Man cuts his teenage daughter's throat for no good reason

[David Floyd]

That's why murder is wrong.

Oh I see. So if you find a way to commit a murder, without anyone else noticing, then you've done nothing wrong. Right?

So basically you're simply saying that murder is only wrong if other people know about it. If you kill a bum in the woods somewhere, no big deal.

Osweld,

How can a society have morals? A society is nothing more than a collection of people. If a society has morals, then you are saying that morality ISN'T relative, it is absolute, and is based upon what most individuals think.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Osweld,

How can a society have morals? A society is nothing more than a collection of people. If a society has morals, then you are saying that morality ISN'T relative, it is absolute, and is based upon what most individuals think.

A society doesn't have morals per say, you are just taking what I said more litteraly then I ment. The law is just a close aproximation, or a compromise, on the different people's morals which it covers. It's never absolute, and never will everyone agree on all the laws in their society. (Unless it's a very small society of like minded people, if you want to get semantic. )


EDIT: And remember, the law varies from place to place.

[chequita guevara]

Dead people don't care that they were murdered.

[Az]

So there is nothing wrong with killing homeless people, and throwing them into barrels of acid?

Morals, ethics, same thing. Everything's relative.

You might like to think that your ethics are the universal law, but that's just delusion. If ethics and morality where not relative, there would never be debate on wether something is ethical.

Not so.
I am not speaking of any law, but I certainly do think that a person can reach philosophical conclusions on that topic. Yes, they do come after we position some axioms, but that holds for any 'hard' science as well.

[David Floyd]

Osweld,

The law is just a close aproximation, or a compromise, on the different people's morals which it covers.

If the law is a close aproximation of people's morals, then why not just pass laws that say murder is only wrong if you think it is. That covers everyone pretty well, doesn't it?

It's never absolute, and never will everyone agree on all the laws in their society.

Oh, OK, so then "the law" is just the attempt of the person or persons in power to enforce their morality, which doesn't actually apply to anyone but themselves, over the people who aren't in power and might happen to have different, but equally irrelevant, morality.

Right?

chegitz,

Dead people don't care that they were murdered.

No, but up to the point where they cease to be alive, I'm sure that they object strenuously.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Osweld,



If the law is a close aproximation of people's morals, then why not just pass laws that say murder is only wrong if you think it is. That covers everyone pretty well, doesn't it?

Because that's just a way of saying there is no law. Wouldn't make much sense as a law, would it?

Oh, OK, so then "the law" is just the attempt of the person or persons in power to enforce their morality, which doesn't actually apply to anyone but themselves, over the people who aren't in power and might happen to have different, but equally irrelevant, morality.

Right?

Sure, if that's how you want to put it.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Azazel

Not so.
I am not speaking of any law, but I certainly do think that a person can reach philosophical conclusions on that topic. Yes, they do come after we position some axioms, but that holds for any 'hard' science as well.

And just because you think everything can be broken down into some sort of 'logical equation', doesn't mean that everyone does. Doesn't mean that they'd all do the same math, either.

[Ramo]

Not so.
I am not speaking of any law, but I certainly do think that a person can reach philosophical conclusions on that topic. Yes, they do come after we position some axioms, but that holds for any 'hard' science as well.

"My eyes work properly" is a totally different sort of axiom from, say, "freedom is good." The former axiom can be reached by the scientific method (my previous experience makes the statement more likely than its converse), while the latter cannot.

[Az]

Ahem, Ramo, this is not the sort of axiom I was speaking about. I was speaking about the more basic axioms.

[Ramo]

What's more basic than that?

Whether or not one's senses form a good approximation of reality is pretty much the fundamental axiom of science (if you can't trust your observations, you can forget about everything else), and "freedom is good" is the fundamental axiom of my moral system.

[Az]

What's more basic than that?

Freedom is good is the fundamental axiom of your moral system? that's why your moral system doesn't make sense. You could base an ethical philosophy on an axiom about a certain feeling, but such a complicated concept as 'freedom'?

[Ramo]

Why? And what makes freedom so much more complicated than anything else (seems pretty simple to me, lack of constraint)? You're a utilitarian, right? How is happiness a better basis than freedom (it seems to me, happiness is a much more complex concept)?

[Az]

because freedom is a concept, and a rather complicated one. feeling, like sight, is hardwired to the human experience.

[Ramo]

That's not a justification. Why does being "hardwired to the human experience" make for a better basis?

And happiness I think is much more complicated a concpet than freedom.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
If you kill a bum in the woods somewhere, no big deal.

Might makes right, nothing is wrong if you can get away with it. Society prohibits murder because no one wants to be murdered and we couldn't function very wel if we had to prepare to defend ourselves against murder all the time. Thus its in all our interests to prevent the murder of others.

Furthermore, someone who is willing to murder somone just cause they can, is a danger to everyone. If some guy is willing to kill a prostitute for kicks, what's to say he'll stop with prostitutes (from personal epxerience, I know of one person who didn't). Therefore we defend even criminals in order to defend ourselves and society.

Finally, even lumpens have family. Homeless people are sons and daughters and brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers. Just because that person is homeless doesn't mean there aren't productive members of society who don't care about them and would be affected by their murders. And even the homeless have a society, of sorts.