Proving Murder Is Wrong Without Using Religion

[He_Man]

The problem I have with this is that for each answer someone gives who chooses to remove God from the equation, you can answer with “says who?”

We should do what’s best for society? Says who?

We should do what’s best for the inidividual? Says who?

We should do what’s best for the other person, ala the golden rule? Says who?

Where does any of this come from, and WHY are we “supposed” to do it?

 

[Mirdath]

Take, for instance, the idea that we could eliminate all violent criminals in this society in order to make the country a nearly completely safe place . You have “reasoned” that such an act would be “universally wrong”? All rational and logical points seem to weigh heavily on the extermination side. It’s a very scientific solution. You sure there isn’t another aspect to your reaction on the subject?

Violent criminals are still human beings – and all you’re doing is trying to dehumanize them, making them out to be nothing more than predatory animals with no function but to kill, rape, and rob. And that just ain’t so. I might support the total eradication of the mosquito, but not that of any class of people.

People you will never know will end the meaningless life of people you have never known, producing unknown and random positive and negative reactions from that act and you are able to unequivocably call it “wrong”? That’s not reason, brother, that’s blind faith. Evolutionarily speaking, of course.

Nope, it’s reason – induction, sure, but still reason.

No–my objection is that all you have done is make a list —“I love humanity” “I don’t want someone to kill me” "There are ethical lists which say ‘killing is wrong’ " and other mere opinions. You’ve now arrived at the point where you are almost admitting “I can’t prove murder is wrong” but you don’t want to say it without “But neither can you!”

I can prove it just fine, and I did five ways to Sunday in my first post in the thread. What I can’t do is make anyone agree with me – much as you can’t.

 

[deb1]

The problem I have with this is that for each answer someone gives who chooses to remove God from the equation, you can answer with “says who?”

We should do what’s best for society? Says who?

We should do what’s best for the inidividual? Says who?

We should do what’s best for the other person, ala the golden rule? Says who?

Where does any of this come from, and WHY are we “supposed” to do it?

As a Christian I can answer this by saying that the natural laws that God puts on all our hearts assist mankind in knowing what is ultimately right or wrong. So, even nonChristian societies can have good qualities in them. I am finding it hard to defend murder though, and very easy to invent logical reasons why it should be allowed, if religion is thrown out of the mix.

 

[Kathrin]

We should do what’s best for the other person, ala the golden rule? Says who?

Where does any of this come from, and WHY are we “supposed” to do it?

Because of empathy?

Kathrin

 

[deb1]

Because of empathy?

Kathrin

Empathy could be used to kill people. Because I wouldn’t want to be bed ridden, life must not be worth living for a bedridden person. So, out of kindness I think that I will humanely kill such a person.

The fact that I can come up with justification for the state to murder people is a bit troubling.

 

[Kathrin]

Ok, another reason:
Because we don’t even really know what death is?

How can we “send” somebody somewhere that we have not that much of an idea of? Especially somebody who doesn’t believe in religion.

That is one reason I have always thought the death penalty is so wrong!! I mean - punishment? That we really don’t know what it is?

 

[Keikiolu]

All right, here is a challange. Can you prove that the murder of innocent people is wrong without referring to God, or religion?

Only by defining religion as not-religion can you come anywhere near showing that anything is wrong without resorting to religion.

Religion is simply dogma. Dogmas are created by humans as their means of coming to conclusions. Having dogmas create religion. Religion is therefore an inherent characteristic of humans (and to some extent all creatures).

To say that any conclusion can be arrived at without arriving at a conclusion is self negating.

Therefore, there is no way to prove ANY act has ANY moral value without resorting to 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.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[deb1]

I can prove it just fine, and I did five ways to Sunday in my first post in the thread. What I can’t do is make anyone agree with me – much as you can’t.

That is the point. You can’t convince anyone that anything is correct.

Besides, I thought that I defeated all your points except the last one, which you never explained further to me anyway.

 

[He_Man]

As a Christian I can answer this by saying that the natural laws that God puts on all our hearts assist mankind in knowing what is ultimately right or wrong. So, even nonChristian societies can have good qualities in them. I am finding it hard to defend murder though, and very easy to invent logical reasons why it should be allowed, if religion is thrown out of the mix.

Says who?

In this atheistic context, God does not exist. You said “as a Christian”, but by definition, in this context, there is no such thing as Christianity.

To answer this, we have to assume:

1. God doesn’t exist.
2. Religion doesn’t exist.

Take Him out of the equation. Now, that also removes Natural Law (only excists through God’s existence).

So, says who?

 

[Mirdath]

That is the point. You can’t convince anyone that anything is correct.

If nothing else, we share this failing.

Besides, I thought that I defeated all your points except the last one, which you never explained further to me anyway.

Well, you made the excellent point that people tend not to act ethically and tend to justify immoral behavior. But that’s not exactly demolishing my points.

 

[deb1]

Says who?

In this atheistic context, God does not exist. You said “as a Christian”, but by definition, in this context, there is no such thing as Christianity.

To answer this, we have to assume:

1. God doesn’t exist.
2. Religion doesn’t exist.

Take Him out of the equation. Now, that also removes Natural Law (only excists through God’s existence).

So, says who?

YOu are right, I ignored my own rules. Sorry.

 

[He_Man]

No sweat, just clarifying

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, I haven’t seen somebody successfully arguing that the entire premise of the argument is actually setting up a ‘straw man’, so to speak.

First: Why must we ‘prove murder is wrong’ without religion? Why does ‘religion’ not have as much, or even ‘any’ weight, compared with other criteria?

Second, what is meant by ‘religion’? Everybody seems to have a different definition.

Third, what is meant by ‘wrong’? Everybody seems to have a different definition of THAT, too.

Even ‘murder’ is bandied about with people arguing that ‘X’ is or isn’t murder, ‘Y’ is or isn’t murder, etc.

Until you can have a consensus as to ‘what’ all those words mean, and have them ‘mean the same’ to everybody, it isn’t worth arguing at all, because nobody is addressing the same thing.

And even then, I’d really like somebody to explain, again, why we cannot have ‘religion’ (in any sense of the word) used as a criterion to make a decision in a putative moral case.

 

[Keikiolu]

Well, I haven’t seen somebody successfully arguing that the entire premise of the argument is actually setting up a ‘straw man’, so to speak.

First: Why must we ‘prove murder is wrong’ without religion? Why does ‘religion’ not have as much, or even ‘any’ weight, compared with other criteria?

Second, what is meant by ‘religion’? Everybody seems to have a different definition.

Third, what is meant by ‘wrong’? Everybody seems to have a different definition of THAT, too.

Even ‘murder’ is bandied about with people arguing that ‘X’ is or isn’t murder, ‘Y’ is or isn’t murder, etc.

Until you can have a consensus as to ‘what’ all those words mean, and have them ‘mean the same’ to everybody, it isn’t worth arguing at all, because nobody is addressing the same thing.

And even then, I’d really like somebody to explain, again, why we cannot have ‘religion’ (in any sense of the word) used as a criterion to make a decision in a putative moral case.

Here are my def’s:

A religion is any set of dogmas.

Dogmas are beliefs which are absolute (at a particular time with indeterminate or determinate “life span”) as conclusions.

No moral value (rightness or wrongness) of an act is possible unless a dogma is applied to that act.

So, if no moral value can be concluded (arrived at) about an act without a dogma, and no dogma can exist without the presence of a religion, ONLY by the use of religion is it possible to conclude any moral value whatsoever.

Therefore, NO act is judgable as wrong without the use of religion.

One’s choice of religion is entirely an act of human free will.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[NPS]

Says who?

In this atheistic context, God does not exist. You said “as a Christian”, but by definition, in this context, there is no such thing as Christianity.

To answer this, we have to assume:

1. God doesn’t exist.
2. Religion doesn’t exist.

Take Him out of the equation. Now, that also removes Natural Law (only excists through God’s existence).

So, says who?

Exactly right, HM. While Mirdy is busy proclaiming victory, all he has really done is give us reasons he thinks killing humans is wrong. But if an athiest were honest to his own stated ideals (very, very few are) then no physical act has any more meaning than any other physical act–just various consequences.

These consequences can be valued differently by various people. Using the consequences you personally approve of to label that act as “right” and those consequences you personally disaprove of to label an act as “wrong” is not proof. It is opinion.

Saying, as Mirdy does, that a criminal put to death for the good of society are “still human and not animals” should, strictly speaking, mean nothing to a true athiest, at least one who believes that humans are nothing more than random biological evolutionary accidents.

I ask again of any athiest:
What is the big deal about killing another person?
I really don’t see the problem. Unless you have direct personal consequences from the act, any “feelings” you have against the act are simply a random and meaningless chemical reaction in your brain. If anything, a true athiest should take each specific killing and weigh it’s exact societal consequences before determining whether that killing is “right” or “wrong”.

 

[Wieland]

If I was an atheist, my thinking would be something like this:

“I believe murder is wrong, because if murder were tolerated by society, then I and those I love would be at greater risk of being murdered, and I would personally find that quite unpleasant. Yes, this is a relative position to take; if I was old and near death anyway and had few loved ones, I would find murder less repulsive. I find Nazism and the Holocaust to be ‘bad’, because I do not want that part of history to be repeated in such a way that I and my loved ones are endangered by it. On abortion, neither I nor anyone I know are or ever will be in a position to be aborted; therefore I do not find it wrong. However, I would find it pleasant to have many grandchildren, so it would be wrong for my children to have abortions.”

It’s a selfish viewpoint, but I think without religion, honest atheists would probably find their morality stems from something similar to this.

 

[Winnie_Loke]

I believe that conscience is a creation of God. It’s hard not to mention Religion because God set the absolute standard and truth in our mind.

 

[He_Man]

If I was an atheist, my thinking would be something like this:

“I believe murder is wrong, because if murder were tolerated by society, then I and those I love would be at greater risk of being murdered, and I would personally find that quite unpleasant. Yes, this is a relative position to take; if I was old and near death anyway and had few loved ones, I would find murder less repulsive. I find Nazism and the Holocaust to be ‘bad’, because I do not want that part of history to be repeated in such a way that I and my loved ones are endangered by it. On abortion, neither I nor anyone I know are or ever will be in a position to be aborted; therefore I do not find it wrong. However, I would find it pleasant to have many grandchildren, so it would be wrong for my children to have abortions.”

It’s a selfish viewpoint, but I think without religion, honest atheists would probably find their morality stems from something similar to this.

Agreed, and notice how many times you use the word “I” and “my”. 13 times. But from that point of view, there is no right and wrong, but “your” view is not “my view.”

 

[deb1]

So, without God and absolutes the morality murder has to be based on an individual’s personal emotions.

 

[Keikiolu]

So, without God and absolutes the morality murder has to be based on an individual’s personal emotions.

Most true…!

And those emotions are based solely on their wants,… their whims.

The morality of any action is then at the mercy of any random change of mood. What kind of world does that describe…?

Yuuuuuuuuuuck…