Morality is not subjective

[McBell]

Yes, there is variation in the exact definition of murder, because various cultures have had various exceptions as to whom and when you could murder someone that other cultures would consider inappropriate.

We probably both think ritual sacrifice is murder. However, the Aztecs obviously did not.

Please present these definition variations.

And no, "The Aztecs" is not a variation of the definition of the word murder.

That the Aztecs did not declare ritual sacrifice illegal has absolutely no bearing on the definition of the word murder.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That the Aztecs did not declare ritual sacrifice illegal has absolutely no bearing on the definition of the word murder.

The Aztecs didn't, but in many other cultures such a practice would be illegal. In Germany, the case of cannibal Armin Meiwes presented a unique challenge to their own legal definition of murder because consent was involved. In ancient Sparta, a Spartan couldn't kill/murder another Spartan, but killing slaves was ok, and even considered a right of passage for a young Spartan boy. Such things are the variations and exceptions that add variation to the definition of murder.

 

[McBell]

The Aztecs didn't, but in many other cultures such a practice would be illegal. In Germany, the case of cannibal Armin Meiwes presented a unique challenge to their own legal definition of murder because consent was involved. In ancient Sparta, a Spartan couldn't kill/murder another Spartan, but killing slaves was ok, and even considered a right of passage for a young Spartan boy. Such things are the variations and exceptions that add variation to the definition of murder.

except they are not adding anything, let alone variation, to the definition of the word murder.

The legal definition of the word murder was not being questioned, it was being tested.
Is one allowed to given consent to a killing?
If yes, then it was not murder.
If no, then it was.

It was illegal for spartans to kill other spartans but not illegal for spartans to kill slaves.
Again, nothing to do with "variations" of the definition of the word murder.


Murder is an illegal killing.
That some killing are illegal and other killings are not illegal has no bearing on the definition of the word murder.

 

[ArtieE]

Murder is defined as an illegal killing. It's not the definition of murder that varies what varies is what is illegal in different societies.

 

[ArtieE]

In ancient Sparta, a Spartan couldn't kill/murder another Spartan, but killing slaves was ok, and even considered a right of passage for a young Spartan boy. Such things are the variations and exceptions that add variation to the definition of murder.

Murder is defined as an illegal killing. What varies isn't the definition of murder but what different societies consider illegal.

 

[Augustus]

Any society can decide any day to legalize the killing with malice aforethought.

Like throwing homosexuals off buildings of beheading 'sorcerers'?

Not at all. There is a very clear difference between killing with malice aforethought and killing in self-defense, or killing by accident, or killing soldiers from another country who are killing your neighbors.

Beheading a sorcerer is legal in some places, but is done with 'malice aforethought'. Ditto throwing homosexuals off buildings, stonings for adultery, etc. More than legal, they are moral acts carried out with pride.

Hunting down and killing in a fit of rage someone who raped your 5 year old daughter is murder.

Mob justice is socially acceptable in many countries, even against petty thieves. Lynching blacks was not exactly taboo in parts of the 'advanced' West only a few decades ago. As were the gulags and gas chambers of the totalitarian regimes.

Both legality/illegality and your 'malice aforethought' are pretty arbitrary markers of morality.

Strange that such 'universal truths' seem remarkably confined in time and space.

 

[Nous]

not true:

mur·der
ˈmərdər/
noun

1. 1.
   the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
   "the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"

verb

1. 1.
   kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
   "somebody tried to murder Joe"

Please note the word "unlawful in both definitions...

​

I am well aware that many definitions of "murder" stick "unlawful" in front it. The common law definition of murder did not include the adjective "unlawful". From Black's 2nd Edition:

What is MURDER?

The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant,justification, or excuse in law. with malice aforethought, express or implied, that is, with a deliberate purpose or a design or determination distinctly formed in the mind before the commission of the act, provided that death results from the injury Inflicted within one year and a day after its infliction. See Kilpatrick v. Com., 31 Pa. 19S; Llotema v. U. S., 186 U. S. 413. 22 Sup. Ct 895, 46 L. Ed. 1225; Guiteau’s Case (D. C.) 10 Fed. 101; Clarke v. State. 117 Ala. 1, 23 South. 071, 67 Am. St. I top. 157; People v. Enoch, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 167. 27 Am. Dec. 107; Kent v. People, 8 Colo. 5(13. 9 Pac. 852; Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 205. 52 Am. Dec. 711; Armstrong v. State. 30 Fla. 170. 11 South. 618. 17 L. R. A. 4S4; U. S. v. Lewis (C. C.) Ill Fed. 632; Nye v. People. 35 Mich. 16. For the distinction between murder and manslaughter and other forms of homicide, see HOMICIDE; MANSLAUGHTER. Common-law definitions. The willful killing of any subject whatever, with malice aforethought, whether the person slain shall be an Englishman or a foreigner. Hawk. P. C. b. 1, c. 13.​

http://thelawdictionary.org/murder/

Again, there is no tautology in the fact that the acts that constitute the crime of murder are illegal in every country. And there would be no logical conundrum if a country decided to legalize the acts that constitute the crime of murder.
​

 

[Nous]

Sorry to be answering for someone else --- but of course they do. Species behave according to their evolved nature. So the question, I think, is whether or not part of our evolved nature is to steal, kill or rape.

For the record, I would say -- based solely on the evidence -- that it may not be entirely our evolved nature, but our evolved nature does allow for it.

I definitely can't argue with that.

As a social species, dependent upon one another for our very survival, I would assume that there are many reasons such acts might be deemed immoral.

But other social species do engage in those acts such as would be classified as murder, rape (especially rape!) and theft. Yet they somehow survive, and even thrive.

 

[Nous]

Uh... hello:
Humans steal, kill, and rape too

So what is your point?

Please explain why my example didn't meet your criteria

What example? What criteria? You made some comment about being unable to imagine how among humans rape of a 4-year-old child could ever be considered moral. Unless you can't identify some circumstance in which rape could be a moral act, then the moral fact about rape is in every way like an objective moral fact.

 

[Augustus]

"without any warrant,justification, or excuse in law. with malice a forethought... "

So, basically, a premeditated, illegal killing...

You are not allowed kill people with malice a forethought unless you are allowed to kill people with malice a forethought.

 

[Nous]

Any society can decide any day to legalize the killing with malice aforethought.

Like throwing homosexuals off buildings of beheading 'sorcerers'?[/quote]It seems you're having difficulty following the very simple line of thought here.

In order to provide an example demonstrating the non-relativeness and non-arbitrariness of certain moral facts, I noted the fact that murder is criminalized in every country in the world. The acts that constitute murder obviously do not have to be criminalized by any country. Any country could legalize the acts that constitute murder any day. There is obviously no logical obstacle to a legislature legalizing the acts that constitute murder.

You haven't shown that the moral disapproval of the acts that constitute murder is relative to any current society. Nor have you been able to articulate an argument that concludes that the acts that constitute murder are in any way actually (or sometimes) moral acts. There is no circumstance whatsoever and no society where it is or can be argued to be moral to kill another person simply because you want to go for a joy ride in his car.

Similarly, teaching a 4-year-old child to tie her shoes (or other skills) is a moral and even admirable act in every society. No society criminalizes such interaction with a child. In contrast, every country criminalizes raping that child. This is just another example of the non-relativeness and non-arbitrariness of certain moral facts. These moral facts have every characteristic of an objective fact.

 

[Nous]

"without any warrant,justification, or excuse in law. with malice a forethought... "

So, basically, a premeditated, illegal killing...

You are not allowed kill people with malice a forethought unless you are allowed to kill people with malice a forethought.

Obviously you're quite confused. Read the definition again. Exert more effort of concentration.

 

[ArtieE]

I am well aware that many definitions of "murder" stick "unlawful" in front it. The common law definition of murder did not include the adjective "unlawful". From Black's 2nd Edition:

What is MURDER?

The crime committed​

Committing a crime means doing something unlawful.

Again, there is no tautology in the fact that the acts that constitute the crime of murder are illegal in every country.

If it's illegal it's a crime. If one country defines certain acts as being murder and illegal and a different country doesn't define these same acts as being murder and illegal doing these same acts wouldn't be murder in the second country.

And there would be no logical conundrum if a country decided to legalize the acts that constitute the crime of murder.

If a country legalized the acts that previously were illegal and defined as murder a person committing these same acts wouldn't be a murderer or criminal.​

 

[ArtieE]

In order to provide an example demonstrating the non-relativeness and non-arbitrariness of certain moral facts, I noted the fact that murder is criminalized in every country in the world.

This is called a tautology. Murder is per definition a crime. If the act wasn't a crime it wouldn't be murder.

The acts that constitute murder obviously do not have to be criminalized by any country.

The acts must be criminalized otherwise the acts can't be called murder in the first place.

Any country could legalize the acts that constitute murder any day.

If they legalized the acts the acts wouldn't be murder anymore.

 

[Augustus]

Obviously you're quite confused. Read the definition again. Exert more effort of concentration.

Perhaps you could unconfuse me as to the meaning of "without any warrant,justification, or excuse in law. " i.e. if you have "warrant, justification or excuse in law" it is not murder i.e. any killing within the law cannot be murder i.e it is necessarily illegal.

In order to provide an example demonstrating the non-relativeness and non-arbitrariness of certain moral facts, I noted the fact that murder is criminalized in every country in the world. The acts that constitute murder obviously do not have to be criminalized by any country. Any country could legalize the acts that constitute murder any day. There is obviously no logical obstacle to a legislature legalizing the acts that constitute murder.

And to add a layer of nuance to your example I noted that there is no absolute consensus throughout time and place as to what differentiates murder from acceptable killing other than one is legal and the other is not.

It should also be noted that law and morality are not identical. Many killings that are technically illegal are not considered immoral by many people in many societies. Examples would be mob justice, honour killings, revenge killings, killings of adulterers, killing of blasphemers or other 'social undesirables' like drug addicts, ideological enemies or the wrong ethnic or religious minority.

In addition, it might well be that laws reflect a social pragmatism, more than common morality at times.

You haven't shown that the moral disapproval of the acts that constitute murder is relative to any current society. Nor have you been able to articulate an argument that concludes that the acts that constitute murder are in any way actually (or sometimes) moral acts. There is no circumstance whatsoever and no society where it is or can be argued to be moral to kill another person simply because you want to go for a joy ride in his car.

There are plenty of historical examples.

The Spartans used to send their kids out to hunt innocent villagers at night to hone their skills. Failure to do so would be shameful and you would be considered a coward and a traitor who put the life of some untermensch ahead of the preservation of your culture. Ergo, killing them was the moral thing to do.

Likewise in many cultures you would be expected to kill (or at least brutally chastise) a slave who disrespected you in public. Failure to do so would be seen as pathetic not of high moral standing.

A human killing another human with 'malice a forethought' has been acceptable for countless reasons (not including warfare).

Can you, in your own words, explain what 'murder' is in a way that makes it morally incorrect/illegal across time and space, rather than having a high degree of cultural and temporal specificity?

 

[ArtieE]

Obviously you're quite confused. Read the definition again. Exert more effort of concentration.

I'm afraid that in this instance you are the one who is terminally confused.

 

[Mickdrew]

So what is your point?

So obviously your idea that animals don't have any sense of morality is false. Your only objection was "But animals kill and rape each other" and my response is so do humans, even with a moral code laid out

And as you said yourself:

no species has been known to go extinct due to rape, murder or theft among their own species.

Now, I doubt this is true (there were probably countless species that died off from infighting - the same was true for many human tribes as well)
Despite this, there are many animal species that don't kill their own pack off the moment they get hungry and do have their own social structure and morality.
Since you claim that....

Evolution obviously doesn't explain the moral disapproval

...The onus is now on you to explain what DOES cause animal morality if you still believe my position is wrong that we naturally develop and evolve morals to live and survive better.

What example? What criteria? You made some comment about being unable to imagine how among humans rape of a 4-year-old child could ever be considered moral. Unless you can't identify some circumstance in which rape could be a moral act, then the moral fact about rape is in every way like an objective moral fact.

You obviously didn't read my post at all since I gave you an example and a follow up in case you didn't find it satisfactory

Are you seriously going to make me answer this?

Fine. I question your own morality if you're sick enough to ask me (a human being who does see rape as immoral) this, but if you insist:

Another planet entirely, huh? Okay then! That means they might live in an environment completely different to us, and thus might evolve completely differently and form completely new behaviors. Let us call this species "Hypotheticus".
The Hypotheticus is a species where only children between the ages of 3 and 6 can produce offspring, and their bodies are set up in such a way that they must remain still in order to successfully produce offspring. They are not old enough to mentally consent, but one adult Hypotheticus is given a dilemma where it must reproduce non-consensually (or "rape") another one or else everyone it knows will die (because reasons). Oh yeah, the Hypotheticus also doesn't feel pain, so there is no suffering involved.

If this isn't good enough - and you still say rape is still immoral here - then it might very well be a situation where asking for a hypothetical where species forcibly rape other members against their will is against the very idea of prosperity and safety. It would be like asking me to think of a scenario where it would be moral for a random species to kill its own children when they're born - it's just not viable, because that would extinguish the species and they wouldn't survive.

Am I being trolled? Because I'm seriously starting to think I am...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I definitely can't argue with that.

But other social species do engage in those acts such as would be classified as murder, rape (especially rape!) and theft. Yet they somehow survive, and even thrive.

There are theories about the "especially rape" part. Not least of these is the fact that some animal societies are organized such that only the "alpha male" in a group gets the females. Gorillas fall into this category, and if you think about it, non-dominant males may really only have a choice between rape and the extinction of his own genomic line.

I would imagine that in polygamous human societies (exactly how many wives and concubines did Solomon have?!?), where one man gets multiple females, that would leave too few females for the rest of the men -- and again, it's either the extinction of their genome, or copulate by force. That, I think, is one extremely good reason that polygamy is a bad thing, unless females are much more common than males.

 

[McBell]

I am well aware that many definitions of "murder" stick "unlawful" in front it. The common law definition of murder did not include the adjective "unlawful". From Black's 2nd Edition:

What is MURDER?

The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant,justification, or excuse in law. with malice aforethought, express or implied, that is, with a deliberate purpose or a design or determination distinctly formed in the mind before the commission of the act, provided that death results from the injury Inflicted within one year and a day after its infliction. See Kilpatrick v. Com., 31 Pa. 19S; Llotema v. U. S., 186 U. S. 413. 22 Sup. Ct 895, 46 L. Ed. 1225; Guiteau’s Case (D. C.) 10 Fed. 101; Clarke v. State. 117 Ala. 1, 23 South. 071, 67 Am. St. I top. 157; People v. Enoch, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 167. 27 Am. Dec. 107; Kent v. People, 8 Colo. 5(13. 9 Pac. 852; Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 205. 52 Am. Dec. 711; Armstrong v. State. 30 Fla. 170. 11 South. 618. 17 L. R. A. 4S4; U. S. v. Lewis (C. C.) Ill Fed. 632; Nye v. People. 35 Mich. 16. For the distinction between murder and manslaughter and other forms of homicide, see HOMICIDE; MANSLAUGHTER. Common-law definitions. The willful killing of any subject whatever, with malice aforethought, whether the person slain shall be an Englishman or a foreigner. Hawk. P. C. b. 1, c. 13.​

http://thelawdictionary.org/murder/

Again, there is no tautology in the fact that the acts that constitute the crime of murder are illegal in every country. And there would be no logical conundrum if a country decided to legalize the acts that constitute the crime of murder.​

I wonder what the definition of the word murder was back in 200 BC?

Oh, thats right, it is not 200 BC so it doe snot matter one bit what the definition was back then.


The definition of the word murder in the USA includes the wording such as unlawful, illegal, etc.
Thus the very definition of the word shows you are wrong.

That you want to argue that fact is on your, not anyone else.
That you wish to justify your misuse of the word is on you, not anyone else.

 

[shava]

Since God, being pure love, we were given morals so we would know what's considered good and evil in God's eye's, not man's eye's. Moral absolute does exist, because God who is pure love, exist.