God is Love

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Fortunately for me, I am not in a minority, otherwise my life would be in great danger and so would be the lives of many others.


[/ 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 ]
This specifically referred to my personal belief that killing humans is wrong. 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 ]

Not all people value the same things I value. I accept that. As long as we can co-exist without violence, I cannot complain that your views are different from mine.


[/ 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 ]


No. I am unable to make you feel the same as I feel. However, if your system of values is such that I have to die, we will inevitably reach violent disagreement. Either your system will be changed, or mine. Or one of us will die.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would it necessarily reach a violent disagreement? It seems like you could kill yourself and solve the problem. No more disagreement. **note** I am not asking you to kill yourself, merely giving an alternative possibility to something you claim is "necesary"


[/ 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 ]


I will need a very good argument for this. I do not deny that it would be possible to convince me but in this case it would be very difficult


[/ 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 ]

No, I said that in my view killing is wrong. I made no universal statements. If it is possible to persuade me that killing is not wrong that would also remove these extremely unpleasant emotions, my views would be changed.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was merely pointing out that your emotions (being as they are illogical) do not provide any grounds upon which you can say "killing is wrong." But you use the statement "killing is wrong" to support your arguement against "violence." If your emotions are irrational, why should other people accept them as support against violence? What gives your emotions any more validity than others? If I get weird kicks out of killing people, are my actions justified by my emotions?


[/ QUOTE ]
Justified in whose view? Certainly in yours. Definitely not in mine. This is exactly what I mean. If you want to kill me, we will necessarily come to a violent disagreement because you want to do something to me that I do not want you to do to me. If you wanted to kill yourself, we would not be necessarily in violent disagreement.

[ QUOTE ]

I have a pretty convincing (at least to me) evidence that on the subject of killings, many people agree with me. This evidence is that killing humans is illegal most everywhere in the world. If most people disagreed, these laws prohibiting killing of humans would be changed.
I cannot say for sure that this will not change in the future. I cannot even say for sure that my own views will not change in the future.


[/ QUOTE ]

More unjustified assumptions:

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 ]

2)If most people disagreed with a law, it would be changed.

Can you prove this?


[/ QUOTE ]
This is the essence of democracy. If a majority disagrees with the law, it demands that the law is changed. The process of changing the law is very complex, but laws do get changed. For example, adultery laws that used to be on the books in all states no longer exist.

[ 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.