Proving Murder Is Wrong Without Using Religion

[deb1]

All right, here is a challange. Can you prove that the murder of innocent people is wrong without referring to God, or religion? If you say society decides what is right and wrong then be forewarned, I want you to also explain why Nazi Germany was wrong to kill Jewish people. Also, where the Aztecs wrong to capture people from other tribes to sacrifice?

I know that there are highly intelligent people on this forum so I anticipate getting some really interesting answers.

 

[Mirdath]

Sweet zombie Hobbes, here we go again. What precisely is the problem so many Christians seem to have with the idea that an unbeliever can say something is wrong?

Anyway.

1. Golden Rule (and before anyone says it’s in the Bible, Jesus was neither the first nor the only person to come up with it): I, a hypothetical innocent, wouldn’t want to be murdered; therefore, I shouldn’t murder – and hope everyone else agrees with me. Yes, it’s a very personal and specific view of morality, but honestly it’s got just as much power as ‘God says don’t murder anyone’: people can choose to follow it or not.
2. Categorical Imperative: I cannot will that the murder of innocents becomes a universal law; therefore, it is universally wrong.
3. Social contract: the murder of innocents detracts from the society’s ability to grow and prosper.
4. Utilitarianism: murder is a pretty steep net loss of Happiness both for the victim and for anyone who cares about him or her, therefore bad.
5. I say it’s wrong, just because I feel like it. I know I exist; therefore, I am more likely to follow rules I come up with than I am to follow the rules of a deity I do not believe in. Sure, it’s juvenile; sure, it’s hardly a philosophy to live one’s life by – but why should theists have a monopoly on fiat ethics?

 

[buffalo]

no!

 

[He_Man]

Sweet zombie Hobbes, here we go again. What precisely is the problem so many Christians seem to have with the idea that an unbeliever can say something is wrong?

Anyway.

1. Golden Rule (and before anyone says it’s in the Bible, Jesus was neither the first nor the only person to come up with it): I, a hypothetical innocent, wouldn’t want to be murdered; therefore, I shouldn’t murder – and hope everyone else agrees with me. Yes, it’s a very personal and specific view of morality, but honestly it’s got just as much power as ‘God says don’t murder anyone’: people can choose to follow it or not.

The golden rule has zero merit in this context. Consequences of actions are the only real detriment to me murdering someone. This isn’t karmhic. Just because I murder someone doesn’t mean that it is going to happen to me.

So I want to, I will.

1. Categorical Imperative: I cannot will that the murder of innocents becomes a universal law; therefore, it is universally wrong.

How so? If anything, it is cultural, as seen in the US and their genocide of innocents daily.

1. Social contract: the murder of innocents detracts from the society’s ability to grow and prosper.

So does sex between men, contraception, and abortion. Point?

1. Utilitarianism: murder is a pretty steep net loss of Happiness both for the victim and for anyone who cares about him or her, therefore bad.

You are arbitrarily assinging the term bad here. If I want the victim to suffer, or their family, then, for me, it is good. Not bad.

1. I say it’s wrong, just because I feel like it. I know I exist; therefore, I am more likely to follow rules I come up with than I am to follow the rules of a deity I do not believe in. Sure, it’s juvenile; sure, it’s hardly a philosophy to live one’s life by – but why should theists have a monopoly on fiat ethics?

So don’t murder. That’s your choice. For me, I think it is good, and will do so. We are each driven my our our set of ethics in this case.

 

[deb1]

Sweet zombie Hobbes, here we go again. What precisely is the problem so many Christians seem to have with the idea that an unbeliever can say something is wrong?

?

You are getting a bit oversensitive. I never directed this at any religion or lack of religious belief. I thought it was just an interesting question. Sorry if it offended you.

As I’ve said on other threads, I do believe that atheists can be moral humans due to the natural laws that God places on our hearts. My question has nothing to do with atheistic morality. It is just an interesting question.

By the way is zombie hobbes a corpse version of Holly Hobby?

 

[Leperchaun]

As a preface I’m a little rusty on my ethics.

The golden rule has zero merit in this context. Consequences of actions are the only real detriment to me murdering someone. This isn’t karmhic. Just because I murder someone doesn’t mean that it is going to happen to me.

So I want to, I will.

How so? If anything, it is cultural, as seen in the US and their genocide of innocents daily.

So does sex between men, contraception, and abortion. Point?

You are arbitrarily assinging the term bad here. If I want the victim to suffer, or their family, then, for me, it is good. Not bad.

So don’t murder. That’s your choice. For me, I think it is good, and will do so. We are each driven my our our set of ethics in this case.

He Man, congratulations, you have made the point that most people in the world do not act ethically. However, this has no effect on Mirdath’s ethical arguments (which, given the brevity of her statements and the broad scope of the topic, were quite accurate).

As for why you arguments were not counterpoints:

1. In this system, it must always be the person’s own perception based on the belief that their world would continue to exist if everyone held the same views. If I believed it were alright to kill anyone I wanted to, and so did everyone else, and were we all to act on this belief, then I would likely not continue my existence very long.

2)Disobediance to the ethical imperative means the actions are unethical, not that there isn’t an ethical basis.

3)See 2

4)The argument of the utilitarian system of ethics is that ‘good’ is based on a measurement of all person’s ‘happiness’ (or utility, measured in the abstract unit ‘util’). Therefore, the best decision is the one which produces the most net happiness among all people, or the least decrease in happiness.

5)Again, this system is based on a personal view, what you say has no impact on my system. You can make up your own, but make sure that it allows for the continuation of your existence.

As Mirdath showed, it is not terribly difficult to come up with an ethical reason against murder of innocents based on a variety of ethical systems. The biggest issue is that too many people these days don’t look at ethics or even understand all that is involved. We are surrounded by people with broken world views who set different rules for different people, which is no real way to build an ethics system.

-JPO

 

[Mirdath]

The golden rule has zero merit in this context. Consequences of actions are the only real detriment to me murdering someone. This isn’t karmhic. Just because I murder someone doesn’t mean that it is going to happen to me.

So I want to, I will.

Choosing not to follow a moral code does not in any way impair that system’s validity. It just makes you immoral or at best mistaken vis-a-vis that particular code.

How so? If anything, it is cultural, as seen in the US and their genocide of innocents daily.

Not taking the bait – come up with a better objection.

So does sex between men, contraception, and abortion. Point?

You assume that homosexuals would be procreating anyway, or that those who contracept and abort would automagically be able to provide for a child. Neither is a safe assumption.

You are arbitrarily assinging the term bad here. If I want the victim to suffer, or their family, then, for me, it is good. Not bad.

I’m not sure you quite grasp the idea of utilitarianism. Your personal happiness has to be measured up against that of the people your action affects. If their net loss is greater than your net gain – as it will pretty much always be, considering you’re eliminating the capacity of another to experience further happiness forever and ever – it’s wrong.

I don’t buy into utilitarianism myself, but I wanted to cover most of the bases.

So don’t murder. That’s your choice. For me, I think it is good, and will do so. We are each driven my our our set of ethics in this case.

You say this like we aren’t already so.

deb1:

You are getting a bit oversensitive. I never directed this at any religion or lack of religious belief. I thought it was just an interesting question. Sorry if it offended you.

As I’ve said on other threads, I do believe that atheists can be moral humans due to the natural laws that God places on our hearts. My question has nothing to do with atheistic morality. It is just an interesting question.

Well, it kinda has everything to do with atheistic/unbelieving morality – that’s the very essence of your question. ‘I dare you to show me that your ethics aren’t a load of bull puckey’, if you will. I realize it’s a genuine question, but it came off a little confrontational – and honestly, the topic’s a dead horse.

By the way is zombie hobbes a corpse version of Holly Hobby?

Nah, Thomas

 

[He_Man]

As a preface I’m a little rusty on my ethics.

He Man, congratulations, you have made the point that most people in the world do not act ethically. However, this has no effect on Mirdath’s ethical arguments (which, given the brevity of her statements and the broad scope of the topic, were quite accurate).

As for why you arguments were not counterpoints:

1. In this system, it must always be the person’s own perception based on the belief that their world would continue to exist if everyone held the same views. If I believed it were alright to kill anyone I wanted to, and so did everyone else, and were we all to act on this belief, then I would likely not continue my existence very long.
   2)Disobediance to the ethical imperative means the actions are unethical, not that there isn’t an ethical basis.

3)See 2

4)The argument of the utilitarian system of ethics is that ‘good’ is based on a measurement of all person’s ‘happiness’ (or utility, measured in the abstract unit ‘util’). Therefore, the best decision is the one which produces the most net happiness among all people, or the least decrease in happiness.

5)Again, this system is based on a personal view, what you say has no impact on my system. You can make up your own, but make sure that it allows for the continuation of your existence.

As Mirdath showed, it is not terribly difficult to come up with an ethical reason against murder of innocents based on a variety of ethical systems. The biggest issue is that too many people these days don’t look at ethics or even understand all that is involved. We are surrounded by people with broken world views who set different rules for different people, which is no real way to build an ethics system.

-JPO

To all of the ethics questions, I say in each case “says who?” It is entirely arbitrary. Whose ethics? They are not, nor have they ever been universal.

What if exactly half of the world simply feels the opposite of exactly what the other believes? Human beliefs are not determinants at all.

 

[Mirdath]

To all of the ethics questions, I say in each case “says who?” It is entirely arbitrary. Whose ethics? They are not, nor have they ever been universal.

What if exactly half of the world simply feels the opposite of exactly what the other believes? Human beliefs are not determinants at all.

Then what makes your beliefs so special?

 

[He_Man]

I’m not sure you quite grasp the idea of utilitarianism. Your personal happiness has to be measured up against that of the people your action affects. If their net loss is greater than your net gain – as it will pretty much always be, considering you’re eliminating the capacity of another to experience further happiness forever and ever – it’s wrong.

I don’t buy into utilitarianism myself, but I wanted to cover most of the bases.

I hear you, but if there is a 50/50 split, what do we do? And how do we determine the net gain?

Many people don’t see life as value. So the loss of said life is by definition less valuable to them and not as big a loss.

If 20 people are in a room, and 19 of them want to kill the 20th, and that person is not able to render an opinion (for any number of reasons), is it okay to murder them?

This sounds a bit too much like the Wrath of Khan.

 

[He_Man]

Then what makes your beliefs so special?

They aren’t my beliefs, they are God’s. Which is why I put not stock in humanaity’s desires. It can all fall apart too easily

 

[He_Man]

Choosing not to follow a moral code does not in any way impair that system’s validity. It just makes you immoral or at best mistaken vis-a-vis that particular code.

Not taking the bait – come up with a better objection.

And what bait? It fits your criteria perfectly. Just because you don’t want to address it doesn’t mean I have to spoon feed you an example you’d prefer.

 

[Mirdath]

I hear you, but if there is a 50/50 split, what do we do? And how do we determine the net gain?

Many people don’t see life as value. So the loss of said life is by definition less valuable to them and not as big a loss.

If 20 people are in a room, and 19 of them want to kill the 20th, and that person is not able to render an opinion (for any number of reasons), is it okay to murder them?

This sounds a bit too much like the Wrath of Khan.

These points are pretty much the crux of the problem with utilitarianism. It’s a relativist code: an action proper in one context may not be proper in another. However, it’s nigh-impossible to establish that your happiness gain outweighs the loss incurred by the death of another.

And yes, Spock was a good utilitarian.

They aren’t my beliefs, they are God’s. Which is why I put not stock in humanaity’s desires. It can all fall apart too easily

No, they are your beliefs – they are simply your beliefs about God. You backed yourself into a corner there, I’m afraid.

And what bait? It fits your criteria perfectly. Just because you don’t want to address it doesn’t mean I have to spoon feed you an example you’d prefer.

No, it doesn’t fit. If anything, that objection would be far more effectively laid against the social contract or utilitarianism. And if I chose to take it and run with it, we’d bog down in a debate over what constitutes an innocent human being, innate rights, and so on and so forth rather than discussing the topic at hand.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

IF there is a God, and IF He gave out rules, first oral, then written, then those rules remain “His” rules whether or not you, or I, or anybody else claim them as God’s rules or not.

This is the ‘opposing’ corner you back yourself into – because truth will be truth whether it is ‘believed’ or ‘accepted’ or not. Truth doesn’t become truth only ‘when’ it is accepted, or accepted by a majority.

So the beliefs Christians hold about God and His teachings cannot simply be neatly tucked away as being ‘only’ or ‘merely’ ‘you Christians’ beliefs about God, His teachings, etc.’ If God gave them, they are not ‘our beliefs’ but HIS. We can accept them or not, but they aren’t just something that “christians” came up with.

 

[He_Man]

These points are pretty much the crux of the problem with utilitarianism. It’s a relativist code: an action proper in one context may not be proper in another. However, it’s nigh-impossible to establish that your happiness gain outweighs the loss incurred by the death of another.

And yes, Spock was a good utilitarian.

I agree, that’s logical.

No, they are your beliefs – they are simply your beliefs about God. You backed yourself into a corner there, I’m afraid.

Actually no. Again, we might as well debate the existence of my computer. You can refuse to believe it exists, but it does. You never saw Jesus, but that doesn’t negate his existence.

This is really why these debates are pointless. You refuse to believe in God, I refuse to acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, so it is pretty much a waste of time.

Luckily, I have 20 minutes to kill, so no major loss.

 

[Joyousguard]

The best you can possibly do is prove that murder is bad for the society. More of an inconvienece then wrong really. Whether people want to admit it or not, every human society of the planet has an inate moral code based on a higher authority. This code has become secularized over time but the firm foundation will always be a higher authority.

Humanity went from a standing of no higher power to one of a higher power. However, now it seems that instead of reverting to the belief of no higher power, going back to the left, they continue towards the right taking steps forward rather than back. They did not revert to the belief of no higher power or simply ambiguity, but rather pushed on and adapted from a human society that had based almost all of their moral understanding and values upon the belief that there was a higher power. This means that those who do not believe in a God or a higher authority themsleves have the moral values of generations instilled in them and society from those who do know that God exists.

Just an interesting observation, hope I was able to make it clear enough

 

[buffalo]

Why didn’t the first atheist murder the second?

 

[Mirdath]

If, if, if. Whether or not you, He Man and Tantum ergo, are correct in your beliefs – is immaterial, unless you can demonstrate the truth of those beliefs. Which you can’t, since you accept the truth of them as a matter of Faith.

I am perfectly willing to admit that I could be in error when I say ‘I don’t think it’s likely there is a God’. I might perhaps even be wrong when I say ‘if there is a God, I doubt it’s very like the Christian concept of the supreme being’. I don’t have faith in my position on the matter – it is simply what seems reasonable to me.

You, on the other hand, have faith in your positions – so much faith, it seems, that you are unwilling or unable to admit to doubt. Were it not for the fact that so many saints acknowledged doubt as a companion to their faith, I’d call it saintly. As it is, I can only call it stubborn.

 

[buffalo]

If, if, if. Whether or not you, He Man and Tantum ergo, are correct in your beliefs – is immaterial, unless you can demonstrate the truth of those beliefs. Which you can’t, since you accept the truth of them as a matter of Faith.

I am perfectly willing to admit that I could be in error when I say ‘I don’t think it’s likely there is a God’. I might perhaps even be wrong when I say ‘if there is a God, I doubt it’s very like the Christian concept of the supreme being’. I don’t have faith in my position on the matter – it is simply what seems reasonable to me.

You, on the other hand, have faith in your positions – so much faith, it seems, that you are unwilling or unable to admit to doubt. Were it not for the fact that so many saints acknowledged doubt as a companion to their faith, I’d call it saintly. As it is, I can only call it stubborn.

The doubt is indeed what’s the test. God could come down and impose himself as a dictator and all would believe as He demonstrated His might. A far as belief that would be a piece of cake. As far as following such a dictator that would be a real challenge.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If, if, if. Whether or not you, He Man and Tantum ergo, are correct in your beliefs – is immaterial, unless you can demonstrate the truth of those beliefs. Which you can’t, since you accept the truth of them as a matter of Faith.

No, no, no. You continue to have it backward. It is not a question of ‘demonstrating truth’ in ‘our’ beliefs.

The ‘truth’ exists. We do not ‘have’ to demonstrate truth (which is an absolute concept) to fit whatever concrete, limited, and nonabsolute concepts which you or any other individual insist are ‘the only’ or the ‘correct’ ways in which we can ‘prove’ truth to YOUR SATISFACTION.

I may accept truth in faith-- AND REASON–not ‘one OR the other’, and therefore my acceptance is not ‘limited’ to a ‘faith alone’ basis which cannot be ‘quantitated’ by the reason which you as an individual are insisting is ‘The’ criteria to demonstrate truth.

But that acceptance does not ‘make’ the truth–and my nonacceptance would not ‘dissipate’ the truth.

And that is where you have the problem, Mirdath.

Over and over we tell you, it is not ‘our’ belief, it is not 'our 'faith, it is not even ‘our’ CHOICE which dictates whether truth exists, and truth exists whether or not it can be ‘demonstrated’ by ‘science’.

For it exists whether or not we believe or choose.
And ‘demonstration’ of truth is a descendent of an 18th century idea which has been corrupted into an elevation of ‘scientific principles’ as ‘the god’ which ALONE can demonstrate whether anything is ‘real’, or ‘demonstrable’.