[Locked] Why Is Murder Wrong?
0
I believe it is wrong to murder other people. Why? The Golden Rule is my support. But why is the Golden Rule even important? Why does it matter if I just kill everyone? This isn't a question of whether or not it's morally wrong; it's a question of why people think that way.
I honestly have no idea why we, the human race, are typically in objection to murder. It's the favorite pass-time of dolphins, chickens, and chimpanzees, so why don't most people relish in a good slaughtering?
I think it's part of some sort of keep-the-species-going self-preservation-by-proxy thing. However, the reason I pose this question: I don't know what I'm talking about.
I honestly have no idea why we, the human race, are typically in objection to murder. It's the favorite pass-time of dolphins, chickens, and chimpanzees, so why don't most people relish in a good slaughtering?
I think it's part of some sort of keep-the-species-going self-preservation-by-proxy thing. However, the reason I pose this question: I don't know what I'm talking about.
0
There are no such things as right and wrong, only thinking makes it so.
it's not always wrong to kill another person; self defence, defence of another, execution*, war**. it's occasionaly excusable or understandable; crime of passion, temporary insanity, etc..
[size=10]* legaly speaking.
** depending on which side you're on.[/h]
it's not always wrong to kill another person; self defence, defence of another, execution*, war**. it's occasionaly excusable or understandable; crime of passion, temporary insanity, etc..
[size=10]* legaly speaking.
** depending on which side you're on.[/h]
0
Gravity cat
the adequately amused
so why don't most people relish in a good slaughtering?
They do, that's why they become a butcher.
But in all seriousness, there's no such thing as right and wrong, we're just brought up around the idea, and the morals are implanted into our heads as we grow up. Everyone's different though, some people naturally like a bit of gore and slaughter, others are complete pacifists, while others don't mind slaughter but won't do it themselves.
0
*sigh* Really? People are still going about this "Why is X wrong" line of thought?
Seriously, first it's eating babies, now it's murder, make it harder for me people. If it's going to be "Why is X wrong" At least come up with something a little more morally ambiguous than murder.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again.
Morals are subjective. But only so far as our decision to label what exactly it means to be 'moral'. After the definition is given, morals become easily objectively measurable, non arbitrary, and understandable. Personally I go with Utilitarian ethics, whereas what is morally good is determined by how much it increases health and well being, while at the same time diminishing unnecessary suffering, and something is morally bad if it increases suffering, and diminishes the health and well being of others.
While you might not necessarily agree with my exact definition, or would like me to expound on words a bit more, it is true that 99 times out of 100, if I can demonstrate that something causes unnecessary suffering to someone, they'll agree the action is immoral. this tells me that utilitarian ethics are at least somewhat reflective of what most people go by as a system in and of itself.
So why is murder wrong? Simple, it causes unnecessary suffering, and diminishes the health and well being of another. Is murder ever conditionally right? Certainly, that's why we have self defense clauses in our laws, where the suffering becomes necessary, and overrides the health and well being of the person attacking you.
There is no intrinsic right and wrong in the universe, but this doesn't mean we cannot superimpose our own morals and ethics onto everything, and indeed, doing so is the only way of living a life, as the social creatures we've all evolved to become. IT's certainly true that you don't HAVE to have happiness and well being a value, and you can even value the suffering of others...but understand the vast majority of people don't agree, and they will shun you.
In the other topic I proposed a thought experiment.
Imagine you got invited to a party. Now when you're there, don't wipe your feet on the mat, track dirt through the house, eat all the dip, get extremely drunk, flip people off and grope a couple people, then leave.
Do you think you'll get invited back?
Seriously, why is this so hard for people to understand?
Seriously, first it's eating babies, now it's murder, make it harder for me people. If it's going to be "Why is X wrong" At least come up with something a little more morally ambiguous than murder.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again.
Morals are subjective. But only so far as our decision to label what exactly it means to be 'moral'. After the definition is given, morals become easily objectively measurable, non arbitrary, and understandable. Personally I go with Utilitarian ethics, whereas what is morally good is determined by how much it increases health and well being, while at the same time diminishing unnecessary suffering, and something is morally bad if it increases suffering, and diminishes the health and well being of others.
While you might not necessarily agree with my exact definition, or would like me to expound on words a bit more, it is true that 99 times out of 100, if I can demonstrate that something causes unnecessary suffering to someone, they'll agree the action is immoral. this tells me that utilitarian ethics are at least somewhat reflective of what most people go by as a system in and of itself.
So why is murder wrong? Simple, it causes unnecessary suffering, and diminishes the health and well being of another. Is murder ever conditionally right? Certainly, that's why we have self defense clauses in our laws, where the suffering becomes necessary, and overrides the health and well being of the person attacking you.
There is no intrinsic right and wrong in the universe, but this doesn't mean we cannot superimpose our own morals and ethics onto everything, and indeed, doing so is the only way of living a life, as the social creatures we've all evolved to become. IT's certainly true that you don't HAVE to have happiness and well being a value, and you can even value the suffering of others...but understand the vast majority of people don't agree, and they will shun you.
In the other topic I proposed a thought experiment.
Imagine you got invited to a party. Now when you're there, don't wipe your feet on the mat, track dirt through the house, eat all the dip, get extremely drunk, flip people off and grope a couple people, then leave.
Do you think you'll get invited back?
Seriously, why is this so hard for people to understand?
0
well they're several reason I believe people would view it as wrong
1. self preservation
2. religious ideals
3. emotional trauma
1. self preservation
2. religious ideals
3. emotional trauma
1
Tegumi
"im always cute"
1.) It is UPSETTING how many people think "pass-time" is a word or even a legitimate phrase. It is pastime.
2.) Because dolphins, chickens, and monkeys have and understand the concept of "leisure activity". /sarcasm
Locked.
2.) Because dolphins, chickens, and monkeys have and understand the concept of "leisure activity". /sarcasm
Locked.