The Everlasting CCCP !

[GeneralTacticus]

Again you are trying to construct an argument from unconnected or unclear thoughts. Please clarify for me. What is the connection between rights and liberty? Do we actually have rights? What are they? Is there such a thing as "good" in an empirical sense? This question is a minefield.

Ok, let's start from the beginning:

Why is liberty good?

This is the point I just made. Semantics are important. Thankyou for your agreement. As you say, the meaning behind words is important, so why do you then claim in the next sentence that it "does not matter whether you refer to being 'closer to freedom' or 'more free'" The meaning behind these two terms is very different, especially in a discussion of whether or not freedom is a binary function.

The fact that the meaning behind words is what matters si what makes semantics irrrelevant. As long as we both know what point the other is making, it doesn't matter a whit what words we use to express it.

On the whole, I would say all the murders are. Accidental killlings are precisely that - accidental. War is, of course, state organised murder, and in this case only the organisers are "mentally ill"

In which case there must be a substantial proportion of society which is 'mentally ill', given your definition. Under such circumstances, I'd say preventing them from doing harm would be quite important, wouldn't you?

See above. Either a murderer knows that what they are doing is wrong, and does it anyway, or does not know what they are doing. In either case we must worry about the sanity of such a person.

The sanity of the person is not at issue. Finding ways to prevent them from murdering innocents is.

The fact of the person thinking about it is irrelevant if that person is not in a fit state of mind. No one was dissuaded from murder by the fear of punishment. That would be too rational a process to expect.

Callousness and/or a willingness to kill != irrationality.

It is within my power to kill anyone I choose. I have a very large kitchen knife at home. I choose not to. I am a rational human being.

And for someone equally rational, but without your morals, what's to stop them from killing if there are no physical restrictions?

He who lives in fear of loosing his life is not free

Precisely. Which is why one shouldn't have to live in fear of losing your life.

This freedom comes, not from living in security, away from danger, but from acceptance of the inevitable.

IOW, one should become free of the fear of death by accepting that someone coudl kill you at any moment? :rolletes:

I would freely die at your hands. I would demonstrate my freedom in my death,

Death is the ultimate revocation of freedom, as there is n longer a you to be free. And the fact that you died because you exercised your liberty does not make you any less dead.

while you would, no doubt, feel guilty, demonstrating your lack of freedom

How would my feeling guilty about having done something demonstrate a lack of freedom?

Yes, so please use the words that matter. If you tell me the whole day that apples are pears, then I will disagree. If you later tell me that "pears" meant "fruit in general", and we were saying the same thing, I am likely to find this a little frustrating.

Who died and made you the Lord High Definer of Words? That you ahev declared that freedom means x means diddly squat. I'm using the generally accepted definition of the word, while you are claiming your defninition as the valid one. I'd think that your analogy applies rather more to you than to me.

And btw, by your definition of being 'free', it is impossible to be free, as it requries an absence of any constraints whatsoever, and there are always external constraints on you, regardless of what you do to try and get rid of them (the very act of getting rid of them imposes toher constraints on you).

[Maniac]

Quite a few good comments. Let me try again:

"Words are symbols for concepts which define your thoughts."

[Jamski]

I said...
Again you are trying to construct an argument from unconnected or unclear thoughts. Please clarify for me. What is the connection between rights and liberty? Do we actually have rights? What are they? Is there such a thing as "good" in an empirical sense? This question is a minefield.

You said...
Ok, let's start from the beginning:
Why is liberty good?

There is no good and bad, this is only a matter of preference. I, unlike many people, would prefer to be at liberty.

I said...
This is the point I just made. Semantics are important. Thankyou for your agreement. As you say, the meaning behind words is important, so why do you then claim in the next sentence that it "does not matter whether you refer to being 'closer to freedom' or 'more free'" The meaning behind these two terms is very different, especially in a discussion of whether or not freedom is a binary function.

You said...
The fact that the meaning behind words is what matters si what makes semantics irrrelevant. As long as we both know what point the other is making, it doesn't matter a whit what words we use to express it.

Semantics is all about the meanings behind words. Please GT.

I said...
On the whole, I would say all the murders are. Accidental killlings are precisely that - accidental. War is, of course, state organised murder, and in this case only the organisers are "mentally ill"

You said...
In which case there must be a substantial proportion of society which is 'mentally ill', given your definition. Under such circumstances, I'd say preventing them from doing harm would be quite important, wouldn't you?

Their "illness" is caused by our society. The cure is not to lock up all "criminals" or to "punish" people for doing things that are against the "law"

I said...
See above. Either a murderer knows that what they are doing is wrong, and does it anyway, or does not know what they are doing. In either case we must worry about the sanity of such a person.

You said...
The sanity of the person is not at issue. Finding ways to prevent them from murdering innocents is.

Again these assumptions. There is no true innocence, just as there is no guilt. Only those whose freedom is restricted by laws or morals experience these fallacies. We cannot see the future either. We cannot prevent murders, only punish afterward. This achieves nothing. The victim is already dead. We will all die.

I said...
The fact of the person thinking about it is irrelevant if that person is not in a fit state of mind. No one was dissuaded from murder by the fear of punishment. That would be too rational a process to expect.

You said...
Callousness and/or a willingness to kill != irrationality.

So you agree with me again that punishment is useless. Why apply a rational argument (If you do x then you will go to prison) to an irrational person?

I said...
It is within my power to kill anyone I choose. I have a very large kitchen knife at home. I choose not to. I am a rational human being.

You said...
And for someone equally rational, but without your morals, what's to stop them from killing if there are no physical restrictions?

Nothing is to stop them. They are free. I have no morals, as this would imply that I can judge what is good and what is evil.

I said...
He who lives in fear of loosing his life is not free

You said...
Precisely. Which is why one shouldn't have to live in fear of losing your life.

Read on...

I said...
This freedom comes, not from living in security, away from danger, but from acceptance of the inevitable.

You said...
IOW, one should become free of the fear of death by accepting that someone coudl kill you at any moment?

Exactly so GT. I could at any moment have a brain heammorage. These happen with no warning and no reason. They kill instantly. Does this mean I am not free? Someone could kill me with a knife. Does this mean I am not free? THINK!

I said...
I would freely die at your hands. I would demonstrate my freedom in my death,

You said...
Death is the ultimate revocation of freedom, as there is n longer a you to be free. And the fact that you died because you exercised your liberty does not make you any less dead.

Death is the ultimate negation freedom, I agree. But it is also inevitable. However, if I am dead, I am also "not unfree" How can you restrict the freedom of a corpse? It is the same as trying to restrict the freedom of a hamburger.

I said...
while you would, no doubt, feel guilty, demonstrating your lack of freedom

You said...
How would my feeling guilty about having done something demonstrate a lack of freedom?

By your servitude to a set of moral or legal laws.

I said...
Yes, so please use the words that matter. If you tell me the whole day that apples are pears, then I will disagree. If you later tell me that "pears" meant "fruit in general", and we were saying the same thing, I am likely to find this a little frustrating.

You said...
Who died and made you the Lord High Definer of Words? That you ahev declared that freedom means x means diddly squat. I'm using the generally accepted definition of the word, while you are claiming your defninition as the valid one. I'd think that your analogy applies rather more to you than to me.

The previous holder of the title, is, I believe, the correct answer

And btw, by your definition of being 'free', it is impossible to be free, as it requries an absence of any constraints whatsoever, and there are always external constraints on you, regardless of what you do to try and get rid of them (the very act of getting rid of them imposes toher constraints on you).

Exactly. Even when we escape all the things imposed upon us by our restrictive society, we are still bound by the laws of the physical world, and the limitations of a mortal lifespan. We must accept this. As I have said before, we should try to get closer to freedom. This is however, a sadly unobtainable goal.

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

"Words are symbols for concepts which define your thoughts."

PErfectly correct, but I don't see why this matters.

There is no good and bad, this is only a matter of preference. I, unlike many people, would prefer to be at liberty.

If you woudl prefer to be at liberty, you must think it is a good thing (and don't give me 'it's just a preference', you must have a reason for this preference).

Semantics is all about the meanings behind words. Please GT.

You were quibblign about the words I used ('more free' rather than 'closer to freedom'), when we both know exactly what I meant. Why, then, does it matter?

And as to your claim itself: When referring to a container, do you say 'closer to ebign full' or 'more full'? I say the latter, and I don't knwo of anybody who doesn't. Why is 'freedom' any different?

Their "illness" is caused by our society. The cure is not to lock up all "criminals" or to "punish" people for doing things that are against the "law"

And the cure is, then? Obviously you can't do that alone, but I fail to see why it is a bad idea to add punishment to dissuade people from doing something (if, for example, ou miught go to jail for burning down the house of a nieghbour that you dislike, do you think this would ahve no impact on whether you did it?). If there are no nnegative consequences, there is no reason to refrain from doing something other than your own moral code, which I hope you will pardon me for not investing blind faith in.

There is no true innocence, just as there is no guilt.

Pardon me? If you do X, which happens to be wrong, then you are guilty of X. I'm amazed that you would dispute this. And conversely, if you did not do X, then you are innocent of X.

(of course, if you believe that nothing is right or wrong, obvously no-one can innocent or guilty, so I'm probably wasting my time)

Only those whose freedom is restricted by laws or morals experience these fallacies.

...?

We cannot see the future either.

And the relvance of that tot he topic at hand is...?

We cannot prevent murders, only punish afterward. This achieves nothing.

Except of course to prevent the murderer from killing someone else, if the appropriate punishment is applied.

I have no morals, as this would imply that I can judge what is good and what is evil.

So, if you think that there's nothign wrong with killing (if there's nothing wrong with anything), would you kill if you felt like it?

Exactly so GT. I could at any moment have a brain heammorage. These happen with no warning and no reason. They kill instantly.

There's a slight difference ebtween things that happen due to random chance and those that happen because a person has decided it will.

Someone could kill me with a knife. Does this mean I am not free?

Yes.

But it is also inevitable.

Not with the Longevity Vaccine it isn't

, if I am dead, I am also "not unfree" How can you restrict the freedom of a corpse? It is the same as trying to restrict the freedom of a hamburger.

To be 'unfree' is to not be free, is it not? One cannot be free if one no longer exists.

By your servitude to a set of moral or legal laws.

And if I don't feel guilty? If I think that you were a menace to society and am proud of having killed you?

The previous holder of the title, is, I believe, the correct answer

I see you're trying to be witty. Well done. Now answer the question: why is it that your definition of the word is mroe vlaid than the one used by the majority of people?

Exactly. Even when we escape all the things imposed upon us by our restrictive society, we are still bound by the laws of the physical world, and the limitations of a mortal lifespan. We must accept this. As I have said before, we should try to get closer to freedom. This is however, a sadly unobtainable goal.

And your point here is?

Oh, and you stated that 'you will not kill someone because you are a rational human being'. If nothing is right or wrong other than what you decide it is, then what does being rational have to do with anything?

[GeneralTacticus]

So you agree with me again that punishment is useless. Why apply a rational argument (If you do x then you will go to prison) to an irrational person?

Why do you assume they are irrational. As I just said, wanting to kill someone does not make you irrational. If you profit from killing someone, there's nothing irrational about it.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
You were quibblign about the words I used ('more free' rather than 'closer to freedom'), when we both know exactly what I meant. Why, then, does it matter?

It matters because we were discussing whether freedom is a binary function or not.

And as to your claim itself: When referring to a container, do you say 'closer to ebign full' or 'more full'? I say the latter, and I don't knwo of anybody who doesn't. Why is 'freedom' any different?

It is not any different. The glass clearly cannot be more full. Either it is full, or it is empty or it is partially filled. It cannot be "more full"

And the cure is, then? Obviously you can't do that alone, but I fail to see why it is a bad idea to add punishment to dissuade people from doing something (if, for example, ou miught go to jail for burning down the house of a nieghbour that you dislike, do you think this would ahve no impact on whether you did it?). If there are no nnegative consequences, there is no reason to refrain from doing something other than your own moral code, which I hope you will pardon me for not investing blind faith in.

We have established (I hope) that it is an irrational act to take a life. Would the threat of punishment have any deterrant value to an irrational mind? No. Therefore punishment is valuless as a deterrent. If someone is mad enough to kill me, they are mad enough not to reason through "If I do x then I will go to prison"

Pardon me? If you do X, which happens to be wrong, then you are guilty of X. I'm amazed that you would dispute this. And conversely, if you did not do X, then you are innocent of X.
(of course, if you believe that nothing is right or wrong, obvously no-one can be innocent or guilty, so I'm probably wasting my time)

Nothing is "right" or "wrong" in itself. Moral or legal laws restrict the freedom of our thinking, and create these illusions.

Except of course to prevent the murderer from killing someone else, if the appropriate punishment is applied.

Either you are talking about a death penalty, or you are confusing punishment with prevention. I see punishment makes the punisher on an equal level to the punished. The jailer should himself be jailed under your paradoxial moral system, but you do not recognise your own logical errors.

So, if you think that there's nothign wrong with killing (if there's nothing wrong with anything), would you kill if you felt like it?

Purely hypothetically - yes. I am however not in anyway inclined to terminate anyone's life.

There's a slight difference ebtween things that happen due to random chance and those that happen because a person has decided it will.

Yes, but does a person truly decide to murder another? If the person is murdered, this is an irrational act. Noone has "decided" anything. If murderers made rational decisions, then noone would ever be murdered. Eh?

To be 'unfree' is to not be free, is it not? One cannot be free if one no longer exists.

One cannot be unfree either. I think the state of being dead doesn't enter into this discussion of freedom untill at least one of us has gained some more experience on the subject.

And if I don't feel guilty? If I think that you were a menace to society and am proud of having killed you?

Then you are free of any moral restrictions. Congratulations! If you thought I was a menace to society, then you would be right. If you were proud, then you would be mentally unbalanced. See the last 200 posts.

I see you're trying to be witty. Well done.

Thankyou

Now answer the question: why is it that your definition of the word is mroe vlaid than the one used by the majority of people?

When my definition is right, and I have demonstrated it to be right.

If nothing is right or wrong other than what you decide it is, then what does being rational have to do with anything?

Did I say nothing is right or wrong. I think I said that an imposed moral or legal code does not say what is right or wrong. Being rational is to be a full member of the human race. It has to do with everything.

-Jam

[Archaic]

Rational/Irrational =/= Good/Evil =/= Moral/Immoral

Irrational to take a life, human or not? Hardly. There are plenty of times when it's plenty rational. But is it something we'd consider to be a good or moral thing? Well, that depends on the circumstances, doesn't it?

[GeneralTacticus]

It is not any different. The glass clearly cannot be more full. Either it is full, or it is empty or it is partially filled. It cannot be "more full"

Say 10% of the container is filled. Then compare it to when 25% is filled. Would you not say that the latte ris more full than the former? Or does your fixation with binary fuctions override grammar?

We have established (I hope) that it is an irrational act to take a life. Would the threat of punishment have any deterrant value to an irrational mind? No. Therefore punishment is valuless as a deterrent. If someone is mad enough to kill me, they are mad enough not to reason through "If I do x then I will go to prison"

No, you haven't established that. Why is it always irrational to take a life? I could understand you saying that it was immoral to take one (That's what I believe), but irrational? Someone can make a rational decision to kill if doing so would benefit them (e.g. if it would allow them access to the victim's money). The threat of punishment is a disincentive to it.

Nothing is "right" or "wrong" in itself. Moral or legal laws restrict the freedom of our thinking, and create these illusions.

i knew I was wasting my time arguing morals with someone who doesn't believe in them.

Either you are talking about a death penalty, or you are confusing punishment with prevention.

I'm not doing either. It's quite ahrd to kill someone if you're kept in prison and prevented from doign anythign that would allow you to harm anyone else.

The jailer should himself be jailed under your paradoxial moral system, but you do not recognise your own logical errors.

Why? There is no equivalence between killing and restricting a person to prevent them from killing again.

Purely hypothetically - yes. I am however not in anyway inclined to terminate anyone's life.

If someone offered you a million dollars to kill somebody else, whent here was no possibility of failure, would you do it? If not, why not?

Yes, but does a person truly decide to murder another? If the person is murdered, this is an irrational act. Noone has "decided" anything. If murderers made rational decisions, then noone would ever be murdered. Eh?

Circular argument. You claim that murder is irrational, therefore it's an irrational act. Why is it irrational?

One cannot be unfree either. I think the state of being dead doesn't enter into this discussion of freedom untill at least one of us has gained some more experience on the subject.

If you no longer exist, you ar enot free. I se eno reason why one would exist after death (of coruse, it's entirely possible that you might, but as I se enor eason why you should, I assume that one doesn't).

Then you are free of any moral restrictions. Congratulations! If you thought I was a menace to society, then you would be right. If you were proud, then you would be mentally unbalanced. See the last 200 posts.

Why would I be mentally unbalanced? If I thought you were a menace to society, why should I not be proud of having eliminated you?

When my definition is right, and I have demonstrated it to be right.

I'm still waiting for your proof.

Did I say nothing is right or wrong. I think I said that an imposed moral or legal code does not say what is right or wrong.

Yes, you did.

"I have no morals, as this would imply that I can judge what is good and what is evil. "

Deciding that you can't judge it, and presumably that nobody else can either, is the same as saying that right and worng don't exist.

Being rational is to be a full member of the human race. It has to do with everything.

Such as...? As I have repeatedly pointed out, it is perfectly rational to kill if you benefit by doing so.

[Jamski]

I said...
Did I say nothing is right or wrong. I think I said that an imposed moral or legal code does not say what is right or wrong.

You said...
Yes, you did.

"I have no morals, as this would imply that I can judge what is good and what is evil. "

Deciding that you can't judge it, and presumably that nobody else can either, is the same as saying that right and worng don't exist.

How does saying that I cannot imply that I can judge between good and evil imply that noone else can? I speak for myself. How do I say that right and wrong do not exist, when I say that I cannot be the one to judge these things? Please do not put words in my mouth.

You say that murder can have a rational justification. Your example deals with a paid assaination. I am not as you suggest. I would not consider killing another person, for any sum of money. I would not kill someone in self defence (They want to kill me, but I kill them instead. Hmm, now I'm a killer) I can think of no rational justification for the taking of another's life. A person who accepts a sum of money to kill another is not a rational person. I cannot think that a human being can rationally decide to kill another for the sake of profit. If a rational person can be persuaded into a state of unbalance in which they can kill another, simply by the application of a few dollars, then they were not truly rational to begin with.

I assume that you would take the money, and think I'm stupid for believing otherwise. This is because you are a slave to money, you are not free, and possibly never will be. Before you even start to think it - no, I don't think money is evil. It is a simple tool which facilitates trade. It is, perhaps, a little irrational to take the life of another in order to increase the number of trade items one can have. And don't argue that for a starving man it would be rational to take the money.
1.) Hunger is an irrational animal instinct. It overrides our reason.
2.) There's almost always a way of getting food.
3.) If there really is no way of getting food, the truly rational man starves. The end result is the same - a life is ended.

There is no equivalence between killing and restricting a person to prevent them from killing again.

As you yourself argued, and this is your argument, not mine, killing someone is the ultimate restriction of liberty. So is locking someone up. Therefore the jailer is committing the "same crime" as the murderer. Do you now understand the logical paradox of your punishment system? Please read carefully and THINK!
1.) Punishment is not a deterrent. America has the harshest punishment in the death penalty, but also an astronomical murder rate. In the European Union there is no death penalty, and murderers often suffer "only" 20 years (or less) in prison. The murder rates are the lowest in the developed world.
2.) Irrational people are not deterred by a rational argument.
3.) In punishing someone we repeat the same "moral" (I use the common word) crime, namely the restriction of liberty. This should (but does not) perpetuate a circle of punishment.

Please play nice.

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

How does saying that I cannot imply that I can judge between good and evil imply that noone else can?

What makes you any different from anyone else? If you can't judge it for yourself, why would anyone else be able to? If right and wrong are defined however ech individual pleases, they might as well not exist.

You say that murder can have a rational justification. Your example deals with a paid assaination. I am not as you suggest. I would not consider killing another person, for any sum of money.

Good for you. However, your statemnt has nothign to do with rationality and everything to do with morals. You have not shown any reason why it is irrational to kill. All you ahve done is say 'I wouldn't kill, for any reason.'

I would not kill someone in self defence (They want to kill me, but I kill them instead. Hmm, now I'm a killer) I can think of no rational justification for the taking of another's life.

I said rational, not moral. Please stop confusing the two. Something being rational doesn;t make it right.

A person who accepts a sum of money to kill another is not a rational person. I cannot think that a human being can rationally decide to kill another for the sake of profit. If a rational person can be persuaded into a state of unbalance in which they can kill another, simply by the application of a few dollars, then they were not truly rational to begin with

Why not?

I assume that you would take the money, and think I'm stupid for believing otherwise.

I wouldn't take the money, because I think it would be wrong to kill without just cause. I think you're being stupid by thinking that rationality has anything to do with whether something is right. If you ahve no morals, it would be perfectly rational to accept the money and do it.

Before you even start to think it - no, I don't think money is evil. It is a simple tool which facilitates trade.

Entirely correct.

It is, perhaps, a little irrational to take the life of another in order to increase the number of trade items one can have.

Not irrational, just callous. If you don't care about anything other than yourself, you'r enot ebing irrational, you're being narcissistic.

And don't argue that for a starving man it would be rational to take the money.
1.) Hunger is an irrational animal instinct. It overrides our reason.

How is the instinct to self-preservation a 'primitize animal instrinct'?

2.) There's almost always a way of getting food.

There usually is, but that's not always available to the person - most food costs money, and if you have no money, you're sunk - or, of course, if you live in ana rea where there simply is no food, you're sunk too.

3.) If there really is no way of getting food, the truly rational man starves. The end result is the same - a life is ended.

Why is it rational to take your own life rather than that of another? While you might consider it the right thing to do, as I have been saying rationality and morality are entirely different things.

As you yourself argued, and this is your argument, not mine, killing someone is the ultimate restriction of liberty. So is locking someone up. Therefore the jailer is committing the "same crime" as the murderer.

The jailer is doing this to prevent the infringement of someone else's liberty (someone who has not done aything to warrant it); the murderer) was not and won't be.

Please read carefully and THINK!

You seem to be fond of telling toehrs to do that. Perhaps it's time to do so yourself.

1.) Punishment is not a deterrent. America has the harshest punishment in the death penalty, but also an astronomical murder rate. In the European Union there is no death penalty, and murderers often suffer "only" 20 years (or less) in prison. The murder rates are the lowest in the developed world.

AFAIK, the main reasons for this are guns drugs, and poverty. People aren't deterred by punishment when they either feel the only way they can survive is crime, which often involves killing, or that the benefits they can gain from it are worth the risk.

2.) Irrational people are not deterred by a rational argument.

You ahve yet to prove that they are irrational.

3.) In punishing someone we repeat the same "moral" (I use the common word) crime, namely the restriction of liberty. This should (but does not) perpetuate a circle of punishment.

The original restriction was not morally justified; the second restriction is, because it's intended to prevent the criminals from committing the restriction of liberty on someone else. Would you kill one person to prevent them from killing ten? (I'm assumign for the sake of argument that they didn't have justification)

[Hercules]

Thank heavens these philosophy tutorials take place here and not in other threads.

[Jamski]

I maintain that it is irrational to kill someone untill you can come up with just one rational reason why I would want to kill someone. Killing someone "to stop them killing 10 others" is not a rational reason, it is just murder. Killing someone to save my own life (because of self defence, hunger etc.) is not rational, as it supposes that my life is more valuable than another's. This is just egotism. We can safely assume that a human life is of the highest possible value, in any system. There is nothing of high enough value to exchange for just one human life. It is not rational, especially under your system of values, to make an exchange where one loses something of high worth, to gain something of low worth.

Your vision is filled with contradiction and paradox. You cannot see clearly. You speak of morals. Either you believe in a system of morals or you do not. You claim that it is possible to have "moral justification" for an immoral act, namely locking up a criminal. What is this rubbish? How is it possible to be morally justified to be immoral? This is why I refuse any concept of a universal moral code, as it is used by people, as yourself, to justify the unjustifiable.

Not irrational, just callous. If you don't care about anything other than yourself, you're not being irrational, you're being narcissistic.

It is irrational only to care about oneself. Any rational being will act in its best interest, and it is clearly in one's best interest to care, at least a little bit, about the environment, that, like it or not, we are a part of. I have presented you with enough reasons for murder being irrational. If you are not satisfied, then it is not my "duty" to try to convince you. Whether or not you concede this point is unimportant. I have also stated many other reasons not to use punishment in a "free" society. If you object to one of them, however long and loud you shout, you do not affect the material of my argument.

How is the instinct to self-preservation a 'primitive animal instinct'?

How is it not? It is the most primitive instinct, followed by reproduction. What is with these dumbass questions? Sorry, but I can't spend my whole life answering questions of this quality.

Why is it rational to take your own life rather than that of another?

I have already answered this question. There are three possiblities:
1.) You think it is wrong to kill.
2.) You think it is good to kill.
3.) You don't care either way.

Whichever you believe, the rational man will allow his own death rather than that of the other. I'm not going to explain this, I assume you are capable of following a rational argument in each case.

Oh, please shall we have no more point-by-point rebuffals. State your whole argument, rather than trying to pick holes in little quotes, and I'll do the same. Hmm? Like gentlemen?

-Jam

[Archaic]

You want a rationality for it? He's already given one to you. But fine, here's an example.

A person, concerned about only his self interests (Your statement "It is not rational, especially under your system of values, to make an exchange where one loses something of high worth, to gain something of low worth. " assumes that the person actually gives a **** about society in general, or the other person's wellbeing.), goes and mugs someone for the contents of their wallet. Let's assume for the sake of this that he wouldn't have done it if he knew he wouldn't be caught.

Net gain to that person - Whatever was in that wallet, plus maybe some jewelry, etc.
Net loss - Some time.

If the gain outweighs the loss, then it's most certainly a rational decision for them to do it. Is it a moral decision? Hell no. But a rational decision? Yes.

Remember
Being Moral does not always equal Being Rational

[Main_Brain]

*g* @Hercules

[Jamski]

Archaic claims...A person, concerned about only his self interests (Your statement "It is not rational, especially under your system of values, to make an exchange where one loses something of high worth, to gain something of low worth. " assumes that the person actually gives a **** about society in general, or the other person's wellbeing.), goes and mugs someone for the contents of their wallet. Let's assume for the sake of this that he wouldn't have done it if he knew he wouldn't be caught.

As I already wrote in my previous post...
It is irrational only to care about oneself. Any rational being will act in its best interest, and it is clearly in one's best interest to care, at least a little bit, about the environment, that, like it or not, we are a part of. I have presented you with enough reasons for murder being irrational. If you are not satisfied, then it is not my "duty" to try to convince you. Whether or not you concede this point is unimportant. I have also stated many other reasons not to use punishment in a "free" society. If you object to one of them, however long and loud you shout, you do not affect the material of my argument.

Being Moral does not always equal Being Rational

Archaic, read back over the last dozen posts or so. This is one of the few things me and GT both agree on (but for different reasons )

-Jam