Morality is not subjective

[Nous]

Committing a crime means doing something unlawful.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.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.​

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 must be criminalized otherwise the acts can't be called murder in the first place.If they legalized the acts the acts wouldn't be murder anymore.

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.



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.



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?

So no one is able to show that there is any logical obstacle in any country legalizing the acts that constitute the crime of murder in every country.

In a previous post, I noted one of the acts that would constitute the crime of murder in every country: killing a person merely because one wishes to take his car for a joy ride. Another act that would constitute the crime of murder in every country is killing someone because he owes you money.

If there is no logical conundrum to legalizing the acts that constitute the crime of murder, then the proposition, “Every country criminalizes the acts that constitute murder,” is not a tautology. Logic does not require any country to criminalize any act.

 

[Nous]

So obviously your idea that animals don't have any sense of morality is false.

I didn't say any such thing. In noting that "animals kill and rape each other," my point was that those acts do not cause the demise of the species.

You still haven't articulated any argument by which to conclude that there is some moral imperative that humans avoid doing anything that would lead to the extinction of the species. The very idea is ridiculous. Perpetrating an act that may preserve an individual's or species' survival does not equate to acting morally. There are all manner of immoral acts that may sustain a person for another day.

 

[ArtieE]

If there is no logical conundrum to legalizing the acts that constitute the crime of murder, then the proposition, “Every country criminalizes the acts that constitute murder,” is not a tautology. Logic does not require any country to criminalize any act.

You can't legalize the acts that constitute murder if they constitute murder they are per definition criminal acts.

 

[Nous]

You can't legalize the acts that constitute murder

Prove that a legislature cannot legalize the act of killing someone just because one wants that person's jewelry.

 

[ArtieE]

Prove that a legislature cannot legalize the act of killing someone just because one wants that person's jewelry.

LOL of course they can legalize the act of killing someone just because one wants that person's jewelry but they can't legalize murder since murder is per definition an illegal act.

 

[Nous]

LOL of course they can legalize the act of killing someone just because one wants that person's jewelry

Then the statement, “Every country criminalizes the acts that constitute murder,” is not a tautology. Logic does not require any country to criminalize any act, including the act of killing a person just because one wants that person's jewelry.

 

[ArtieE]

Then the statement, “Every country criminalizes the acts that constitute murder,” is not a tautology. Logic does not require any country to criminalize any act, including the act of killing a person just because one wants that person's jewelry.

A murder is per definition a crime. It's an unlawful killing.

 

[Milton Platt]

Prove that a legislature cannot legalize the act of killing someone just because one wants that person's jewelry.

Killing is already legal. It is murder that is illegal.

 

[Milton Platt]

That's absurd, because if the devil didn't exist, then Jesus wouldn't have needed to died for us, which would make the bible unnecessary.

Hey, you're catching on.......

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That's absurd, because if the devil didn't exist, then Jesus wouldn't have needed to died for us, which would make the bible unnecessary.

You should be careful, since you just set up a logical argument that could, in fact, show the bible to be unnecessary.

After all, consider the devil -- according to what I understand some sort of deity in its own right (or at least certainly not human). Now, if God is omnipotent, and the devil is not -- then there is no fight, no "war in heaven," no anything. It' s over instantly, because omnipotence versus non-omnipotence cannot be defeated, and cannot even be delayed. That's what "all power" means. All, not some, not just more. Thus, if this devil is able to wreak spiritual havoc in this world, it can only be because your God wills it to be so. And if that is the case, then God willing Jesus dying to try to sort it out becomes purest nonsense.

Now, if you are willing to propose that the devil is another god, just about on par with your own, that might work out. But it would also make a complete mockery of your "monotheism." (You'd have to re-write the creed: "I believe in one God, and another one...")

 

[ArtieE]

There are all manner of immoral acts that may sustain a person for another day.

But if every person in the society did those acts it would be detrimental to society which is why we call them immoral.

 

[ArtieE]

I didn't say any such thing. In noting that "animals kill and rape each other," my point was that those acts do not cause the demise of the species.

And what do you think would happen if all members of the same species killed each other?

 

[Nous]

A murder is per definition a crime. It's an unlawful killing.

You're not responding to the point that logic does not require than any act, including any act that would be classified as murder in every country's legal code as murder, be illegal.

You agreed that a legislature "can legalize the act of killing someone just because one wants that person's jewelry." And if a country's legislature were to do so, that act would not be the crime of murder in that country. But every country does criminalize the act of killing someone simply because one wants that person's jewelry. Every society on earth agrees that that act is wrong (which is why it is included as the crime of murder), not merely that the act is a violation of the law.

 

[Nous]

There are all manner of immoral acts that may sustain a person for another day.

But if every person in the society did those acts it would be detrimental to society which is why we call them immoral.

Claiming an act is immoral does not prevent anyone from committing that act. Moral codes are not what ensure the survival of a species. Dinosaurs that have gone extinct were presumably no more deficient in their morals than the insects that have survived since that era.

 

[Augustus]

So no one is able to show that there is any logical obstacle in any country legalizing the acts that constitute the crime of murder in every country.

In a previous post, I noted one of the acts that would constitute the crime of murder in every country: killing a person merely because one wishes to take his car for a joy ride. Another act that would constitute the crime of murder in every country is killing someone because he owes you money.

If there is no logical conundrum to legalizing the acts that constitute the crime of murder, then the proposition, “Every country criminalizes the acts that constitute murder,” is not a tautology. Logic does not require any country to criminalize any act.

Every country puts limits on the use of deadly force, as limits on killings are good for social harmony.

So what's your point? What does this 'prove' in regard to morality not being subjective?

 

[McBell]

So no one is able to show that there is any logical obstacle in any country legalizing the acts that constitute the crime of murder in every country.

In a previous post, I noted one of the acts that would constitute the crime of murder in every country: killing a person merely because one wishes to take his car for a joy ride. Another act that would constitute the crime of murder in every country is killing someone because he owes you money.

If there is no logical conundrum to legalizing the acts that constitute the crime of murder, then the proposition, “Every country criminalizes the acts that constitute murder,” is not a tautology. Logic does not require any country to criminalize any act.

If a specific type/method of killing is legalized, it is no longer murder regardless of how you personally feel about it.
The fact that a specific manner/type/method of killing is illegal is what makes it murder.

 

[Nous]

Every country puts limits on the use of deadly force, as limits on killings are good for social harmony.

So what's your point? What does this 'prove' in regard to morality not being subjective?

If a specific type/method of killing is legalized, it is no longer murder regardless of how you personally feel about it.
The fact that a specific manner/type/method of killing is illegal is what makes it murder.

So neither of you dispute that there is no logical requirement that those acts that in every country of the world today that, if committed, would be considered murder be illegal. Is that right?

For a country to legalize the act of someone killing another person merely because the perpetrator wants the person's jewelry is not like trying to create a square circle. Right?

 

[ArtieE]

So neither of you dispute that there is no logical requirement that those acts that in every country of the world today that, if committed, would be considered murder be illegal. Is that right?

Murder is per definition illegal. If they weren't considered murder the acts could be considered legal.

 

[ArtieE]

For a country to legalize the act of someone killing another person merely because the perpetrator wants the person's jewelry is not like trying to create a square circle. Right?

That is correct. Legalizing murder would be like creating a square circle. You can't legalize something that is per definition illegal but you can theoretically take the illegal act that was previously murder and legalize the act so that it can't be called murder any more.

 

[ArtieE]

Nous, your original proposition was that “Every country criminalizes the acts that constitute murder." For acts to constitute murder the acts would already have to be criminalized. You can't criminalize an act that per definition is a crime. You could say that there are certain acts that "every" country criminalize and call murder.