Natural Rights

[GePap]

The definition is vague, not wrong. The fact that there are multiple (overlapping yet non-overarching) definitions for "murder" attests to the complexity of the term. "Killing with premeditated malice" certainly covers a significant subset of murder, a subset that is defined independently of a code of laws. (If I say "I own a cow," then you wouldn't say "You're wrong, you own a white cow!")

Yes, but a subset can only exist within the set: if the set, "murder" needs law, then a subset prior to the law can not exist. I can not say "wrong, you own a white cow!", if there i no such thing as a cow.

Language, or whatever "makes" language. The bulk of the dictionary's definitions for "justice" are defined independently of law, e.g., "The principle of moral rightness; equity."

But are any of those definitions independent of soceity, norms, customs, the precursors of law? The theory of justice, even under that defiinition, can not exist outside of society and human groups.

But Berz still has a problem, since what is "justifiable" can change if you change what is "justice" fr a given group. till makes "murder" dependent on human convention, be it law, or custom and norm.

[st_swithin]

Yeah, you go, B!!

"Creating a thing does not necessarily, nor automatically, give you dominion over it." -David B., the Wandering Jew

[monkspider]

Poor Berz.

[David Floyd]

GePap, your argument that the concept of murder can't exist without the word "murder" is illogical.

2+2=4, no matter what, no matter what you call 2, or what you call 4. If you like, 31231+31231=776545, or grug+grug=lheg. It doesn't matter. The concept matters, not the words.

So, just because murder has not always been legally defined, and just because the term "murder" was not always used, does not mean that the concept of murder did not exist, IF you view murder as a fundamentally moral, rather than legal, issue. If you view murder as simply a legal issue, something that the law can define however it wants with no moral problem, then obviously you can make a different argument, one that puts you in the position of not having any grounds on which to oppose Nazi Germany, as Berzerker has pointed out several times.

[Berzerker]

Gepap - Oops, forgot one.

Just to make clear to you Berz why the animal question is so vital:

You say that fundamental universal rights stem form the fact of creation, and that they are a manifestation of desired universally shared by all members of the species.

What I said is that rights - moral claims of ownership - are based on universal desires. Creation shows a design by which we can discern that the creator "endowed" us with ownership of our existence since the creator placed no chains around us with the end resting in the hands of others. I excluded animals from my argument but some here can't deal with that for some reason. If you believe animals have the intelligence to understand morality, then maybe you can figure out a way to talk to them and find out if they really do understand morality and if they have a system of rights. But that has no bearing on my argument...

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
Yes, but a subset can only exist within the set: if the set, "murder" needs law, then a subset prior to the law can not exist.

Bollocks. Natural numbers are a subset of integers, yet you don't need to define integers in order to define the natural numbers -- on the contrary, definitions of integers are typically based on the definition of the natural numbers. Ditto rational numbers, real numbers, complex numbers, etc. -- for millenia mathematicians didn't use irrational numbers or imaginary numbers, yet you don't see anybody saying "well then, those mathematicians obviously weren't using any numbers, since their definitions of 'number' didn't cover all numbers!" Ancient mathematicians didn't need (or couldn't adequately use) irrational numbers or imaginary numbers, so their definition of the term "number" was sufficient. Similarly, "killing with premeditated malice" would be a sufficient definition for "murder" in a state of nature, since the more complex types of murder wouldn't exist yet.

But are any of those definitions independent of soceity, norms, customs, the precursors of law?

"Equity" is a mathematical concept, and can certainly exist without customs, society, etc.

But Berz still has a problem, since what is "justifiable" can change if you change what is "justice" fr a given group.

This isn't the world of 1984 -- language cannot be arbitrarily redefined. (Even Ingsoc was running into difficulties with its rewriting of the English language.)

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd
GePap, your argument that the concept of murder can't exist without the word "murder" is illogical.

2+2=4, no matter what, no matter what you call 2, or what you call 4. If you like, 31231+31231=776545, or grug+grug=lheg. It doesn't matter. The concept matters, not the words.

If there was NO word for 2 (in any language), how could you have the concept? Explain that.

So, just because murder has not always been legally defined, and just because the term "murder" was not always used, does not mean that the concept of murder did not exist, IF you view murder as a fundamentally moral, rather than legal, issue. If you view murder as simply a legal issue, something that the law can define however it wants with no moral problem, then obviously you can make a different argument, one that puts you in the position of not having any grounds on which to oppose Nazi Germany, as Berzerker has pointed out several times.

Actually, yes it does mean just that, since you have given no basis for murder to be a purely moral concept on its own. As for the endless tripe about Nazi Germany: the Nazi's broke lost of pre-existing laws, specially about their treatment of peoples outside of Germany. According to your moral codes DL< if HItler had simply carries out his killing spree in Germany, the US would have had no moral standing to get involved. Only 1/12 of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were Germans: the rest were citizens of araes conqured by the germans in one way or another: that meant they were subject to laws and codes curbing the behavior during war (hence why the nazi's were tried after the war for crimes against humanity and war crimes, and not murder or German citizens. So I don;t see really what ground YOU have to stand on: I am just fine in this regard.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Gepap
If there was NO word for 2 (in any language), how could you have the concept? Explain that.

If you haven't got a concept for 2, then how (or rather, why) would you make a word for it?

[David Floyd]

If there was NO word for 2 (in any language), how could you have the concept? Explain that.

Obviously, if you lend someone 2 cows for a week, so that he can have fresh milk, and you only get one back, you know you have a problem. Use whatever example you like. It's simple math.

As for the endless tripe about Nazi Germany: the Nazi's broke lost of pre-existing laws, specially about their treatment of peoples outside of Germany.

The Nuremburg "Blood and Honor" laws were certainly highly immoral, as were laws allowing for the sterilization of Jews, plus something called (IIRC) the T4 program, which was euthanasia.

Further, IF Nazi Germany had codified the Holocaust into the law, are you arguing that it would have been a perfectly legitimate act with no moral significance?

HOWEVER, if you don't like the Nazi example, you can always take, say, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, or anyone you like.

According to your moral codes DL< if HItler had simply carries out his killing spree in Germany, the US would have had no moral standing to get involved.

Bull****. The US had a moral right to act to prevent mass murder. However, the US did NOT have a moral right to act immorally towards this end. If the US could have fought and funded the war totally voluntarily, it would have been fine, because the Nazis were violating a universal moral code.

the rest were citizens of araes conqured by the germans in one way or another: that meant they were subject to laws and codes curbing the behavior during war

Now you are arguing that in wartime, a nation can make up whatever laws it wants with which to govern conquered peoples, and that this is perfectly legitimate and moral?

hence why the nazi's were tried after the war for crimes against humanity and war crimes, and not murder or German citizens

The Nuremburg Trials bring up an interesting point. If the Holocaust, etc., had been codified into German law, do you believe that the Nuremburg Trials would have been legitimate?

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

Bollocks. Natural numbers are a subset of integers, yet you don't need to define integers in order to define the natural numbers -- on the contrary, definitions of integers are typically based on the definition of the natural numbers. Ditto rational numbers, real numbers, complex numbers, etc. -- for millenia mathematicians didn't use irrational numbers or imaginary numbers, yet you don't see anybody saying "well then, those mathematicians obviously weren't using any numbers, since their definitions of 'number' didn't cover all numbers!" Ancient mathematicians didn't need (or couldn't adequately use) irrational numbers or imaginary numbers, so their definition of the term "number" was sufficient. Similarly, "killing with premeditated malice" would be a sufficient definition for "murder" in a state of nature, since the more complex types of murder wouldn't exist yet.

Oh Loin, mathemetics are a human creation. My fault for continuing your use of mathematical wording, but to stick with murder: And who decides both premeditation and malice? if I come pout of nowhere and kill someone, what can you possibly use to call that murder, if you have no way of knwing if it was either a)premeditated or b) with malice (however malice is defined here)? How would you know it was a sponteneaous crime of passion? The only way i can see that anyone other than the person who killed could possibly know if it was premeditated and with malice is with some sort of court proceding, meanign that prior to a court of some type, the notion of murder would have no practicality.

"Equity" is a mathematical concept, and can certainly exist without customs, society, etc.

I doubt that mathematical equity is what is meant in that sentence, sepically since it is not a good fit: Oh, and mathematics are a human invention. When you find me a math equation created prior to either of these, and without any connection to these, then you have a point.

This isn't the world of 1984 -- language cannot be arbitrarily redefined. (Even Ingsoc was running into difficulties with its rewriting of the English language.)

Who is changing the words? You agreed that to have somehting be "justifiable", you must have a concept of justice", but not all concepts of "justice" are the same, so the same act may be "justifiable" at one point, and "unjustifiable" at another.

[Sava]

david floyd just killed the thread

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

If you haven't got a concept for 2, then how (or rather, why) would you make a word for it?

The concept and the word come as one: or casn you give me an example of a concept without its own word.

[David Floyd]

And who decides both premeditation and malice? if I come pout of nowhere and kill someone, what can you possibly use to call that murder, if you have no way of knwing if it was either a)premeditated or b) with malice (however malice is defined here)?

Again, the CONCEPTS of "premeditation" and "malice" are the same, regardless of what words you use for them, or even if you have no word at all.

How would you know it was a sponteneaous crime of passion? The only way i can see that anyone other than the person who killed could possibly know if it was premeditated and with malice is with some sort of court proceding,

In specific examples, such as the one you are making, a court proceeding is often necessary to determine the difference between premeditation and a crime of passion. However, the court proceeding doesn't change any of the facts, it simply discovers facts - what happened, happened.

meanign that prior to a court of some type, the notion of murder would have no practicality.

I've never been big on arguing practicality, efficiency, etc., because the practicality and/or efficiency has NO bearing on morality. Right and wrong exist outside of what is convenient. It might be INCONVENIENT to work for a living, but it's wrong to survive by stealing, for example.

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Obviously, if you lend someone 2 cows for a week, so that he can have fresh milk, and you only get one back, you know you have a problem. Use whatever example you like. It's simple math.

And how would you know you did not get back the right number unless prior to giving the cows in, you had the concept of how many you were giving him in the first place?

HOWEVER, if you don't like the Nazi example, you can always take, say, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, or anyone you like.

Has anyone ever been tired for the acts of Mao? As for Pol Pot, he and his gorup becmae rebels, and the new admin. did seek them out. And sicne Stalin was denoucned after his death, people who acted with him. like Beria, could be taken out.

Now you are arguing that in wartime, a nation can make up whatever laws it wants with which to govern conquered peoples, and that this is perfectly legitimate and moral?

No, since this gets inot the area of the legitimacy of such laws, given the system of soverignty.

The Nuremburg Trials bring up an interesting point. If the Holocaust, etc., had been codified into German law, do you believe that the Nuremburg Trials would have been legitimate?

Since the trials were not held, and would not have been held, in German courts or using the German legal code, most certainly.

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Again, the CONCEPTS of "premeditation" and "malice" are the same, regardless of what words you use for them, or even if you have no word at all.

In specific examples, such as the one you are making, a court proceeding is often necessary to determine the difference between premeditation and a crime of passion. However, the court proceeding doesn't change any of the facts, it simply discovers facts - what happened, happened.

But without the ability to discover the facts the concept would be useless, since you are unable to act on it or use it in any way.

I've never been big on arguing practicality, efficiency, etc., because the practicality and/or efficiency has NO bearing on morality. Right and wrong exist outside of what is convenient. It might be INCONVENIENT to work for a living, but it's wrong to survive by stealing, for example.

And what you have never really provided is a good standing for your absolute vision of morality, which is the one things you must do.