a given species (particularly one's own). Why think, given atheism, that what is conducive to humans is any more valuable than what is conducive to elephants or squirrels?

[senecadawg2]

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

[Omega]

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

Woah, woah woah! Hold your horses! I do enjoy me the occasional medium rare with extra butter and a side of creamed corn at the good old Ruth Chris down the road...

[bosk1]

Well, no.  If they exist, they exist for all.  Truth is truth whether you, I, or anyone else choose to acknowledge it or make up our own subjective truth or not.

Problem is, there are a lot of other ones. You might believe your particular set of moral codes is the most important, but to me it's just a zoo of relics from ancient peoples.
If you can convince me somehow that the Buddhist morals are objectively inferior to the Christian ones, then we're talking. Otherwise it's just you and your (obviously) biased statements.

rumborak

I'm not interested in a debate of which set of morals may appear subjectively "superior" or "inferior"--only which set is true.  No buddha has authority to dictate a universal set of morals (let alone the ability to come up with one).  God does, and only God does.

So murdering human beings against their will is wrong?
What about murdering other sentient beings against their will (cows, pigs, chickens, etc.).
Just how hypocritical is this kind of thinking?

Not very.  They're yummy.

I asked my buddy the same question the other day and his answer was that we are more evolved beings and therefore are not at a fault for exerting our superior intelligence on other animals. Seems like a pretty good answer, and probably a very common idea, but it certainly presents a problem.

If little autistic girls were also 'yummy', why shouldn't I be able to eat them in peace?

I think the answer really comes down to what kind of sauce we are talking about here.

[Gorille85]

this thread is a perfect example of why i don't hang out in this part of the forum

Thanks for that.  Your comment added a lot to the discussion.

 

[yeshaberto]

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

aren't plants worthy of the same protection?

[senecadawg2]

  the sauce is an exquisite blend of urhine, ejaculate, and blood from the girls autistic brother.

[bosk1]

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

aren't plants worthy of the same protection?

  But they aren't cute and don't do little tricks.

[senecadawg2]

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.

[senecadawg2]

I've never killed a living organism for my dinner.

[rumborak]

I'm not interested in a debate of which set of morals may appear subjectively "superior" or "inferior"--only which set is true.  No buddha has authority to dictate a universal set of morals (let alone the ability to come up with one).  God does, and only God does.

What makes your word/view any more important than that of the million of Buddhists? I mean, you clearly assert priority of your particular deity. I think I would have to hear some kind of reason for that, other than "my God is bigger than yours".

rumborak

[bosk1]

I'm not interested in a debate of which set of morals may appear subjectively "superior" or "inferior"--only which set is true.  No buddha has authority to dictate a universal set of morals (let alone the ability to come up with one).  God does, and only God does.

What makes your word/view any more important than that of the million of Buddhists? I mean, you clearly assert priority of your particular deity. I think I would have to hear some kind of reason for that, other than "my God is bigger than yours".

rumborak

Nothing.  My world view is irrelevant.  The only view that matters if the view of the one and only creator of the world.  It's not about which view is better or more important.  It's simply a matter of following the dictates that that creator has passed down.  Buddhism may have a fantastic set of morals (in many areas, I would conceded that it does).  But the bottom line is that its dictates (if you could really call them that) are man-made and, therefore, subjective.

I've never killed a living organism for my dinner.

Really?  I would argue that you are doing it wrong then.

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

this thread is a perfect example of why i don't hang out in this part of the forum

This.

Murder is wrong because killing is bad and takes lives. Why is it absolutely every aspect of life has to be completely overanalyzed? Next thread: "Food. Why eat?"

[senecadawg2]

Bosk scares me.

[bosk1]

Bosk scares me.

Don't worry.  I don't eat Vegans.  They generally send my digestive system into a tizzy.

[Scheavo]

Sorry, but moral subjectivity doesn't magically change the definition of words. A psychopath isn't someone who merely holds differing moral opinions.

What is a psychopath?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

is a personality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for the rights of others and the rules of society. Psychopaths have a total lack of empathy and remorse, and have very shallow emotions. They are generally regarded as callous, selfish, dishonest, arrogant, aggressive, impulsive, irresponsible, and hedonistic.

SO ya, psycopaths are actually fully fline with a "perspective" world.

It just seems as if the reasons Omega needs an objective morality is becuase a perspective morality (not the same thing as subjective) isn't firm enough, and doesn't allow you to make statements like "murder is wrong." We can come up with many ways to demonstrate to someone that murder is wrong, and we don't need to introduce God into the equation. As long as we teach those lessons, we'll be in the same position as if we taught God, as far as I can see.

Call it "Subjective Morality" or "Perspective Morality" or "Schmespectic Schmorality," if there are no objective moral values and duties, then no actions are either prohibited nor obligatory, "wrong" or "right," "good" or "evil."

I'm sorry, but you are just ignoring what perspectivalism is, and how it differs from  subjective. For starters, it doesn't' throw objectivity out the window, it just looks at it through the subject. If there's a wind blowing, and I say it feels warm, and you say it feels cold, neither of us are right nor wrong (and it's entirely possible, by the way). Both are a perspective on the same objective reality, but they are completely different experiences and takeaways from the wind.

[ehra]

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?

[senecadawg2]

I tend to try to stay away from the whole religious side of this argument. Murder is wrong, for one simple reason:

Society does not accept murderers. Wrong is a completely relative term, only based on the parameters set up by those within society. The masses have generally agreed that killing another person is wrong, and therefore chosen to not accept those who do it. THAT IS WHY IT IS WRONG.

However, with that being the case, why is the death penalty still being used? Texas alone murdered 30 people in the years 2010-2011. Why? As a supposed detterent for murder and other violent crimes.

[senecadawg2]

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.