4 ms·
>That's a really poor example that only applies because you chose to use the term "murder" rather than "killing." Killing is not wrong because it's killing, it'
by lsc 11y ago
>That's a really poor example that only applies because you chose to use the term "murder" rather than "killing." Killing is not wrong because it's killing, it's wrong for more subtle and practical reasons -- something that is easier to show if you don't go around wantonly calling killing 'murder.'
No... I chose to say murder because it is not generally agreed that killing is wrong, even today.
Most people think that killing in self-defense, for example, is permissible, and sometimes admirable thing (though again, there is much disagreement on exactly what self-defense is) Hell, a lot of people think that killing in pursuit of a sufficiently emotionally charged goal is okay, see collateral damage in wars of choice. Many people think that killing in defense of property is okay, and many people disagree with that first set. I could go on and on.
In the country where I live, most killings are auto crashes. Clearly, most people don't think that this is wrong, considering how loosely we regulate who can drive (compared to, say, who can carry a gun) Hell, I am about to go to work; getting there half an hour earlier (vs. what it would take on my dramatically less dangerous to other people bicycle) is apparently worth risking other people's lives to me. Now, I don't feel particularly okay about this, and I mitigate it somewhat by carrying more than the usual liability insurance, but I'm about to step into my car and drive.
- Retra 11y agoMy point is that "murder is wrong" is so much of a tautology to be a completely uninteresting topic. Nobody needs to talk about the fact that murder is wrong, the discussion is about which killings are murder and which aren't.
- lsc 11y agoI was suggesting that the difference between the word "murder" and the word "killing" is demonstrative of the sort of broad thinking that allows people to say that there is a set of ethics that is universally believed.
- Retra 11y agoMany of the things that make killing murder are sufficient for universal ethical principles. That is, there are things that are universally true within every rational, coherent ethical framework. This doesn't mean everybody knows about them, agrees to them, or even believes in them. So this: >people to say that there is a set of ethics that is universally believed. ...is absurd. There is nothing that is universally believed. That's because people can be wrong about facts. That doesn't mean there are no facts.
- lsc 11y agoAnd? We were talking about commonly held ethical or moral beliefs. Not what "true morals" or "true ethics" are. I quote those, but I don't reject the idea that there are true morals or true ethics that exist outside of your opinion and my opinion. It certainly feels right that there is a truth somewhere that is bigger than my ego. I'm just pointing out that you can't use general agreement across time and culture as evidence for said external, objective true ethics, because such an agreement doesn't exist in a meaningful way.
- Retra 11y agoIt exists in a meaningful way, just as an approximation. Like how the concept of "tree" is meaningful in spite of the fact that every single plant on this planet is unique.
- lsc 11y agoWhen a significant number of people think that killing someone for blasphemy is a just thing to do? when a significant number of people a few centuries back thought that humans could be property? I'd compare this to finding a civilization that used the word "tree" to refer to Volkswagens. Yeah, I'm going to say that there isn't a meaningful agreement on ethics or morals across culture and time. This idea of an external set of ethics; an external morality that is "right" regardless of human opinion is a universal-ish concept, as far as I can tell, it's agreement on what those universal ethics are where there is disagreement.