Stewie101:


I am just a human being trying to make sense of the world I was born into.

Meaning u an atheist
This thread should have been more of enlightenment rather than debate
I'm more concerned about religionists.





Will be following through

Are you a deist?

jonbellion:
good point
I believe that's where secular laws come in
We have evolved quite a lot in morality a thousand years back slavery,human sacrifice etc was not considered wrong by many but today we have the United nations...ironically those things were when religion was at it's peak. Religions like Christianity have evolved to suit modern times as well unlike the other abrahamic religion "of peace"
Morality is a really complicated concept it's not all black and white like world religions paint it out to be
I personally feel that anything that males life pleasant to yourself and others does not cause sorrow pain or anguish to a human being can be considered as moral. Murder by this definition cannot be moral so people that don't have this trait will have to deal with the law

Lol. I am not Muslim either.

So essentially your point is that along with empathy, we can categorize an action as being morally impermissible if such action causes pain to others.

How about if killing someone, although acknowledging the fact that it would cause him pain, would prevent the suffering and death of other people? How about if killing someone could potentially preclude the suffering of a large number of people? How do you define what's right and what's wrong in this case? Is it justifiable then to sacrifice the lives of a small number of people in order to prevent the suffering of a larger number of people?

How about if a person possesses a need to kill and this need is predicated on a strong desire to obtain a certain profound and ineffable kind of gratification, or the obsessive, overwhelming need to satisfy an unquenchable, consuming, overpowering vindictive urge, and the inability to carry out this desire imposes a huge amount of suffering and psychological distress on this individual? Distress that could lead him to take his life, or engage in other acts that could potentiate the infliction of pain and suffering on others, especially his family and friends? What's the moral high ground in this scenario? What if the person he wants to kill is someone that doesn't have any loved ones and hence wouldn't be missed and his death wouldn't affect anyone? Going by your arguement, isn't the possible infliction of pain on innocent people and the extreme amount of suffering the individual is experiencing enough justification to kill this other one single person, since the amount of pain caused by killing just this person doesn't amount to the one that would be caused by not killing?

I dont know the owner of this thread,

But I must confess, your questions are far reaching and teaching people how to think.....

Kudos

felixomor:
I dont know the owner of this thread,

But I must confess, your questions are far reaching and teaching people how to think.....

Kudos

You are welcome.

chemystery:
OP these will answer your questions

You didn't say anything.

OP, I need you to define "Murder" then we can continue

Stewie101:


They are, and let me grant you that they are also your opinions on religion and morality, but they still don't respond to my question directly, and that's what I was hoping for you to do.

Why are you circumventing giving a direct response to my question?

So until i give an answer you expect, i havent answered your question abi?
The answer to your question is there, you only want to look the other way. Maybe cos you haven't seen anything to hold on to and you want me to manufacture one for you

hopefulLandlord:
OP, I need you to define "Murder" then we can continue

The willful killing of a person or persons.

Stewie101:


The willful killing of a person or persons.

the word "willful" means "intentional", do you agree with this or you have your definition of it which differs in any way?

we need a very common ground to start this debate

hopefulLandlord:


the word "willful" means "intentional", do you agree with this or you have your definition of it which differs in any way?

we need a very common ground to start this debate

His question is why is murder wrong. If you finish answering his questions please answer my own too.
why is a circle round?
Why does square have four sides?

chemystery:

His question is why is murder wrong. If you finish answering his questions please answer my own too.
why is a circle round?
Why does square have four sides?

Hehehehehehehehe, I understand you well

chemystery:

So until i give an answer you expect, i havent answered your question abi?
The answer to your question is there, you only want to look the other way. Maybe cos you haven't seen anything to hold on to and you want me to manufacture one for you

You know what I think? I think you are an example of those kind of atheists who are susceptible and credulous to being influenced by beliefs others hold, or a certain kind of attractive ideology, especially if those beliefs and ideologies help further their goal, or provide them a more morally relaxed framework to conduct their lives. So in this respect you share a lot of similarities with religious folks.

You obviously didn't become an atheist by carrying out a dispassionate, critical examination of religion, because from your response on this thread, you seem to lack the ability to not just think for yourself and make independent opinions on abstract issues, but you also seem to lack the tools to engage in intelligent, civilized discuss on critical topics.

hopefulLandlord:


Hehehehehehehehe, I understand you well

hopefulLandlord:


the word "willful" means "intentional", do you agree with this or you have your definition of it which differs in any way?

we need a very common ground to start this debate

I agree that the word "willful" is synonymous to the word "intentional."

Stewie101:


I agree that the word "willful" is synonymous to the word "intentional."

good, we are heading somewhere

so you're asking why intentional killing of another human is wrong?

I don't believe intentional killing of another human is wrong

Stewie101:


You know what I think? I think you are an example of those kind of atheists who are susceptible and credulous to being influenced by beliefs others hold, or a certain kind of attractive ideology, especially if those beliefs and ideologies help further their goal, or provide them a more morally relaxed framework to conduct their lives. So in this respect you share a lot of similarities with religious folks.

You obviously didn't become an atheist by carrying out a dispassionate, critical examination of religion, because from your response on this thread, you seem to lack the ability to not just think for yourself and make independent opinions on abstract issues, but you also seem to lack the tools to engage in intelligent, civilized discuss on critical topics.

argumentum ad hominem )

This is your destination and i have made you arrive there. I hope your heart is gladdened right now?

hopefulLandlord:


good, we are heading somewhere

so you're asking why intentional killing of another human is wrong?

I don't believe intentional killing of another human is wrong

Why do you have this view?

finally.... the kind of thread I've been waiting for... hopefullandlord has arrived

Stewie101:


Why do you have this view?

because its not wrong for me to shoot to kill someone trying to shoot to kill me and it fits into your definition of "Murder"


I think the difficulty you're having here is that you haven't defined "Murder" in clear terms and I know the reason for the difficulty but I won't let the cat out now

you have a chance to tweak or change what you define as "Murder" so we can make a clear progress

hopefulLandlord:


because its not wrong for me to shoot to kill someone trying to shoot to kill me and it fits into your definition of "Murder"


I think the difficulty you're having here is that you haven't defined "Murder" in clear terms and I know the reason for the difficulty but I won't let the cat out now

you have a chance to tweak or change what you define as "Murder" so we can make a clear progress

I have defined murder in it's most basic term. I can't present a definition of murder that is anchored to different possibly justifiable or unjustifiable scenarios or circumstances like the one you just gave. That would be really tedious, and sincerely impossible to do, because despite having thought about this subject rigorously, I can't claim to have introduced every possible instance of murder into this framework.

So I think it's wiser for anyone who wants to reply to my thread, to answer in the negative or affirmative, and give reasons for their answer, and if they have a nuanced opinion on the subject, they should provide it and I will address it.

Contrary to your view, I don't have any agenda in asking this question besides curiosity and my love for truth and debate.

Stewie101:


I have defined murder in it's most basic term. I can't present a definition of murder that is anchored to different possibly justifiable or unjustifiable scenarios or circumstances like the one you just gave. That would be really tedious, and sincerely impossible to do, because despite having thought about this subject rigorously, I can't claim to have introduced every possible instance of murder into this framework.

So I think it's wiser for anyone who wants to reply to my thread, to answer in the negative or affirmative, and give reasons for their answer, and if they have a nuanced opinion on the subject, they should provide it and I will address it.

Contrary to your view, I don't have any agenda in asking this question besides curiosity and my love for truth and debate.

I've not implied in any way that you have any agenda or are you having guilty conscience you can help yourself by showing where I've implied any agenda to you

thing is, I'm not the type that just jumps in and starts debating when we haven't made a baseline, we need to agree on certain terms first before we can have a (reasonable) debate, I learnt this from my earlier Nairaland days in which I and a Christian were saying the same thing but we had differed in terms from the beginning, 2 pages later we realised the mistake and I've since then made it a point to always agree on terms first and debate based on those terms second and never to just ignore differences in terms and jump in the debate

the word "Murder" as defined by you isn't clear enough I'm afraid because I can think of many instances which I'll agree murder is "Right" going by your definition, so I think its best I leave unless you give a clearer definition, the ball remains in your court...........

Stewie101:


Lol. Where did I state that I was Christian?

So let's talk about empathy which seems to be the core of your main argument. Although empathy is a predominant trait among humans, it's also a trait that is expressed by humans in varying degrees. So there are people that express higher degrees of empathy than others. And there are also people who don't express any empathy at all, by dint of the wiring of their brains. Now, how then can you classify an action as wrong based on a trait that is expressed in varying degrees by some and not expressed in any degree by others? Is the moral obligation to not kill a responsibility of only those who express empathy? Do people who possess greater levels of empathy have a greater responsibility to not kill? Should people who don't express the trait of empathy have no moral obligation to not kill?

People who lack empathy have a diagnosis. They're psychopaths. It's a personality disorder. A huge number of serial killers have been shown over time to exhibit psychopathic behavior.
So, murder has so much to do with empathy, not morals.

CatfishBilly:

People who lack empathy have a diagnosis. They're psychopaths. It's a personality disorder. A huge number of serial killers have been shown over time to exhibit psychopathic behavior.
So, murder has so much to do with empathy, not morals.

So do psychopaths have the moral responsibility to not kill since they don't express empathy? If the moral proscription of murder is anchored delicately to atheism, then shouldn't psychopaths be free to kill?

Stewie101:


So do psychopaths have the moral responsibility to not kill since they don't express empathy? If the moral proscription of murder is anchored delicately to atheism, then shouldn't psychopaths be free to kill?

Morality is subjective to an atheist. Atheists choose/make their morality and this morality is driven by empathy.
So, an entity that lacks empathy can't be moral in the atheistic sense, so morality is no inhibiting factor in the murderous drive of a psychopath.
If morality trumps empathy, we won't be having Christian serial killers, since theists like arguing that morality is woven with the word of God and their religion.

CatfishBilly:

Morality is subjective to an atheist. Atheists choose/make their morality and this morality is driven by empathy.
So, an entity that lacks empathy can't be moral in the atheistic sense, so morality is no inhibiting factor in the murderous drive of a psychopath.
If morality trumps empathy, we won't be having Christian serial killers, since theists like arguing that morality is woven with the word of God and their religion.

So are killings by psychopaths justifiable on this basis?

Stewie101:


So are killings by psychopaths justifiable on this basis?

Nope. They go against the societal views of morality/empathy, even if they can't connect to that empathy due to their personality, it still doesn't justify it.
I know this view would lead to some more debates.

CatfishBilly:

Nope. They go against the societal views of morality/empathy, even if they can't connect to that empathy due to their personality, it still doesn't justify it.
I know this view would lead to some more debates.

So the justification for what's morality correct is more of what society deems as morally permissible than an individual's personal view of morality as it applies to him, based on his uncontrolled inability to conform to the shared basis that informs the general public's notion on morality?

I tend to see certain problems with this idea. Let's use a hypothetical psychopathic sexual sadist as the focus of our debate. As you know, a sexual sadist derives pleasure from inflicting pain on other humans and this need is entirely not within his control. And as you rightly stated, due to his psychopathic characteristics, he'd also lack the ability to express empathy for his intended victims. Now, going by your argument, isn't it a clash of moral values, if the promotion of a certain moral value, violates another moral value, since society also espouses the moral value of not infringing on the happiness others?

And isn't your argument implictly nested in the notion that the moral values that society promotes are the values that are founded upon traits that are expressed by majority of the population, excluding amd stigmatizing that of the fringe minority?

And I also find that the pathologizing of certain traits like psychopathy and redefining it as an anomaly, and even constructing moral systems that disfavor and completely criminalize the behaviors expressed by these individuals by dint of traits that are predominant in society, a bit problematic. Because if this is the case, and hypothetically, say hundreds of years into the future humans evolved a new brain structure that promotes psychopathic traits, which leads to the prevalence of these kind of traits over empathic traits, across global populations, under the framework of your argument, it would be morally permissible to kill.

Stewie101:


So the justification for what's morality correct is more of what society deems as morally permissible than an individual's personal view of morality as it applies to him, based on his uncontrolled inability to conform to the shared basis that informs the general public's notion on morality?

I tend to see certain problems with this idea. Let's use a hypothetical psychopathic sexual sadist as the focus of our debate. As you know, a sexual sadist derives pleasure from inflicting pain on other humans and this need is entirely not within his control. And as you rightly stated, due to his psychopathic characteristics, he'd also lack the ability to express empathy for his intended victims. Now, going by your argument, isn't it a clash of moral values, if the promotion of a certain moral value, violates another moral value, since society also espouses the moral value of not infringing on the happiness others?

And isn't your argument implictly nested in the notion that the moral values that society promotes are the values that are founded upon traits that are expressed by majority of the population, excluding amd stigmatizing that of the fringe minority?

And I also find that the pathologizing of certain traits like psychopathy and redefining it as an anomaly, and even constructing moral systems that disfavor and completely criminalize the behaviors expressed by these individuals by dint of traits that are predominant in society, a bit problematic. Because if this is the case, and hypothetically, say hundreds of years into the future humans evolved a new brain structure that promotes psychopathic traits, which leads to the prevalence of these kind of traits over empathic traits, across global populations, under the framework of your argument, it would be morally permissible to kill.

Like I pointed earlier, I said my view would raise more debates and that is exactly what you're doing right now.
The legal framework of what's morally acceptable is rooted in empathy, but it's also a democracy, what the majority says, that's what would be adopted.
It sucks, yea, but it's a democracy. Majority beats individualistic ideas.
Psychopathy is classified as a mental illness by society, so we shouldn't let the mentally ill define our morality and make morality rules for us as a society.
It's not a perfect system, but that's what makes the most sense.
If in the future, psychopaths become the majority, yea, the laws of the land can be changed to favour them, it's a democracy.

Murder is wrong, generally speaking. Mitigating circumstances do exist though. For example, murder during self defence, defense of another, consensual assisted suicide (euthanasia), abortion (if that can even be described as murder), etc. are, in my opinion sometimes necessary actions in life. That said, I do not support the death penalty because I don't feel we have a judicial system that is effective enough to take such an irrevocable decision.

Stewie101:


I would like to know how you arrived at this distinction between right and wrong. What's your basis? What's your definition for what's wrong and what's right?

And I find it a bit odd that you seem to be speaking on behalf of every atheist. Are you the spokesperson for the Association Of All Atheists On Planet Earth? Or are you somehow clairvoyant that you know the mind of every atheist in the world? Wouldn't it be better if you addressed the question from your own perspective, instead of purporting to know what you don't know?

there are some things we inherently know are wrong an example is will you watch someone kill your beloved ones or will you watch them die from things you can stop the answer is no because unlike other animals we humans have exceeded our natural limitations and have been able to understand things from an unnatural view.Circumstances also influence our judgement for example I will kill anyone who tries to kill me because I know it's wrong for anyone to take my life and watch him go free while it's right for me to defend my self from such person

CoolUsername:
Murder is wrong, generally speaking. Mitigating circumstances do exist though. For example, murder during self defence, defense of another, consensual assisted suicide (euthanasia), abortion (if that can even be described as murder), etc. are, in my opinion sometimes necessary actions in life. That said, I do not support the death penalty because I don't feel we have a judicial system that is effective enough to take such an irrevocable decision.

Let's say we had a strong judicial system, would you then support the death penalty? If you would, why would you?