Originally posted by ark13a while ago two elderly friends of mine got viciously knifed to death. if i had been there i would have hit to kill the person/persons who did this. i think that's o.k.
Why is murder wrong?
Under Kan's system of morality, which is based upon rules that come down to the statement "do unto others as you want them to do unto you," this question is simple to answer. I don't want to be killed, therefore I can't kill others.
However, I believe there are some situations I favor the utilitarian philosophy. The action which ...[text shortened]... ief suffered by those who knew him or her? Does this question invalidate utilitarianism?
A) You rob the person of future happines. However, you also take away future pain. You also prevent that person from creating happiness or pain in others in the future. Generally life is overall a happy thing and holds great promise for future happiness, which is one reason why suicide is fairly rare and people prefer not to be murdered.
B) You cause grief to the person's friends and family.
C) You cause unhappiness throughout society because people will fear being murdered themselves. If it can happen to him, it can happen to me too, right?
D) Usually killing someone physically hurts. It's also generally accompanied by great fear.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungit would be wrong of me not to defend my friends if i was there when they were being murdered.
A) You rob the person of future happines. However, you also take away future pain. You also prevent that person from creating happiness or pain in others in the future. Generally life is overall a happy thing and holds great promise for future happiness, which is one reason why suicide is fairly rare and people prefer not to be murdered.
B) You cau ...[text shortened]...
D) Usually killing someone physically hurts. It's also generally accompanied by great fear.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungApart from C, who cares? There is no point in caring about any of these things UNLESS you are trying to prevent people from murdering, and therefore (indirectly) not murdering you.
A) You rob the person of future happines. However, you also take away future pain. You also prevent that person from creating happiness or pain in others in the future. Generally life is overall a happy thing and holds great promise for future happiness, which is one reason why suicide is fairly rare and people prefer not to be murdered.
B) You cau ...[text shortened]...
D) Usually killing someone physically hurts. It's also generally accompanied by great fear.
Originally posted by nomindMurder is only wrong because value is placed on life, when the
no. first of all, there would have to be some happiness derived from commiting the murder in order for it to be worth anything. then this happiness would have to be so great that it would outweigh all of the suffering that would result from the murder. this is why a typical counter example to utilitarianism is harvesting the organs of homeless people - bec ...[text shortened]... ss. in fact it greatly reduces it, which is why murder remains one of the most serious crimes.
value is taken away it appears that taking a life is okay. The
suffering parts of your view seems to hold the same limitations,
if we do not care about the suffering or not enough to stop our
actions, it to is meaningless when it comes to being a guide to
allow or stop actions. Bottom line, personal tastes of mankind
alone values or devalues all things, unless there is a higher
power that sets the bar on what is and isn't valued, it is a crap
shoot on who is holding life in their power at the time.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhat is the evolutionary theory that explains why Christ gave his life for us? His main concern was not self preservation. Was he crazy or do you just dismiss it as fantasy?
Apart from C, who cares? There is no point in caring about any of these things UNLESS you are trying to prevent people from murdering, and therefore (indirectly) not murdering you.
Originally posted by whodeyYes, gave his life in that he was NAILED TO A LUMP OF WOOD BY THE ROMANS. If he was so desperate to die, wouldn't it have been more efficient for Jesus to nail himself up? If Jesus actually existed, then he was nailed up by the Romans. If I am shot by a crazy gunman, does this mean I gave my life up, or just that I was killed? Sure, the bible will tell you that Jesus chose to be nailed up, but how do you know that to be true? What verification do you have that it ever happened, other than the bible??
What is the evolutionary theory that explains why Christ gave his life for us? His main concern was not self preservation. Was he crazy or do you just dismiss it as fantasy?
Originally posted by KellyJayBottom line is, that's stupid.
Murder is only wrong because value is placed on life, when the
value is taken away it appears that taking a life is okay. The
suffering parts of your view seems to hold the same limitations,
if we do not care about the suffering or not enough to stop our
actions, it to is meaningless when it comes to being a guide to
allow or stop actions. Bottom line, ...[text shortened]... and isn't valued, it is a crap
shoot on who is holding life in their power at the time.
Kelly
Unless there is a higher power that sets the bar on what is and isn't valued? Why not set the bar ourselves? As, in actual fact, we already do. And it's not about who holds all the power, at least not in a democratic country, since that power can be easily (or relatively easily) removed. It's actually about socially agreed upon rules and conventions - we set our own bar.
I don't murder people because God or Jesus or some other hokey-pokey stuff (insert FSM or whatever here) tells me that it's wrong. I don't murder people because someone in power tells me it's wrong. I don't even murder people because if I got caught I would be punished.
I don't murder people because I believe it's wrong to do so, except in the situation where I was protecting my life or the life of my family. I believe it's wrong from a fairly simple moral and ethical standing - I wouldn't like someone to do it to me.
Now, I may decide that I don't want to abide by this rule, in which case I can get caught and be punished, or, I can go to a society that doesn't have this rule. That's the nature of a democracy.
Didn't take God to tell me that.
Just took a lot of people and lots of time.
Originally posted by amannionThis is scary stuff.
Bottom line is, that's stupid.
Unless there is a higher power that sets the bar on what is and isn't valued? Why not set the bar ourselves? As, in actual fact, we already do. And it's not about who holds all the power, at least not in a democratic country, since that power can be easily (or relatively easily) removed. It's actually about socially agreed up ...[text shortened]...
Didn't take God to tell me that.
Just took a lot of people and lots of time.
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionDid you bother to read my post?
Bottom line is, that's stupid.
Unless there is a higher power that sets the bar on what is and isn't valued? Why not set the bar ourselves? As, in actual fact, we already do. And it's not about who holds all the power, at least not in a democratic country, since that power can be easily (or relatively easily) removed. It's actually about socially agreed up
Didn't take God to tell me that.
Just took a lot of people and lots of time.
You are doing nothing but agreeing with my points. Unless there is
a higher power, man sets the bar and does what man will, as man
wills. The will of man will change from man to man, there isn't a
'bar' so to speak because everyone does what they will or can get
away with. Societies have different sets of rules there can be
different rules throughout each generation too.
You can look back through time and watch things change, fads
come and go, right and wrong changes. There isn't a 'set' right
and wrong for man without God, there isn't even a 'goal' to reach
either, since what each generation excepts can be rejected by the
next.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhy do you exclude the possibility of the welfare of others having a value to individuals?
Apart from C, who cares? There is no point in caring about any of these things UNLESS you are trying to prevent people from murdering, and therefore (indirectly) not murdering you.