Absolutism

[KT45]

You're looking at the US version under Law. In its most simplified form, separate from any specific book of law, murder is the wrongful or unlawful killing of another human being.

If your definition say it is "unlawful" and I can't use any specific book of law, then what is unlawful. When is something unlawful.

 

When is something wrongful?

[Asimov]

If your definition say it is "unlawful" and I can't use any specific book of law, then what is unlawful. When is something unlawful.

 

When is something wrongful?

 

When a moral law is broken...such as when murder is commited.

 

Wrongful = unlawful...it's basically commiting an immoral act.

[KT45]

If your definition say it is "unlawful" and I can't use any specific book of law, then what is unlawful. When is something unlawful.

 

When is something wrongful?

 

When a moral law is broken...such as when murder is commited.

 

Wrongful = unlawful...it's basically commiting an immoral act.

So killing is ending a human life.

 

Murder is ending a human in an immoral way or mindset.

 

What conditions set the stage for the act to be immoral thus separating it from the act of killing?

 

Oh Asimov, by your definition murder is killing when it is unlawful or immoral. By your definition then murder is absolutely immoral because it is defined as such. If I can get a specific case of what you consider is immoral then I can say if I consider it universally immoral or if it is universally recognized as immoral.

[Dhampir]

I always understood that murder was premeditated homicide, regardless of the morality of the circumstances.

[Asimov]

So killing is ending a human life.

 

No, killing is ending a life.

 

Murder is ending a human in an immoral way or mindset.

 

Murder is an immoral act of killing another human being.

 

What conditions set the stage for the act to be immoral thus separating it from the act of killing?

 

The initiation of force is a principle that decides whether or not an act is immoral. Someone defending his or her own life against another person is not the initiation of force. Someone freeing themselves from the bondage of slavery (coercion) by killing their 'master' is not initiating force. Someone killing another person because they looked at them funny or because they said the wrong thing is immoral because it initiates force.

[redross]

I always understood that murder was premeditated homicide, regardless of the morality of the circumstances.

 

You would be wrong. Under our legal code first degree murder is the premeditated killing of someone. Murder, as Asimov has been saying, is merely the wrongful killing of another. A killing may be wrongful without being premeditated; it just matters who you kill.

[Asimov]

The fact that we are in disagreement is proof that these are not absolutes. Absolutes are self-evident. Morality is provisional in nature. Your absolutism does not take into account provisional qualities of real life and are thus are not of much value. Morality is define by culture and biology and are provisional in nature, the need to make moral absolute speaks to the codification to comply with binary thinking.

 

Bruce, I'm not entirely sure what you are saying.

 

Absolutes aren't self-evident. They are evident, but we still need to discover these and apply a logical statement to them.

 

How does an absolute moral statement not take into account a provisional quality of real life? All absolute moral statements are applications in real life.

 

That would be like saying that math doesn't take into account provisional qualities of real life and that it has no value.

 

We view morality in history as having formed due to irrational cultural and religious ideas, with the idea of rational moral systems thrown in there a couple times.

 

I don't think biology really has anything to do with it except as a precursor to the creation of morals. We developed as societal beings and thus morality came into play as necessary.

[redross]

I don't think biology really has anything to do with it except as a precursor to the creation of morals. We developed as societal beings and thus morality came into play as necessary.

[/b]

 

This is true. Biology is only relevant to moral matters insofar as we have the cognitive ability to recognize and think about morality. Morals developed as a way to sustain societies. If there were no prohibitions on murder or assault people would never leave their house and the social bonds that societies require would never form. If lying was condoned no one could trust another and we would arrive at the afformentioned consequence.

[KT45]

What conditions set the stage for the act to be immoral thus separating it from the act of killing?

 

The initiation of force is a principle that decides whether or not an act is immoral. Someone defending his or her own life against another person is not the initiation of force. Someone freeing themselves from the bondage of slavery (coercion) by killing their 'master' is not initiating force. Someone killing another person because they looked at them funny or because they said the wrong thing is immoral because it initiates force.

Okay I just have to find an instance where initiating forces would not necessarily immoral. Okay here are a few.

 

1. In cannablism you eat your own species. If you stranded and the only way for the group to survive you murder one of the weaker members so that the others can live. By your definition it is immoral because force was initiated.

 

2. To keep social order a leader or a king might have to kill people who, look at them funny or because they say the wrong thing. Depending on how advanced the civilization is, the act will be the right choice if order is to be secured. Therefore avoiding chaos. This situation may be more primative but since we are dealing with absolutes, time shouldn't matter.

[Asimov]

1. In cannablism you eat your own species. If you stranded and the only way for the group to survive you murder one of the weaker members so that the others can live. By your definition it is immoral because force was initiated.

 

What kind of hypothetical is that? Could you clarify your main points? Of course murdering someone and eating them is immoral. Not only is it immoral by definition (murder) but it serves no practical purpose. What if you're the next weakest person and you still haven't been rescued, then you'd be required to sacrifice your own life so that they may eat you.

 

Why would you require other people to sacrifice themselves to you and not sacrifice yourself to others? That's inherently hypocritical and irrational. Society isn't about "group" survival", nor is it about "the strongest living". You're advocating social darwinism, an outdated and barbaric system. Society is about mutual benefit. There is nothing mutually benefiting in murder.

 

2. To keep social order a leader or a king might have to kill people who, look at them funny or because they say the wrong thing. Depending on how advanced the civilization is, the act will be the right choice if order is to be secured. Therefore avoiding chaos. This situation may be more primative but since we are dealing with absolutes, time shouldn't matter.

 

It's immoral to have a totalitarian regime where one man rules everyone and kills on a whim. That doesn't keep the social order, that causes chaos and revolutions. Your entire system is set up as immoral, as well as a king initiating force by killing people arbitrarily.

 

Try again.

[KT45]

1. In cannablism you eat your own species. If you stranded and the only way for the group to survive you murder one of the weaker members so that the others can live. By your definition it is immoral because force was initiated.

 

What kind of hypothetical is that? Could you clarify your main points? Of course murdering someone and eating them is immoral. Not only is it immoral by definition (murder) but it serves no practical purpose. What if you're the next weakest person and you still haven't been rescued, then you'd be required to sacrifice your own life so that they may eat you.

 

Why would you require other people to sacrifice themselves to you and not sacrifice yourself to others? That's inherently hypocritical and irrational. Society isn't about "group" survival", nor is it about "the strongest living". You're advocating social darwinism, an outdated and barbaric system. Society is about mutual benefit. There is nothing mutually benefiting in murder.

No scarificing involved. If people a group of 50 people were stranded on a raft and they murdered the man closest to death and ate him to survive, I wouldn't look down on them. They did what needed to be done. Based on the situation it was the best action to take. it wouldn't be immoral.

 

I still have a problem with your definition of murder. Murder is immoral because it is immoral by definition. I don't agree that murder is always immoral even if you initiate force. That is your definition. It is only immoral based on the situation but not absolutely immoral.

 

It's immoral to have a totalitarian regime where one man rules everyone and kills on a whim. That doesn't keep the social order, that causes chaos and revolutions. Your entire system is set up as immoral, as well as a king initiating force by killing people arbitrarily.

 

Try again.

It's not immoral to the government committing the act. To them it is neccesary. For those trying to gain power and land it would be wrong not to do so. Morality is subjective to those committing the act.

 

example 3: Murdering with intent of taking land and gaining territory when no other option is left. Done countless times by governments and people in order to make sure you have good land to feed your family or people.

 

example 4: Probably a horrible example but the movie "Saw". Murder a defenseless human or die for not doing so. I wouldn't say the act they did is immoral but necessary

 

When it comes to a battle of survival the rules of morality change so it is not absolute. In the end-self preservation is the highest moral standard.

[Darkside]

Hippos and other animals kill the young of rival males; is this "wrong?" For that matter, why limit the definition of murder to "immoral" killing within a species? What's the difference between murdering an insect because it's in your way and murdering a person for the same reason? The only reason we think there's a difference is because we empathize with people more than with insects. Most people would probably say it's very wrong to kill a person because they're in your way; not quite as wrong to kill a chimpanzee for the same reason, although still wrong; not very wrong to kill a mouse for the same reason; and not wrong at all to kill an insect for the same reason. There are no absolute values in play; it's simply about those we empathize with, which is an evolved trait. We evolved empathy for each other because our survival depends on cooperation, which precludes us from randomly murdering each other, therefore murder is "wrong" and we have empathy for our fellow humans. This empathy extends to animals to the extent that they're like us. Hippos, evolving in different conditions, did not evolve this empathy. There's no absolute right or wrong here.

[Asimov]

No scarificing involved. If people a group of 50 people were stranded on a raft and they murdered the man closest to death and ate him to survive, I wouldn't look down on them. They did what needed to be done. Based on the situation it was the best action to take. it wouldn't be immoral.

 

Of course that's sacrificing. Anyways, you're taking morality out of a societal situation and applying it to a populus of people.

 

A society in humans is a collection of individual humans, male and female, who work together for mutual gain. They live together, die together, reproduce, and produce things that are necessary for their survival.

 

I still have a problem with your definition of murder. Murder is immoral because it is immoral by definition. I don't agree that murder is always immoral even if you initiate force. That is your definition. It is only immoral based on the situation but not absolutely immoral.

 

What's wrong with my definition? Murder is the immoral killing of another human being. It's always wrong by definition. Why? Because it's immorally killing another human being.

 

YOU keep interchanging killing with murder. Even in your very analogies you use murder and then say "well that wouldn't be wrong". In that case, killing someone who is going to die (mercy killing) and then using their body for sustenance is not immoral. That is not initiating force. Of course, you didn't say that in your original analogy.

 

You said they murder someone who is weaker than them and eat the carcass. That is wrong, regardless of circumstance. We're not ravenous cannibals who just pick on the weaker people and consume their bodies for sustenance.

 

Please be consistent in your analogies.

 

It's not immoral to the government committing the act. To them it is neccesary. For those trying to gain power and land it would be wrong not to do so. Morality is subjective to those committing the act.

 

Governments are not supposed to have power or land. Governments are supposed to protect and maintain the rights of each individual. The government YOU are trying to conceive is one where one man has power over everyone, requiring those people to sacrifice themselves to that one person for his personal gain. That is slavery, which is immoral.

 

Morality is not subjective to those committing the act. Even if they think they are doing what they think is right has no bearing on the subject. The world isn't flat to people who think it is, and logic isn't subjective to those who think something is logical. The same goes with morality.

 

example 3: Murdering with intent of taking land and gaining territory when no other option is left. Done countless times by governments and people in order to make sure you have good land to feed your family or people.

 

So? It's still wrong.

 

example 4: Probably a horrible example but the movie "Saw". Murder a defenseless human or die for not doing so. I wouldn't say the act they did is immoral but necessary

 

An act done under coercion is an amoral act. The man in Saw forced that person to choose her life or the life of another. She chose her life because she valued her life, the only immoral act was the man coercing someone to choose.

 

When it comes to a battle of survival the rules of morality change so it is not absolute. In the end-self preservation is the highest moral standard.

 

That depends on the context. If I go and start shooting at police, they are going to rightly start shooting back at me. Just because I'm now in a battle for survival doesn't mean that the morals of the situation change. If I'm shot down by the police after shooting at them and I somehow survive, it wont change a thing if I say "well I was in a battle of survival, I was right to kill those three cops in the gunfight".

 

Self-defense is not initiating force. Protecting yourself from threat is not initiating force.

 

Please think about your next reply, with these last few points:

 

1. The distinction between murder and killing. Murder is always immoral so maybe using murder in your analogies is not the best thing to do because I will automatically assume you mean immorally killing someone.

 

2. Killing is not always wrong, even if it's another human being.

 

3. Keep your analogies to a societal context since that is where morals are necessary.

 

Hippos and other animals kill the young of rival males; is this "wrong?" For that matter, why limit the definition of murder to "immoral" killing within a species? What's the difference between murdering an insect because it's in your way and murdering a person for the same reason? The only reason we think there's a difference is because we empathize with people more than with insects. Most people would probably say it's very wrong to kill a person because they're in your way; not quite as wrong to kill a chimpanzee for the same reason, although still wrong; not very wrong to kill a mouse for the same reason; and not wrong at all to kill an insect for the same reason. There are no absolute values in play; it's simply about those we empathize with, which is an evolved trait. We evolved empathy for each other because our survival depends on cooperation, which precludes us from randomly murdering each other, therefore murder is "wrong" and we have empathy for our fellow humans. This empathy extends to animals to the extent that they're like us. Hippos, evolving in different conditions, did not evolve this empathy. There's no absolute right or wrong here.

 

I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. Please use paragraphs and if you have specific points to make, please list them syllogistically. Please be consistent in your analogies.

[redross]

One animal killing another is not immoral; it is amoral. The reason for this is animals don't have the capacity to comprehend morality and therefore cannot be subject to its laws.

 

This question is absurd but I'll indulge it anyway. The difference between killing an insect and a human being is this, since it isn't obvious to you already: insects don't have any moral status, humans do. Insects are not sentient beings requiring moral consideration. 'Higher level' animals (cats, dogs, etc.) do have moral status and therefore, require moral consideration.

 

You're probably going to say that the decision to limit moral consideration to sentient beings is arbitrary. I'll pre-empt that by telling you you're wrong.

[Asimov]

And because I'm bored I will trudge through this...

 

Hippos and other animals kill the young of rival males; is this "wrong?"

 

No.

 

For that matter, why limit the definition of murder to "immoral" killing within a species?

 

Because there is a difference between killing another human and killing an animal. We are what constitutes a society is one reason...therefore killing another member of society is of more importance than killing an animal.

 

What's the difference between murdering an insect because it's in your way and murdering a person for the same reason?

 

Because murder applies to human beings, not insects.

 

The only reason we think there's a difference is because we empathize with people more than with insects.

 

No, we value people more.

 

Most people would probably say it's very wrong to kill a person because they're in your way; not quite as wrong to kill a chimpanzee for the same reason, although still wrong; not very wrong to kill a mouse for the same reason; and not wrong at all to kill an insect for the same reason.

 

So? What do "most people" have to do with whether or not something is wrong?

 

There are no absolute values in play; it's simply about those we empathize with, which is an evolved trait. We evolved empathy for each other because our survival depends on cooperation, which precludes us from randomly murdering each other, therefore murder is "wrong" and we have empathy for our fellow humans. This empathy extends to animals to the extent that they're like us. Hippos, evolving in different conditions, did not evolve this empathy. There's no absolute right or wrong here.

 

I have no empathy for anyone except those I have direct and extended contact with. That doesn't mean I don't think it's wrong to kill people I don't know. Empathy is entirely irrelevant because it's an emotional response to an action. You shouldn't base moral law off of emotional responses.

 

There is absolute right or wrong. Murder is absolutely wrong.

[KT45]

Anyways, you're taking morality out of a societal situation and applying it to a populus of people.

Okay. I just didn't assume it had to be a society

 

I still have a problem with your definition of murder. Murder is immoral because it is immoral by definition. I don't agree that murder is always immoral even if you initiate force. That is your definition. It is only immoral based on the situation but not absolutely immoral.

 

What's wrong with my definition? Murder is the immoral killing of another human being. It's always wrong by definition. Why? Because it's immorally killing another human being.

Well as long as you define murder as immorally killing another human being then it is absolutely immoral by definition. There is no situation I will ever find where the immoral killing of a human being is not immoral because it is immoral. Can't really debate you on that one

 

Just out of curiousity where did you get your definition of murder? Did you make it because I don't see it on the dictionaries I go to. http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861631936/murder.html

 

If you made it then would it be right to define the following as such?

lying is the immoral act of deceiving someone

stealing is the immoral act of taking something from someone

lusting is the immoral act of admiring a human

 

how about these (yes I know they make no sense)

running is the immoral act of moving

writing is the immoral act of communicating

driving is the immoral act of transportation

 

This doesn't make sense because the definition doesn't say why it is immoral in the first place. Why it is immoral has to be stated otherwise "driving" would be immoral without question. The best thing to do would be to take out "immoral" from the definition all together and put in it's place why it is immoral. This way the morality of the act can be put into question concerning whether it is absolute or not.

 

example 3: Murdering with intent of taking land and gaining territory when no other option is left. Done countless times by governments and people in order to make sure you have good land to feed your family or people.

 

So? It's still wrong.

Why?

[HuaiDan]

Without reading through this entire thread:

 

 

Premise A: There are no absolutes

Premise B: A is true (absolute)

Conclusion: A is contradictory, therefore false.

Axiom of conclusion: There are absolutes

 

Without considering examples, ramifications, or assigning values to any variables, does this not prove that "There are no absolutes" is false?

What is and what isn't an absolute is irrelevant. It can just as easily be proven that not everything is an absolute.

 

2 = 2

truck = truck

in some cases, 2 does not = truck

2 = truck is not an absolute

2 = truck is falsifiable

therefore, somethings are not absolute (this statement is an absolute)

 

 

 

At best we can show some things are true in every case, other things are true in some cases but false in others, and yet other things are always false. When we place something in the first category without effectively examining whether it should be placed in the second or third, that's when we get cognitive dissonance, fundamentalism, ignorance.

I would take it that the meaning of the quoted article in the OP is closer to "SOmethings are not absolute" rather than an out-of-hand denial of the absolute.

 

From what I have read in this thread, you guys are battling over semantics.

 

 

I just had to comment in this thread because I noticed it started on my birthday, not that anyone here noticed :'(

[Antlerman]

One animal killing another is not immoral; it is amoral. The reason for this is animals don't have the capacity to comprehend morality and therefore cannot be subject to its laws.

 

This question is absurd but I'll indulge it anyway. The difference between killing an insect and a human being is this, since it isn't obvious to you already: insects don't have any moral status, humans do. Insects are not sentient beings requiring moral consideration. 'Higher level' animals (cats, dogs, etc.) do have moral status and therefore, require moral consideration.

 

You're probably going to say that the decision to limit moral consideration to sentient beings is arbitrary. I'll pre-empt that by telling you you're wrong.

Can you support your claim that animals don't have the capacity to comprehend morality, or is that just a belief that has roots in religious perception that only humans have a soul?

 

Awhile back I watched a program on PBS where they showed a video of a group of male chimpanzees form a hunting party, where the collectively went on a search through the area to find one of their own members, and when they located him, they all together pulled him down to the ground and proceeded to beat him to death. This was taken as a clear indication that they had a social order, and that this one chimp had violated something severe enough to cause them to seek him out and rid him from the society. This death had nothing to do with eating, and was based on a violation of social order. This shows they had a sense what is considered right and wrong behaviors in their society, or as we call it, "morality".

 

BTW, your rejection of animals as not qualifying for our consideration is completely based off of an anthrocentric perspective. It reminds me off the religious who view man as the pinnacle of God's creation, and that the universe exists around man. The world is far less about man than man supposes.

 

Side question: What is your religious background?

[KT45]

Without reading through this entire thread:

 

Premise A: There are no absolutes

Premise B: A is true (absolute)

Conclusion: A is contradictory, therefore false.

Axiom of conclusion: There are absolutes

 

 

Without considering examples, ramifications, or assigning values to any variables, does this not prove that "There are no absolutes" is false?

We are mostly dealing with absolute morality (well at least I am). So redoing your proof.

 

Premise A: There are no absolutes concerning morals

Premise B: A is true (absolute statement)

Conclusion: A is doesn't contradict B, therefore true.

Granted this is a horrible proof that does nothing I'm just noting that just because statments can be absolute doesn't mean morals are.

[Antlerman]

From what I have read in this thread, you guys are battling over semantics.

 

 

I just had to comment in this thread because I noticed it started on my birthday, not that anyone here noticed :'(

In a sense you are correct. So far in this thread, no absolutes have been established. This is so, because no one agrees on them. And this makes my point for starting this thread in the first place. Those who believe in absolutes will argue and ultimately fight for their idea of absolute truth. This is absolutism. And where has this gotten us? We've had fights, name callings, calling in reinforcements to support each position, etc, etc, etc. Jihad!!

 

It is my strong belief that if we all recognize that nothing is all that clear, nothing absolute can be truly realized in application, that no one has the superior position. Each one of us who are equally trying to do the best we can, are deserving of mutual respect. Absolutism is about control, not peace.

 

I consider this thread to have served its purpose.

 

BTW, Happy Birthday (belated).

[Asimov]

Okay. I just didn't assume it had to be a society

 

It does, that is what morality applies to.

 

Well as long as you define murder as immorally killing another human being then it is absolutely immoral by definition. There is no situation I will ever find where the immoral killing of a human being is not immoral because it is immoral. Can't really debate you on that one

 

Yes, that is an absolute, would you not agree?

 

Just out of curiousity where did you get your definition of murder? Did you make it because I don't see it on the dictionaries I go to.

 

American Heritage Dictionary defines it as: The unlawful killing of another human being, especially with premeditated malice.

 

Since we are arguing an abstract quality and not just law as it applies to countries, unlawful would have to be equated with immoral.

 

If you made it then would it be right to define the following as such?

lying is the immoral act of deceiving someone

stealing is the immoral act of taking something from someone

lusting is the immoral act of admiring a human

 

No, because that isn't what they mean.

 

how about these (yes I know they make no sense)

running is the immoral act of moving

writing is the immoral act of communicating

driving is the immoral act of transportation

 

No, because that's just silly.

 

This doesn't make sense because the definition doesn't say why it is immoral in the first place. Why it is immoral has to be stated otherwise "driving" would be immoral without question. The best thing to do would be to take out "immoral" from the definition all together and put in it's place why it is immoral. This way the morality of the act can be put into question concerning whether it is absolute or not.

 

But we do establish what constitutes an immoral killing. It's arbitrary (based on whims or desires) and it's the initiation of force. Both are irrational acts that cannot be condoned in any society. When everyone lives together for mutual benefit, murdering someone constitutes no gain in wealth or prosperity. Irrational selfishness has no place in a society.

 

So far in this thread, no absolutes have been established.

 

That's because you just ignore them.

 

This is so, because no one agrees on them. And this makes my point for starting this thread in the first place. Those who believe in absolutes will argue and ultimately fight for their idea of absolute truth. This is absolutism. And where has this gotten us? We've had fights, name callings, calling in reinforcements to support each position, etc, etc, etc. Jihad!!

 

And of course those peaceful and no-positional relativists are not to blame at all, are at no fault because, of course...they believe they are. Then ridiculing those people of a viewpoint differing them by once again making baseless implications.

 

While once again creating straw-man representations of the opposing positions.

 

You see people, this is where relativism leads you...elitist snobbery.

 

Premise A: There are no absolutes concerning morals

Premise B: A is true (absolute statement)

Conclusion: A is doesn't contradict B, therefore true.

Granted this is a horrible proof that does nothing I'm just noting that just because statments can be absolute doesn't mean morals are.

 

I'm sorry, but what?

 

If a statement applies to morality, then it does.

[Antlerman]

So far in this thread, no absolutes have been established.

 

That's because you just ignore them.

Spoken like a true religious fundamentalist. It's like Chrisitianity chapter 2. You're no different.

 

BTW, Why are you here on the ExChristian site when you never were a Christian? How are you encouraging us? Instead you piss everyone off. Are you preaching your secular religion to us instead? What is your purpose on this site?

 

This is so, because no one agrees on them. And this makes my point for starting this thread in the first place. Those who believe in absolutes will argue and ultimately fight for their idea of absolute truth. This is absolutism. And where has this gotten us? We've had fights, name callings, calling in reinforcements to support each position, etc, etc, etc. Jihad!!

 

And of course those peaceful and no-positional relativists are not to blame at all, are at no fault because, of course...they believe they are. Then ridiculing those people of a viewpoint differing them by once again making baseless implications.

 

While once again creating straw-man representations of the opposing positions.

 

You see people, this is where relativism leads you...elitist snobbery.

This is where objectivism leads you. Hard-assed dogmatic fundamentalism. I left fundamentalism long ago and find it distasteful in every manifestation, whether religious or secular.

 

I consider this topic closed. It has outlived it's usefulness and has degenerated into a fundi war.