My reply to the OP

I believe murder is wrong.

The question might sound simple but its really a complex one especially when u consider that we dont live in a world were everything is explained in black and white.

when determining the answer to this question you have to consider a whole lot of variables otherwise your answer might raise further questions.

Over the years humans have come to understand that everybody need each other at a time. a peaceful atmosphere is necessary for our happiness and good health. How others around us feel affects us and how we feel also affects others. when we give alms o the needy we feel fulfilled and they in turn feel happy.

If we loose a loved one we feel sad, and when people we love lose people they love they feel sad, and when people we love feel sad, we feel sad. The ripple effect of a single act cannot be over looked when considering if murder is wrong.

weather murder is wrong or right does not have only to do with how we feel about it but also how others feel.

-does the death of a loved one make anyone happy? No
-Does the act of murder breed peace? No. But in cases where a murderous act brings peace, one can say such murder is right.
-Does the act of murder make us happy? in most cases it does not, it weighs us down with guilt but

in conclusion.
If the act of murder makes us sad and makes the people around us happy it is wrong
if the act of murder makes us happy and makes the people around us sad it is wrong
BUT if the act of murder makes us happy and makes the people around us happy it is RIGHT...

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.

What if I told you that animals exhibit morality?

CatfishBilly:

What if I told you that animals exhibit morality?

How do animals practice morality?

Stewie101:


How do animals practice morality?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk
Check this out and tell me what you think.

CatfishBilly:


Check this out and tell me what you think.

Yes I agree that some animals display traits that you'd classify as being moral, but there are still animals that eat their babies and kill their siblings, for no other reason than their own survival and the maximization of their own well being. The word survival is very crucial as it's the engine that regulates moral systems.

I think morality should be an individual experience. A person should be allowed to define his own views on morality, based on his individual traits. No one should force anyone to conform to a particular definition of morality by dint of traits that they believe is expressed or should be expressed by everyone.

Please note that I am not prescribing this as the way society should conduct itself. There are a lot of societal benefits of viewing morality in the way that it's currently being viewed and one of these benefits is that it is helps uphold and sustain societies. Why not stick to what works right? But the best solution isn't always the right solution.