Why is Murder Wrong?

[bosk1]

The masses have generally agreed that killing another person is wrong, and therefore chosen to not accept those who do it.

I disagree.  I think it is more accurate to say that "the masses" as a whole have agreed that murder is wrong, not that killing is wrong.  Most recognize that killing is, unfortunately, sometimes justified.  What those justifications are may vary considerably from society to society or from individual to individual, but most would realize that there are some justifications.

[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?

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.

So you're changing the argument from "I don't kill any other sentient beings" to "I don't cause harm to any other sentient beings"? Even if we don't know if plants can "feel" pain, we do know that plants realize when they're being attacked/harmed and can react to that realization. You're still putting it in distress. The only reason you're making the distinction is because you need to harm something to eat/live.

[bosk1]

But Ents!

[theseoafs]

But Ents!

bosk: the only person who knows what he's talking about anywhere

[rumborak]

The only view that matters [...].

It's not about which view is better or more important.

K then.

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.

Are you so stuck in your view that you can not see the symmetry of the situation? I mean, at this point you're trying to get the point across by bludgeoning it with a hammer.

rumborak

[bosk1]

Are you so stuck in your view that you can not see the symmetry of the situation? I mean, at this point you're trying to get the point across by bludgeoning it with a hammer.

rumborak

  I'm not following you.

[senecadawg2]

The masses have generally agreed that killing another person is wrong, and therefore chosen to not accept those who do it.

I disagree.  I think it is more accurate to say that "the masses" as a whole have agreed that murder is wrong, not that killing is wrong.  Most recognize that killing is, unfortunately, sometimes justified.  What those justifications are may vary considerably from society to society or from individual to individual, but most would realize that there are some justifications.

Your right, I should have worded that a little differently.

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.

So you're changing the argument from "I don't kill any other sentient beings" to "I don't cause harm to any other sentient beings"? Even if we don't know if plants can "feel" pain, we do know that plants realize when they're being attacked/harmed and can react to that realization. You're still putting it in distress. The only reason you're making the distinction is because you need to harm something to eat/live.

No, I'm not changing the argument. The argument is that I don't kill sentient beings. I also happen to believe that I don't harm them either. I'll admit, I don't know enough about the topic to say definitively; but if the plant is not experiencing pain, then I don't believe it is being harmed. What evidence is there to suggest that a pepper plant realizes when it is being attacked? The only plants I can think of that proove this idea are carnivorous plants (venus fly trap, etc.). Like I said, I'm no expert on the topic, but it seems to me that worst case scenario is 'plant stress'. With that being the case, I'd take stress over muder any day of the week, and twice on sunday.

But Ents!

Tree? I am no tree! I am an Ent.

[Super Dude]

This thread is one of the reasons I love P/R so much.

[GuineaPig]

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

[theseoafs]

All plants experience stress.

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.

So you're changing the argument from "I don't kill any other sentient beings" to "I don't cause harm to any other sentient beings"? Even if we don't know if plants can "feel" pain, we do know that plants realize when they're being attacked/harmed and can react to that realization. You're still putting it in distress. The only reason you're making the distinction is because you need to harm something to eat/live.

No, I'm not changing the argument. The argument is that I don't kill sentient beings. I also happen to believe that I don't harm them either. I'll admit, I don't know enough about the topic to say definitively; but if the plant is not experiencing pain, then I don't believe it is being harmed. What evidence is there to suggest that a pepper plant realizes when it is being attacked? The only plants I can think of that proove this idea are carnivorous plants (venus fly trap, etc.). Like I said, I'm no expert on the topic, but it seems to me that worst case scenario is 'plant stress'. With that being the case, I'd take stress over muder any day of the week, and twice on sunday.

You are changing the argument -- you said initially that you eat plants because eating a fruit doesn't kill the plant, but you're still opposed, for some reason, to eating only part of an animal without killing it.

Also, the argument from consciousness is a difficult one to make. Very few animals have a sense of "self" or "consciousness", as you suggested. The higher-level animals generally do, like monkeys and dolphins, but the western world generally doesn't eat these animals anyway. Let's take birds as an example: most birds don't have the mental capacity to have a sense of self, so why shouldn't we eat them?

[ehra]

No, I'm not changing the argument. The argument is that I don't kill sentient beings. I also happen to believe that I don't harm them either. I'll admit, I don't know enough about the topic to say definitively; but if the plant is not experiencing pain, then I don't believe it is being harmed. What evidence is there to suggest that a pepper plant realizes when it is being attacked? The only plants I can think of that proove this idea are carnivorous plants (venus fly trap, etc.). Like I said, I'm no expert on the topic, but it seems to me that worst case scenario is 'plant stress'. With that being the case, I'd take stress over muder any day of the week, and twice on sunday.

Eating a pig's toes wouldn't kill it eather.

There are all sorts of defense mechanisms plants have for when they're being attacked. Some can release toxins to fight off whatever bug is eating them, some can even release signals that call in the predators of whatever's attacking them. Tomatoes, for example, can call in parasitic wasps to take care of the caterpillar that's eating it. Apparently this process may even harm the wasp.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990622055654.htm


Another thing worth considering is that if you're eating a plant's fruit then you're preventing that fruit from spreading that plant's seeds (unless you save all of the seeds and plant them yourself), which should be just as bad as eating an egg.

[senecadawg2]

Consciousness is described as being aware of ones surroundings, and being able to percieve the possible implications of actions within those surroundings. You honestly believe that pigs, cows, chicken, etc, etc are unconsious? Sure they may be less intelligent, but they are certainly conscious. As for plants feeling stress... fine by me. Stressing plants out, while not causing pain, in order to eat healthy meals is much more appealing than slaughtering conscious animals.

[Super Dude]

Derp. Nvm.

[senecadawg2]

Eating a pig's toes wouldn't kill it eather.

Another thing worth considering is that if you're eating a plant's fruit then you're preventing that fruit from spreading that plant's seeds (unless you save all of the seeds and plant them yourself), which should be just as bad as eating an egg.

I never said eating a pig's toes would kill it. It would certainly hurt it. (physical pain =/= stress).

As for eggs, I don't necessarily begrudge those who eat eggs. It's just not for me.

[ehra]

Fair enough.

[bosk1]

Thread recap!

ITT, we have learned:  Eggs and little autistic girls can be eaten.  Ents and Buddhists are still off limits in most civilized societies.

[theseoafs]

Consciousness is described as being aware of ones surroundings, and being able to percieve the possible implications of actions within those surroundings. You honestly believe that pigs, cows, chicken, etc, etc are unconsious? Sure they may be less intelligent, but they are certainly conscious. As for plants feeling stress... fine by me. Stressing plants out, while not causing pain, in order to eat healthy meals is much more appealing than slaughtering conscious animals.

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

You would do well to get your terminology straightened out. "Consciousness" and "self-awareness" have nothing to do with feeling pain. And at that point, you have to ask yourself why hurting an animal that doesn't even know it exists matters.

[SeRoX]

I have a enemy and a gun so what the fuck?

In all seriousness, technicallly it's not but we created laws, so... Consider this I'm saying this without what religions say about it. For them it's a sin, for the humanity it's not right.

[Elite]

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.

 

And this was the first thread I posted in on this side of the forum. That was only a couple of hours ago. What the hell DTF, since when can you discuss so rapidly? 

[senecadawg2]

Consciousness is described as being aware of ones surroundings, and being able to percieve the possible implications of actions within those surroundings. You honestly believe that pigs, cows, chicken, etc, etc are unconsious? Sure they may be less intelligent, but they are certainly conscious. As for plants feeling stress... fine by me. Stressing plants out, while not causing pain, in order to eat healthy meals is much more appealing than slaughtering conscious animals.

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

You would do well to get your terminology straightened out. "Consciousness" and "self-awareness" have nothing to do with feeling pain. And at that point, you have to ask yourself why hurting an animal that doesn't even know it exists matters.

I am done debating the merits of slaughtering animals as opposed to picking the fruits/vegetables off of plants. Next time someone asks me why I am a vegan I will respond, 'health reasons'. Obviously I cannot convince other people that animals are conscious if they refuse to believe it. Screw the teminology, if dogs are conscious then so are pigs. Many scientists would argue that pigs are more intelligent than dogs, and cats. The next time I feel hungry, I am gonna hunt down your pets and bite their fucking heads' off. "An animal that doesn't even know it exists"? https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html I'm not buying it. Basically, animals are comparatively stupid, so lets eat them.

Along with your newborn baby.

[bosk1]

And little autistic girls! 

[senecadawg2]

Bitch had it coming to her.

[theseoafs]

Consciousness is described as being aware of ones surroundings, and being able to percieve the possible implications of actions within those surroundings. You honestly believe that pigs, cows, chicken, etc, etc are unconsious? Sure they may be less intelligent, but they are certainly conscious. As for plants feeling stress... fine by me. Stressing plants out, while not causing pain, in order to eat healthy meals is much more appealing than slaughtering conscious animals.

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

You would do well to get your terminology straightened out. "Consciousness" and "self-awareness" have nothing to do with feeling pain. And at that point, you have to ask yourself why hurting an animal that doesn't even know it exists matters.

I am done debating the merits of slaughtering animals as opposed to picking the fruits/vegetables off of plants. Next time someone asks me why I am a vegan I will respond, 'health reasons'. Obviously I cannot convince other people that animals are conscious if they refuse to believe it. Screw the teminology, if dogs are conscious then so are pigs. Many scientists would argue that pigs are more intelligent than dogs, and cats. The next time I feel hungry, I am gonna hunt down your pets and bite their fucking heads' off. "An animal that doesn't even know it exists"? https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html I'm not buying it. Basically, animals are comparatively stupid, so lets eat them.

Along with your newborn baby.

"I'm done talking about this. Screw science and scientific definitions of scientific words; if I believe something, it is true."

The link was interesting though. Thanks for pointing it out to me; pigs are smarter than I thought. But the link doesn't prove anything.

The researchers cannot yet say whether the animals realize that the eyes in the mirror are their own, or whether pigs might rank with apes, dolphins and other species that have passed the famed “mirror self-recognition test” thought to be a marker of self-awareness and advanced intelligence.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

2.  Because God said so.

whos god?

[jsem]

2.  Because God said so.

whos god?

OH YOU WENT THERE!

[bosk1]

2.  Because God said so.

whos god?

The real one.  You know, the God of Abrahma, Isaac, and Jacob, who sent his son into the world to atone for sin.

[lonestar]

2.  Because God said so.

whos god?

The real one.  You know, the God of Abrahma, Isaac, and Jacob, who sent his son into the world to atone for sin.

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

[bosk1]

2.  Because God said so.

whos god?

The real one.  You know, the God of Abrahma, Isaac, and Jacob, who sent his son into the world to atone for sin.

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

That's kind of what rumborak and I have been going around and around about.  I'll try to put it a slightly different way.  Whether it is wrong and whether anyone individually or collectively believe it to be wrong are two different things.  Whether it is wrong is independent of belief.  God and God alone has the authority to declare what is wrong and what isn't, so whether or not you or I believe is irrelevant.  It is wrong whether we believe or not, and our belief is not required to make it right or wrong.  We could use the analogy of the traffic laws.  I may choose to believe the legislature has no authority to make laws restricting how fast I drive and that the police do not have authority to enforce any such laws as long as I subjectively believe I am driving in a safe manner.  However, I will likely eventually learn that my disbelief is irrelevant to whether those laws exist.

Completely separate is the issue of whether or not I can still recognize that murder is wrong if I do not believe in the author of that rule.  Sure.  But, again, that's a different issue.  For some things like murder where the harm is so obvious, lack of belief in God does not prevent most people from appreciating that murder is not beneficial.  For some other things, the rationale is less obvious.  But where it is more obvious, it is easier for people who don't believe in God to come together as a society and say, "Yes, I think this is 'wrong.'"

[hefdaddy42]

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

Not really.

[eric42434224]

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

Not really.

The importance of that question....the question of objective moral values existing....is, well, subjective.

[eric42434224]

2.  Because God said so.

whos god?

The real one.  You know, the God of Abrahma, Isaac, and Jacob, who sent his son into the world to atone for sin.

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

That's kind of what rumborak and I have been going around and around about.  I'll try to put it a slightly different way.  Whether it is wrong and whether anyone individually or collectively believe it to be wrong are two different things.  Whether it is wrong is independent of belief.  God and God alone has the authority to declare what is wrong and what isn't, so whether or not you or I believe is irrelevant.  It is wrong whether we believe or not, and our belief is not required to make it right or wrong.  We could use the analogy of the traffic laws.  I may choose to believe the legislature has no authority to make laws restricting how fast I drive and that the police do not have authority to enforce any such laws as long as I subjectively believe I am driving in a safe manner.  However, I will likely eventually learn that my disbelief is irrelevant to whether those laws exist.

Completely separate is the issue of whether or not I can still recognize that murder is wrong if I do not believe in the author of that rule.  Sure.  But, again, that's a different issue.  For some things like murder where the harm is so obvious, lack of belief in God does not prevent most people from appreciating that murder is not beneficial.  For some other things, the rationale is less obvious.  But where it is more obvious, it is easier for people who don't believe in God to come together as a society and say, "Yes, I think this is 'wrong.'"

The only problem, is that traffic laws are written and enforced by entities that we know exist.
We dont have to have faith that the lawmakers and cops exist.  We know they do.  We know who exactly wrote the laws.
With a god, and gods laws/morals, we only have faith that he even exists, much less that the laws/morals that are attributed to him are even from him, and not just man-made.
So not a great anaolgy.
God, if there even is one, may not even have a set of objective morals and/or laws/rules.
i think it far more likely, the "objective morals" that are so easily attributed to a god we know nothing about, are merely constructs of man....just like every other aspect of the god we have created.
Making all morals, in the end, subjective.

But I understand the need for some to have a god, and objective morals, in their lives.  I respect that....for them....not for myself.  I personally have no need for objective morals, and am doing just fine within the subjective moral framework myself and society have built.

[bosk1]

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.

[senecadawg2]

Consciousness is described as being aware of ones surroundings, and being able to percieve the possible implications of actions within those surroundings. You honestly believe that pigs, cows, chicken, etc, etc are unconsious? Sure they may be less intelligent, but they are certainly conscious. As for plants feeling stress... fine by me. Stressing plants out, while not causing pain, in order to eat healthy meals is much more appealing than slaughtering conscious animals.

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

You would do well to get your terminology straightened out. "Consciousness" and "self-awareness" have nothing to do with feeling pain. And at that point, you have to ask yourself why hurting an animal that doesn't even know it exists matters.

I am done debating the merits of slaughtering animals as opposed to picking the fruits/vegetables off of plants. Next time someone asks me why I am a vegan I will respond, 'health reasons'. Obviously I cannot convince other people that animals are conscious if they refuse to believe it. Screw the teminology, if dogs are conscious then so are pigs. Many scientists would argue that pigs are more intelligent than dogs, and cats. The next time I feel hungry, I am gonna hunt down your pets and bite their fucking heads' off. "An animal that doesn't even know it exists"? https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html I'm not buying it. Basically, animals are comparatively stupid, so lets eat them.

Along with your newborn baby.

"I'm done talking about this. Screw science and scientific definitions of scientific words; if I believe something, it is true."

The link was interesting though. Thanks for pointing it out to me; pigs are smarter than I thought. But the link doesn't prove anything.

The researchers cannot yet say whether the animals realize that the eyes in the mirror are their own, or whether pigs might rank with apes, dolphins and other species that have passed the famed “mirror self-recognition test” thought to be a marker of self-awareness and advanced intelligence.

Don't misquote me. I was simply saying that if the so-called scientific terminology said dogs were conscious, then I find it incredibly difficult to believe pigs are not. I believe what I am saying to be true, and that is good enough for me. You can believe whatever you want, and I am fine with that. What I believe to be right is true (for me), while what you believe to be right is true (for you). That is all that matters. To each his own.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

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.

[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.