1. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    03 Mar '07 01:21
    Originally posted by joneschr
    Why is it?

    I've never taken a philosophy course.

    It's easy to see that it's wrong because it inflicts pain on his family, etc. But the same could be said of killing a guilty man.

    You could say it's wrong because god tells us killing is wrong, but that disregards our assumption that religion is excluded.

    You could say its wrong because the maj ...[text shortened]... on of a majority would be difficult.

    I remember now why I never took a philosophy course.
    Humans are social animals. We form social groups because that is the optimal solution for each individual in its goal to pass genes on to the next generation. Part of this interaction is collaboration, especially in terms of hunting etc, where multiple hunters could bring down far larger prey than any one individual, and they all benefit (but remember, it's all about individual benefit, on a genetic level (i.e. I will be more pre-disposed to help a relative than a complete stranger, since I am helping the copies of my genes in that body)). The group dynamic is part of this, and a big brain and the capacity to remember other individuals are also necessary. If you kill someone in my group, and you are in my group, you might kill me - so I should pre-emptively defend myself, whether that means killing you or just excluding you from the group. To that end, I will teach my kids not to kill people, it'll be bad for the future propagation of my genes. Hence, murder is bad (but self defence against a murderer is okay).
  2. Standard memberjoneschr
    Some guy
    Joined
    22 Jan '07
    Moves
    12299
    03 Mar '07 02:34
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Humans are social animals. We form social groups because that is the optimal solution for each individual in its goal to pass genes on to the next generation. Part of this interaction is collaboration, especially in terms of hunting etc, where multiple hunters could bring down far larger prey than any one individual, and they all benefit (but remember ...[text shortened]... propagation of my genes. Hence, murder is bad (but self defence against a murderer is okay).
    Lets say the dead guy, innocent or not, was a poet. CNN, upon learning of the means of his death, decides to glorify his life and poetry. Millons of people love the stuff, begin to study it, and this inspires millions to do acts of "good". This brings harmony to the "packs", as it were, making your tribal groups stronger and live properous fulfilling lives. This previously ignored poet's horrifying death ultimately brought about acts of good, so the killer's action was ultimately good.
  3. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    03 Mar '07 03:03
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Humans are social animals. We form social groups because that is the optimal solution for each individual in its goal to pass genes on to the next generation. Part of this interaction is collaboration, especially in terms of hunting etc, where multiple hunters could bring down far larger prey than any one individual, and they all benefit (but remember ...[text shortened]... propagation of my genes. Hence, murder is bad (but self defence against a murderer is okay).
    That conclusion doesn't follow. What you've done is reconstruct an evolutionary sketch of why we've come to believe that murder is wrong (though there are other, better models that exploit the notion of collective action problems and the cultivation of moral sentiments as means to solving these problems). What you haven't done is provide a reason for thinking that we're right when we say that murder is wrong. That is, you haven't given us a reason for thinking that murder is actually wrong. You certainly haven't given even a sympathetic enquirer a reason not to murder.
  4. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    03 Mar '07 03:05
    Originally posted by joneschr
    Lets say the dead guy, innocent or not, was a poet. CNN, upon learning of the means of his death, decides to glorify his life and poetry. Millons of people love the stuff, begin to study it, and this inspires millions to do acts of "good". This brings harmony to the "packs", as it were, making your tribal groups stronger and live properous fulfilling li ...[text shortened]... g death ultimately brought about acts of good, so the killer's action was ultimately good.
    That conclusion doesn't follow unless you assume that the moral assessment of acts derives from considerations of the consequences of those acts. But there is no reason to think this. A better conclusion is that despite the act in question being wrong, it had good consequences unintentionally brought about.
  5. Standard memberjoneschr
    Some guy
    Joined
    22 Jan '07
    Moves
    12299
    03 Mar '07 03:151 edit
    Originally posted by bbarr
    That conclusion doesn't follow unless you assume that the moral assessment of acts derives from considerations of the consequences of those acts. But there is no reason to think this. A better conclusion is that despite the act in question being wrong, it had good consequences unintentionally brought about.
    Aha! I caught you! The guy who shot him thought his act was good at the time he did it. It was a later discovery that the victim was in fact innocent.
  6. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    03 Mar '07 03:18
    Originally posted by joneschr
    Aha! I caught you! The guy who shot him thought his act was good at the time he did it. It was a later discovery that the victim was in fact innocent.
    So what? If there is any point to this thread it is that thinking an act is right doesn't suffice to make it right. See the first few responses to the original post.
  7. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    03 Mar '07 04:15
    Originally posted by bbarr
    That conclusion doesn't follow. What you've done is reconstruct an evolutionary sketch of why we've come to believe that murder is wrong (though there are other, better models that exploit the notion of collective action problems and the cultivation of moral sentiments as means to solving these problems). What you haven't done is provide a reason for thinkin ...[text shortened]... wrong. You certainly haven't given even a sympathetic enquirer a reason not to murder.
    Well, I'm not entirely sure one could stipulate that murder is logically wrong; more that it is wrong because we feel it's wrong.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree