Re: Murder and free will
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you know if you're in the minority or not? Additionally, you make an assumption that:
If one does not agree with the majority view, then one's life is in danger.
Can you prove this?
[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, if the majority of humans believe that killing others is not wrong, than there will be more killings and my life will be in danger relatively to the present state.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it is not obvious. You continue to beg the very question i'm asking you to prove. How do you know if you are in the minority or not? How do you know that being in the minority means bloodshed?
[/ QUOTE ]
Lets see. I think it is wrong to kill, so I don't. You think it is wrong to kill so you don't. Hitler thinks it is not wrong to kill, so he does. This is how it is now. We have two non-killers and one killer.
Now lets change my view.
Now I don't think it is wrong to kill, so I do. Now we have two killers and one non-killer.
In which scenario is your life in less danger? the first or the second? Now expand this to include the rest of humanity. That is all.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why does coexisting without violence be necessary for you not to complain? How are you all of a sudden justified in complaining about coexisting without violence? Is this a judgement that you make upon others? If so, then you refute yourself and imply that there is a universal qualification (namely a coexistance without violence) that makes something just or injust. If not then even if you complain, so what? You're supposed to coexist without violence right?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, coexistance without violence is again my personal preference. However, it is also my personal preference that no violence is directed at me. If violence is directed at me, my personal preference is violated, and I have to decide whether I want to do something about it. There is nothing universal about my personal preferences.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you can complain, but there is no justification for people to listen to you because it's all up to personal preference. People will listen to you if they want, and people won't listen to you if they don't. Why do you say Nazi Germany was wrong then? You shouldn't use violence to enforce a belief in non-violence right?
[/ QUOTE ]
By people did listen to me about Nazi Germany. People in the rest of the world that is. They had to because their life was in danger and they did not want to die. If Nazis stayed within their borders, they'd be able to do what they want but they didn't.
[ QUOTE ]
Because I do not want to be killed or kill myself. It has nothing to do with right and wrong. Problems of right and wrong are subordinate to my survival.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can you prove this? You're once again begging the very question I asked you to prove. Why do you value human life? Why should questions of right and wrong be subordinate to your survival.
[/ QUOTE ]
I cannot prove this. In my value system my survival is ranked higher than following a system of right and wrong. I require no proof for myself, and if you want to adopt a similar value system, you will need to come up with your own proof if you need it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point of my arguement was that your logic does not necessarily lead to your conclusion. You claim that humans are the most complex thing you know and killing them reduces the complexity to your knowledge (which, to your opinion is a bad thing). I point out that it's merely your knowledge, so if someone could see that killing humans increases the complexity of their observation, then they would be justified in killing. Is that correct?
[/ QUOTE ]
Justified in whose view? Remember, I do not believe that there is a universal standard.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, so human life is valuable only if people want it to be. Why complain about Nazi Germany? They're only doing what they've personally justified. You hold no authority, nor does the rest of the world hold any authority to impose your views on being just onto them. The USA should issue an apology.
[/ QUOTE ]
Because Nazi Germany tried to force other people to die. They encountered resistance and were destroyed. Nazi Germany does not have any authority do dictate my views either. Yet they tried. And we couldn't reach a compromise. So we fought. No apologies.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1)Killing humans is illegal most everywhere in the world
Can you prove this?
[/ QUOTE ]
This is not an easy task. This proof is possible by exhaustive listing of laws pertaining to killing of humans in different countries. There are about two hundred different countries. I concede that at this time I do not have time and resources necessary to complete this proof.
[/ QUOTE ]
So if you are unable to do this, why should your conclusions be true at all? The rest of your arguement is irrelevant if it's based upon that assumption that is not true.
I'd also like to point out that not only do you have to find an exhaustive listing of all laws, you need to make sure that those laws are in effect right this very instant and haven't changed. Not only do you need to examine all laws, but all village agreements, house agreements, and anything else that may be a "law" in the sense of an authoritative agreement.
Since you cannot justify this assumption, the rest of your arguement falls to pieces.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll make a less global statement. Killing humans is illegal in my state and neighboring states. Therefore, in my immediate surrounding people seem to hold a majority opinion that killing humans is wrong. Is that ok?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One point I would like to see addressed specifically is:
How can you establish "what is popular opinion is 'good' or 'right'"?
Do you have to resort to popular opinion to establish that statement? If yes, what if popular opinion changes on that issue? If no, then why don't you use the proof for establishing "what is popular opinion is 'good' or 'right' " to prove everything else? If no, what if popular opinion decides that the original assumption you used to prove "what popular opinion decides is 'right' or 'good' " is wrong?
[/ QUOTE ]
If something is wrong in popular opinion, it does not mean that you have to agree. It means that if you act as if you do not agree, there are likely unpleasant consequences for you. The popular opinion is formally documented in laws. When popular opinion changes, laws also change. This is why it is convenient for me to estimate what is right and wrong in popular opinion by looking at the current laws.
[/ QUOTE ]
But you're begging the very question again. I'm asking you how you know what popular opinion is, and you say laws. I ask how you know what laws are, and you say it's popular opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Laws are formally recorded versions of popular opinion. Laws are available to learn for everyone. Laws are useful to estimate popular opinion.
[ QUOTE ]
"If something is wrong in popular opinion it does not mean that you have to agree."
So now you're discounting popular opinion at all. So what if it's popular opinion that killing is wrong. You've lost all binding authority on moral judgement on anything and everything. Why should you expect people to play fair? Why should you expect people to not cut in line? Why should you expect people to obey T&C of party poker?
[/ QUOTE ]
It is my point that going against popular opinion is very inconvenient and sometimes dangerous. Therefore, you will always be influenced by popular opinion. I have no expectations that people will always play by the rules they didnot invent or adopt themselves. I have a remedy against people not playing by the rules. It is a practical matter, not a matter of moral authority.
[ QUOTE ]
But yet you do. You expect people to not kill you. You expect people to on a general sense be fair to one another. You are dissapointed, sometimes annoyed when someone rudely shoves you aside. You are angry when people collude playing poker.
[/ QUOTE ]
Being fair to one another leads to a society that I like better. I observe that many people are conditioned to be fair. I don't mind that at all. I don't care how people arrive at valuing fair play. I do care about reducing the incentive to not be fair. Fortunately we have a nice self-regulating society, and people cannot afford to be unfair often. Killers are removed from the society, so that I don't have to deal with them a lot. Colluders get detected and have their profits confiscated. Rude people encounter people who are violent towards rude people. It is not a perfect society, but we are not perfect beings.
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you don't do all these things and they are random statements that you can prove false (seeing as I cannot prove it either way). But what I'm saying is that if you do assume those things, if you do react in a similar way, that is consistant with an ultimate authority and moral judge of right and wrong, and you are refuting your own worldview.
[/ QUOTE ]
I only react to something that threatens me. If accidentally I react in a way similar to a way a proponent of universal moral code would, that doesn't mean I agree that there is a universal moral code.
|