/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13139278]

What's the moral argument against taking another person's life?

[Anonymous No.13139281]

There isn't one. Morality is a meme without God.

[Anonymous No.13139291]

>>13139278
why kill them when you can exploit them

[Anonymous No.13139304]

>>13139278
youre an imperfect observer, you wont ever truly be able to justify the act, hence what is the moral argument FOR self-delusion

[Anonymous No.13139310]

muh golden rule

[Anonymous No.13139320]

>>13139278
Bullets are expensive. Donate that money to a scholarship fund.

[Anonymous No.13139333]

>>13139278
How is this literature related?

There was a moral argument against someone of your own family and/or tribe/city/nation but today, when you no longer belong to anywhere (if you are lucky you do to a family) there is no moral obligation except to not be punished by authorities. Otherwise it exists only if you accept some philosophical or teological principles.

[Anonymous No.13139348]

killing people without a reason, feeling, in an instrumental manner, is autistic as fuck. Being an autist is bad

[Anonymous No.13139899]

It's arrogant to assume that you have the judgement to choose whether somebody else lives or dies

[Anonymous No.13139917]

>>13139278
It tingles fee fees.

[Anonymous No.13139955]

>>13139278
60s and early 70s Clint Eastwood movies are kino

[Anonymous No.13139961]

>>13139278
There's the golden rule
> treating others as one's self would wish to be treated.

[Anonymous No.13139971]

>>13139333
>How is this literature related?
Literature is helps bring ideas from the past. We're discussing these ideas learned from Literature.

[Anonymous No.13140076]

>>13139961
>>13139310
So suicidal people are morally justified in killing others with impunity kek?

[Anonymous No.13140100]

>>13140076
That, unironically, got me thinking

[Anonymous No.13140165]

>>13139278
It's a real pain in the ass a lot of time

[Anonymous No.13140326]

>>13139278
There isn't one if they want to die. Assuming they don't want to die though, which is the case with most people due to their survival instinct, then you're removing their individual liberty. To live in the best possible society, I think classical libertarian ideas on liberty should generally be followed, so freedom of self expression and expression of ideas should almost always be respected, and if they aren't, it would be to the detriment of society (generally speaking. I have issues with strict classical libertarianism, but still would advocate against the willy-nilly suppression of ideas)
Things to the detriment of society are immoral because morality is simply the instincts humans have evolved in order to live as social animals.

[Anonymous No.13140329]

>>13140076
the prussian gobin has been irrevocably btfod

[Anonymous No.13141102]

>>13139281
This. I've read many different ways of justifying morality without God, but each boiled down to morality being subjective, and if morality is subjective then that means there aren't any rules other than your own.

[Anonymous No.13141141]

>>13141102
This is sort of a brainlet take (though I do largely agree that morality does need some central organizing tenet that by definition is transcendent of the moral framework in order to function). God is a very solid moralizing concept, the only problem is that God is a fundamentally inflexible position which doesn't take into account just how truly different peoples tend to be from one another in terms of their natural moral tendencies and their modes of worship. What fundamentally occurs is that the organizing principle of God just ends up being an effective proxy for what in reality is racialized morality in which tribal groups effectively define and enforce their morality while justifying it religiously.

None of what I said is an argument against using a religious framework for morality, and in fact I'd argue they are fundamentally inseparable, we just have to come to accept that "universal" morality is much less universal than we'd like and only effectively remains functional in racially/ethnically near homogeneous groups.

[Anonymous No.13141172]

>>13141141
I think some things are basically universally immoral for the most part. I can't imagine anyone but a complete psychopath thinking murder is okay, because human beings see themselves reflected in other people, and by murdering another they are in a sense murdering themselves. Again, psychopaths notwithstanding as these people literally are unable to see themselves reflected in other people.

[Anonymous No.13141182]

>>13139278
If you don't love what you're doing, don't do it.

[Anonymous No.13141277]

>>13139278
If it's directed towards your in-group, that harms you. If it's directed towards an out-group, and members of your own group disagree for any reason, that also harms you by creating in-group strife and generally high stress levels. If your in-group becomes notorious for brutal violence with questionable justifications, that also harms you, even into the long-term because your in-group's legacy becomes associated with cruelty, ruthlessness, duplicity.

[Anonymous No.13141288]

>>13139278
If the person intends to cause as much harm to humanity as they possibly can. If they despise life to where they only wish to kill as many people as they can, they are evil and must be killed.

[Anonymous No.13141290]

>>13141277
>argument from consequences

not moral

you must be one of those brainlets who argues "well stealing is bad because you might get caught which is bad for you"

which logically means if you can steal and know you will get away with it it's morally right?

[Anonymous No.13141294]

>>13141277
so as long as nobody in your own group find out or disagree and you can do it non violently while someone is sleeping or something it's moral?

[Anonymous No.13141299]

>>13141288
>But if you kill them, you're the same as them!

[Anonymous No.13141300]

>>13141290
>>13141294
I'm not saying anything about what's right. I'm just pointing out some reasons why it's wrong, which was the question.

[Anonymous No.13141304]

>>13141290
Same goes for morality derived from God.
>muh hell
If it weren't for hell, what's the incentive to be moral?

[Anonymous No.13141308]

Dirty Harry was so good even when Magnum Force got contorted by the (((producers)))

[Anonymous No.13141315]

>>13141299
If said person is killed as a way of preserving the life of innocent people that would be killed, then I don't think the killing of them would be "just the same" as what they would act out.

Would the alternative be leaving them in a cell for 40 years until their dead?

[Anonymous No.13141336]

>>13141102
How do you know God is good? Is he good because he's God or is he Hod because he's good? How do you know your interpretation of God's moral law is correct?

[Anonymous No.13141341]

>>13139278
As always, it depends on your axioms, on your particular moral framework. There can only be an objective answer once this is established, but only within the context of your framework.

[Anonymous No.13141355]

>>13141341
What are some moral frameworks where killing is okay? I'm interested.

[Anonymous No.13141361]

>he hasn't read Kant
lmao
do you even categorical imperative lol

[Anonymous No.13141378]

>>13139281
>>13141102
Euthyphro dilemma

[Anonymous No.13141382]

>>13141355
Well, under various consequentialist frameworks wherein the means justify the ends you could justify killing in certain scenarios.
I guess under some extinctionist form of anti-natalism or environmentalism killing people would be universally acceptable.

[My Green Thumb No.13141385]

>>13139278
As with most things there are countless arguments, take your pick:

>Who are you to play God?
>Disturbing the ecosystem and the natural balance of things for your own selfish reasons.
>All life is precious.
>The Golden Rule.

I could go on.

[Anonymous No.13141389]

>>13139281
How do you know God is good? Is it good because God wills it, or does God will it because it's good? How do you know your interpretation of God's moral law is correct?

[Anonymous No.13141393]

>>13141355
Well, under various consequentialist frameworks wherein the ends justify the means you could justify killing in certain scenarios.
I guess under some extinctionist form of anti-natalism or environmentalism killing people would be universally acceptable.

[Anonymous No.13141400]

>>13141304
To please God

[Anonymous No.13141402]

>>13139278
The entirety of Crime and Punishment.

[Anonymous No.13141409]

>>13141402
Mental breakdown and a strawman are not arguments.

[Anonymous No.13141413]

>>13140076
Unless this suicidal person who to dies by someone else's hand in the exact same murder method then sure

[Anonymous No.13141414]

>>13141355
Any moral framework that regards love as a god to be reckoned with.

[Anonymous No.13141424]

>>13141400
Not a moral argument. Try again, Christcuck.

[Anonymous No.13141430]

>>13141389
Good because God wills it, interpretation of moral law is subjective and therefore by definition has a potential for human error.

[Anonymous No.13141446]

>>13141430
What is it about God the individual that makes his as opposed to anyone else's willings good?

[Anonymous No.13141449]

>>13141446
There are gods because there are inferiority complexes. It's all power worship; religions are in fact born from our most primitive aspects, despite what preachers may tell you.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » mxvabIoSIE No.13141456]

>>13141141
how is it that /pol/tards manage to reduce everything to race autism
like shut the fuck up already, race doesn't even real

[Anonymous No.13141460]

>>13141449
I'm just trying to get the guy to see the stupidity of divine command theory.

[Anonymous No.13141479]

i miss you :3

[Anonymous No.13141499]

>>13141389
You don't really. I don't believe in objective morality, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go kill someone.

[Anonymous No.13141500]

>>13141424

>>13141424
You didn't ask for a moral argument baka you said if there were no hell what would be the incentive to be moral
Wowee
phrase your question more clearly and argue in good faith and you may actually get somewhere

[Anonymous No.13141507]

>>13141479
She knows that's not me. It's nothing I'd say.

But fine... I do

[Anonymous No.13141509]

>>13139278
The more important question is why do you even care about morality in the first place?
Unless you believe in God or some other transcendent principle, why do you worry about how some system of spooks would look at your actions?

[Anonymous No.13141511]

>>13141499
Thats because you have no strong desire to kill a person or are a coward not because of your moral beliefs. Many serial killers (excluding schizo reality detached) believe in God.

[Anonymous No.13141512]

>>13139278
>What's the moral argument against taking another person's life?

I am an intelligence generated by a troubleshooting organ for the purposes of reproducing my genetics.
Right and wrong are a function of my performance with regards to my purpose.
It is wrong to take another person's life, because it reduces my chances at reproduction, and that of my offspring, who are tasked with continuing my genetic reproduction after I die.

[Anonymous No.13141516]

>>13141500
>please god to avoid hell
It's literally the same thing, numbnuts.

[Anonymous No.13141521]

>>13141509
Morality is simply about doing the actions that you ought to do. You argue like a woman.

[Anonymous No.13141527]

>>13141446
In christian theology, God is the creator of the universe, and therefore the master of it. The master determines the rules of his property. Goodness (again, in theology) comes directly from God's rules.

[Anonymous No.13141531]

>>13141521
"ought" is informed by intuition, intuition is subjective

[Anonymous No.13141558]

>>13141531
Blow it out of your ass. Assuming ethical intuitionism wont get you anywhere libtard.

[Anonymous No.13141564]

>>13141558
you didn't say anything that contradicted my statement

[Anonymous No.13141565]

>>13141527
Two problems:
1) If
x is good/bad ≝ God commands/forbids that x or something along those lines
God cannot have a *moral* reason to command x for logical reasons I hope are obvious enough to you. Morality becomes completely arbitrary and God could just as easily command that we commit genocide (like he did in the OT). This being the case we could not trust our everyday moral reasoning which depends on principles and sensitivity to reasons for doing xyz. Under divine command theory all of this is false, there are just (unprincipled) God's commands and the result is complete moral skepticism.

2) Since goodness stems from God's commands, there are no good-making features other than God's commands and the phrase "God is (essentially) omnibenevolent/good" becomes literally meaningless, it just means God commands what God commands and doesn't tell us anything more than claiming that God is (essentially) cvkpds or ihjsdfgus.

[Anonymous No.13141573]

>>13141521
>ought
spook

[Anonymous No.13141582]

>>13141564
Becuase I have safely disregarded you as a sub average Iq manlet.

[Anonymous No.13141585]

>>13141573
Read another book. I hope a bee stings you in your throat.

[Anonymous No.13141595]

>>13141565
You seem to be assuming "good" exists outside of God's will. I don't believe in a moral principle that exists outside of God's commands (mind I'm an agnostic). Morality does not become arbitrary unless you believe morality could and would exist if there was no God.
>God is (essentially) omnibenevolent/good" becomes literally meaningless
No, it just means that "we should follow x, because the creator of everything has determined that x is the most moral option." You're suggesting the existence of Goodness as something that exists independent of God, but there is nothing to suggest such a thing is true.

[Anonymous No.13141600]

>>13141582
I'm 7'9 188IQ

[Anonymous No.13141612]

>>13141512
Absolutely midwit. So if taking someone’s life increases your chances of reproduction, we shouldn’t prevent it? Also, I notice that sooo much of nature also knows to not kill each other...oh wait they do all the time...

[Anonymous No.13141617]

>>13141585
You oughtn't say things like that

[Anonymous No.13141619]

>>13141595
I'm actually an error theorist, but I'm always up for arguing how bad DCT is as a realist option in metaethics.
>unless you believe morality could and would exist if there was no God.
Key word could, it's up the DCTist to show why moral facts could not possibly exist without a [deity that commands stuff] existing.
>No, it just means that "we should follow x, because the creator of everything has determined that x is the most moral option."
This statement is meaningless if goodness is constituted by God's commands. "Do what he says because he says so" doesn't seem like the apex of normative reasoning. If we should follow God's commands because they lead to the best consequences, then it is the principle "maximize good (note: goodness independent of God's commands, maybe happiness of conscious beings etc) outcomes" that is doing all the work and God is just a moral expert and not the author of moral law.

[Anonymous No.13141623]

>>13141612
In nature, the best principle for reproduction is generally "eye for an eye, and cheat where possible to gain the upper hand" Going too far in either direction (cooperation or competition) can be harmful in terms of reproducing. OP didn't ask if we should prevent killing, he asked for a moral argument against taking someone's life.

[Anonymous No.13141633]

>>13141623
Reproductive fitness doesn't ground moral arguments since reproduction is in fact immoral.

[Anonymous No.13141635]

>>13141619
>that is doing all the work and God is just a moral expert and not the author of moral law.
I'm not sure if I agree. From a christian perspective I'm not sure if it would matter; the best option for them would be to follow the law as closely as possible, regardless of whether or not it is "good" (I think we're splitting hairs a bit too much here) but regardless, I think it's less about "maximizing good" and more about "following the law" because God is the originator of the law, and determines what is good and evil for humans.

[Anonymous No.13141642]

>>13141633
Why is reproduction immoral?

[Anonymous No.13141659]

>>13141642
Prima facie causing undue suffering without overriding goods upon others is to be avoided and procreation is just a special instance of such behaviour. We don't have a cosmic duty to have as many homo sapiens hanging around for as long as possible and existing followed by eternal, inevitable death has no benefits over never existing in the first place.

[Anonymous No.13141668]

>>13141642

[Anonymous No.13141694]

>>13141659
What makes suffering immoral?

[Anonymous No.13141702]

>>13141694
Your question is malformed. Causing suffering is immoral, suffering is intrinsically bad.

[Anonymous No.13141708]

>>13141702
Wrong. Take a hike, faggot.

[Anonymous No.13141713]

>>13141708

[Anonymous No.13141722]

>>13141702
Why is causing suffering immoral?

[Anonymous No.13141744]

>>13141722
No reason, it's a brute fact.

[Anonymous No.13141769]

>>13141744
no it's not. show me where in nature it says that causing suffering is immoral. how did you objectively determine this scientifically?

[Anonymous No.13141773]

>>13141744
>it's a brute fact
no it's not

[Anonymous No.13141775]

>>13141769
But nature is amoral!

[Anonymous No.13141843]

>>13141775
exactly.

[Anonymous No.13142255]

>>13139278
The only moral reason is if the individual seeks to harm you, your tribe, or your property.

[Anonymous No.13142260]

>>13139278
There isn't one. Do your best anon.

[Anonymous No.13142262]

>>13142260
*click*

[Anonymous No.13142307]

The best I can come up with is to see yourself in another. Not just "do unto others XD" or the goblin's imperative, but actually imagine yourself as the target person. Taking as much as you know about them into account, would "you" (pretending to be the target) want to be killed by the real you?
I guess it's consequentialist sort of, but I don't really have one. I have accepted that not all particular lives are intrinsically worth keeping

[Anonymous No.13142538]

>>13140076
Good counter argument, although you're missing the point because morals don't actually exist so there's no real system to game with this logic of "more morally justified".

I mean if you can give me a reason why someone who has nothing to lose shouldn't do whatever they want then go ahead. All you're going to come back with is "I don't want them to".

[Anonymous No.13142553]

>>13142538
>>13140076
Although you were adressing the golden rule which I put forward. So you did destroy that argument. I wonder if there's any other example that break it. If not you could argue something like "Someone truly suicidal should already be dead so they won't act in such way". If someone want to do something before they die then they don't want to die quite yet, so not suicidal.

[Anonymous No.13142690]

In short, it don't feel right. But that begs the question, why doesn't it?

Wartime is a strange exception in that by a wink and snap of the fingers the state absolves soldiers of all criminal liability and grants permission for what is otherwise considered one of the greatest crimes and strictly impermissible. But this horrifying power of the state to simply wave off murder is besides the point.

It's not merely the consequences of murder, in terms of punishment that bother us, because even soldiers who do it as part of their job end up feeling guilty about it. But of course feeling guilt and the state of being guilty are quite distinct.

Despite man's horrifying and well proven capacity to destroy other human life, to kill what it does not eat or to fulfill no other necessary purpose, these feelings are not easily forgotten or abandoned, which suggests something instinctual about them just as readily that the ability to kill sometimes does.

The guilt isn't just because "all life has value." Not only to do some people really really suck, but in the case of self-defense a believer that all life has value wouldn't be able to decide whether they or their attacker should live.

While it may be true that human life has intrinsic value, it's a question of what sort of value it embodies. Individual, personal murder differs from systematic, mass murder as seen in war. Some people unfortunately are entirely monstrous and killing them might make more sense than letting them cause no end to the trouble. We're more willing to wish death on someone like that, in which case killing them is just a practical expedient to an end, no matter the merely philosophical doubts about it. Certainly there are merely practical murders, ones done for gain, but those are not the ones that bother us most.

However the value of others is ambiguous, or in the case of people we know and like, clearly present. And it is the fact that most undistrurbed people extend this doubt to most of humanity that civilization rests. If murder is only justified in that the survival of everything else is dependent on it, the truly evil kind of murder is one that is not committed for any obvious gain.

Murders committed, for example, under the guise of organized crime make more sense to us and almost seem to carry a degree of levity compared to murders committed out of spite, wickedness, or arbitrariness. Even people who are considered profoundly disturbed, such as serial killers seem to do it for reasons, although reasons the absolute most would consider horrifyingly petty or unworthy of the deed.

The logic of violence itself seems to justify murder within its own scope, because imposed with violence murder acquires an obvious rationality. For similar reasons many famous heros in fiction are often also killers, but only because they were subject to the conditions of a violent world.