Why is homicide bad?

[Matteo Martini]

Someone tells you that if you lose your job, you have other employment/money-making options, but that if you die, you are out of options, and your reply is to offer a fantasy? Reincarnation is actually a viable option for the dead?

Is that the best you can do?

You said that death ends everyhing (=to be out of options).
Please, prove it.

It's perfectly understandable. It's just another fantasy, like reincarnation.

There are plenty of opinions in this worls. You have yours.

Plenty of people have protested this administration, at various times and for its various acts. That these morons are still in office is because it takes a lot more than "jumping in the streets" to remove a sitting president, and/or his cronies in crime.

I am happy that you say that.
But, if "plenty of people" means a majority of the American population, why there are still 45-50% or so of the people who support McCain (who is as pro-war as Bush)?

Some of them, you may note, are gone (Rove, Rumsfeld), and others have simply gone dead quiet (Cheney).

They have not gone in front of a tribunal for having lied, right?

You are buying into some other fiction here. Truth is, the government is a machine, and few of its parts will risk their futures to throw out the machine in which they live. I mean, you're asking the apple to reject its core. Not gonna happen.

Clinton was close to impeachment for doing much less bad than Bush

They are going out. .

Not because they have lied and started a massacre-war in Iraq

You're buying into a huge fiction if you honestly think one politician is different from or better than another. In their particulars, maybe, but not in their substance.

I am for Ron Paul

Could be because we already know that protest alone won't remove a sitting president.

It would, if the protesters are numerous enough

Fact remains, though, that many Americans have protested, and been largely ignored.[..]

Did not see any five-million-man protest in America (5 million being only 1.5% of the population)

You do know how many of us there are, right? A "strong minority" is about all we can show for most any issue..

Strong minority is still a minority

I must admit, and readily, that one puzzles me as much as it does you.

Oh, we agree..

The only thing I can figure is that enough people bought the line about "not changing horses in midstream," and didn't think it wise to change presidents in mid-war--or at least not with the alternative we were offered.

It is wise if the war was not necessary

(And it's 're-elected,' not 'revoted.' I thought you'd written 'revolting,' at first glance, and was going to tell you I found Bush revolting long before 2004. )

Nice to hear..
Unfortunately, you do not seem representative of the American electorate..

What does it mean to be "going strong in the polls" if you aren't in the lead? You mean, by this, that he's gaining on Obama? Well, I wouldn't worry--the economy is getting worse, not better, so if American opinion is being driven by this, McCain will never lead.

You are admitting that the Americans do not care a heck about the x thousands of children killed also because of their intervention in Iraq

It was a small minority then, too. A vocal minority that got a lot of on-air time because of the novelty of protesting a war instead of staunchly supporting it, as we had just finished doing in WWII. Did their protests alone stop that war, or did it end for other reasons? Just how much did the protests inform Nixon's decision to end the war? Do you know?

No, I do not.
But their protest was much stronger than today` s.

I'm laughing, now. Honey, this is sheer human nature, not something inimical to Americans. You show me one place on the planet where people don't see the foibles of their neighbors more clearly and quickly than their own. And I'm talking everything from our families, to our clubs, to our businesses, to our colleges, to our nations...you name it: if it comes in groups, they'll each compare, contrast, and then condemn the other. That's just folks for ya.

You are right.
But the country which is now invading others is America, not Sweden..

 

[bruto]

You said that homicide could be accepted if it improves human race.
Nazi killed people for that reason specifically.

You really don't get the difference here? First of all, I did not say this, someone else did. Second, the Nazi supposition was preposterous and evil. Nobody could sanely and properly say that exterminating the Jews improves the human race. I actually don't think that it's a good idea to suggest that homicide be accepted if it improves the human race, but if I did, it would not in any way be the same as saying that homicide might be accepted for any stupid, evil, preposterously insane reason that someone says would improve the human race. To equate these statements would be to mean that no proposition can be worthwhile or correct if it is subject to the misinterpretation and distortion of insane and evil people.

With the difference that not many countries go out to invade Iraq.

But no matter how many times you say it, and no matter how much you wish it so, that is not the same thing as "most Americans" as individuals.

Again, think as you like.

Have no fear, I certainly have no intention of thinking as you like.

 

[Matteo Martini]

You really don't get the difference here? First of all, I did not say this, someone else did.

Yes, my fault.
You stepped into a discussion between me and gdnp, and I lost track to who I was talking about.

Second, the Nazi supposition was preposterous and evil. Nobody could sanely and properly say that exterminating the Jews improves the human race.

Nazis did.
Please, tell me by which criteria you define Nazis as "not sane".

In Nazi Germany, marriage of an "Aryan" with an "Untermensch" was forbidden. To maintain the purity of the Germanic master race, eugenics was practiced. In order to eliminate "defective" citizens, the T-4 Euthanasia Program was administered by Karl Brandt to rid the country of the mentally retarded or those born with genetic deficiencies, as well as those deemed to be racially inferior. Additionally, a programme of compulsory sterilisation was undertaken and resulted in the forced operations of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Many of these policies are generally seen as being related to what eventually became known as the Holocaust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race#Aryanism

Hitler and the Nazi party outlined their racial enemies in clear and unequivocal terms. For Hitler and the Nazis, the Jews represented a priority enemy both within and outside Germany. Their allegedly racial and inferior genetic makeup spawned the exploitative systems of capitalism and communism
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007457

I actually don't think that it's a good idea to suggest that homicide be accepted if it improves the human race, but if I did, it would not in any way be the same as saying that homicide might be accepted for any stupid, evil, preposterously insane reason that someone says would improve the human race.

Define why your idea of "improving human race" would be good, and why others may be "evil"

To equate these statements would be to mean that no proposition can be worthwhile or correct if it is subject to the misinterpretation and distortion of insane and evil people. But no matter how many times you say it, and no matter how much you wish it so, that is not the same thing as "most Americans" as individuals.

America want to invade Iraq in 2003.
The majority of America`s voters who went to the elections in 2004, re-voted for the same President that ordered the invasion of Iraq.

 

[bigred]

This just has to be the most irrational thread I have ever seen.

I was thinking "trollish" or "asinine," but OK.

Well, hadn't seen one of these in awhile - I guess we were due. Shocking that it was made in the Religion Forum though.

 

[bruto]

Yes, my fault.
You stepped into a discussion between me and gdnp, and I lost track to who I was talking about.



Nazis did.
Please, tell me by which criteria you define Nazis as "not sane".

In Nazi Germany, marriage of an "Aryan" with an "Untermensch" was forbidden. To maintain the purity of the Germanic master race, eugenics was practiced. In order to eliminate "defective" citizens, the T-4 Euthanasia Program was administered by Karl Brandt to rid the country of the mentally retarded or those born with genetic deficiencies, as well as those deemed to be racially inferior. Additionally, a programme of compulsory sterilisation was undertaken and resulted in the forced operations of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Many of these policies are generally seen as being related to what eventually became known as the Holocaust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race#Aryanism

Hitler and the Nazi party outlined their racial enemies in clear and unequivocal terms. For Hitler and the Nazis, the Jews represented a priority enemy both within and outside Germany. Their allegedly racial and inferior genetic makeup spawned the exploitative systems of capitalism and communism
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007457



Define why your idea of "improving human race" would be good, and why others may be "evil"



America want to invade Iraq in 2003.
The majority of America`s voters who went to the elections in 2004, re-voted for the same President that ordered the invasion of Iraq.

I'm not sure what relevance all that above has to my point, except to illustrate that, assuming you do not subscribe to the ideas involved there, you are of the opinion that a principle is only as good as the most abusive, evil, mendacious and distorted misapplication that can be made of it. I have to say I disagree with that, although, depending on what we're really talking about, we may agree more than we think. I do not think that the principle of , for example, improving the human race, is invalidated by the possibility that evil demagogues will use it for genocide. I do, however, think that the likelihood that such a thing will happen is a good argument against putting any principle, good or bad, into practice as public policy. It is why I made the distinction earlier that I do not actually think it would be a good idea to justify homicide for improving the human race. I do not think that the principle, in principle, is necessarily bad, but I also do not think that there would be any way to put that principle into practice without virtually guaranteeing that it will be abused. I don't believe I would have to justify what I might consider a good version of improving the human race as against someone else's evil version to be able to say that in principle, it would not be such a bad thing to improve the human race. I think that is so even though I concede that I do not know myself how such a principle would be implemented, and even though I think to attempt to do so would be a guaranteed recipe for eventual disaster.

My general outlook is that whenever someone sees a situation and says "there ought to be a law," there probably ought not to be.

Although it's true that way too many American voters voted against their own best interest and that of the world in 2004, other issues than Iraq were involved, and the choices were, of course, limited. In addition, it remains debatable whether in either instance of G.W. Bush's putative elections, he actually won a majority.

However, I will concede that far far too many Americans are, at least in part, responsible for our disastrously stupid and violent policies, and we, as a nation, have much to regret. I still believe, however, that the "most Americans are...." argument has no relevance to any opinion which is not directly concerned with the choices those Americans have made. Mote and beam volleys are rarely productive of anything but nonsense.

 

[gdnp]

One may argue that this sentence resembles (sorry to say that) the some Nazi`s reason for killing the Jews as they "deteriorate" the human race (http://www.onehumanrace.com/docs/darwin_and_holocaust.asp)..

Of course it does. That is why it is important to read such things in context. The next statement was this:

Now this does not mean we should start rounding up and exterminating all undesirables. A society where people live in fear that others will do so is not one conducive to growth, IMHO. So societies make laws so that bad homicides are punished and good homicides are accepted. Those that find the correct balance flourish, and those that do not dies out or change.

You seem to want an explanation for the blanket statement that homicide is bad. I was trying to point out that this is impossible, since not all homicide is bad. If a madman is shooting into a crowd of innocents and you have a gun, would you refrain from shooting him because homicide is bad?

 

[bruto]

I should add that I think some of the disagreement I'm having with Matteo has to do with the difference, at least as I see it, between "pot calling kettle black" and "poisoning the well." One deals with individual actions, and the other with the assumption that membership in some class disqualifies an argument by default.

If, for example, I criticized Matteo for being nit-picking and gratuitously argumentative, he might well be justified in saying "who are you to talk?" To accuse another of your own faults requires a level of tone-deafness that makes the accusation at least questionable.

But I would contend that if I make a statement such as "Hugo Chavez is a tyrannical demagogue," then (assuming I'm not a tyrannical demagogue myself, or known as an apologist for someone as bad or worse) the class, nation, religion or political party to which I might belong or be assumed to belong is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of whether my charge is true or justified. If the statement is false, it's false because Chavez is not what was said, not because it was said by an American.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

If you make any moral argument for or against anything based on evolution, then you flunk out of critical thinking class. I don't know how many times I've had to say this already on this forum, but evolution is NOT a moral theory

Why are you assuming evolution is being used as a moral theory? And what precludes discussing evolution to postulate the ultimate origin of morality?

Yes, the latter is what I was getting at, although given the haphazardness of the OP, I wasn't willing at the time to devote any more attention to this topic than it was worth. I was saying that we can look at evolutionary theory to try to deduce the origins of certain behaviors, including morality, not that they were the same exact thing. The most I did was take a small slice of evolution to make my point, and I already admitted that it was poorly worded in my original post. As for the topic at hand, I agree with the assessment that one cannot take a black and white view of homicide (defined as killing another person) as being either 100% good or 100% bad. For example, I don't think too many people would argue with the idea that killing in self-defense is immoral, all debates about necessary force aside.

 

[EGarrett]

I think at the bottom of any justification is just "I don't want to be murdered"!

No. Cooperative groups and a free-market economy both benefit from having many contributers.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Of course it does. That is why it is important to read such things in context. The next statement was this:

You seem to want an explanation for the blanket statement that homicide is bad. I was trying to point out that this is impossible, since not all homicide is bad. If a madman is shooting into a crowd of innocents and you have a gun, would you refrain from shooting him because homicide is bad?

Societies do not punish some homicides and accept others to "improve the human race", as you wrote here:

So I would argue that homicide that leads to improvement of the human race is good, and homicide that leads to deterio

ration of the human race is bad.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I should add that I think some of the disagreement I'm having with Matteo has to do with the difference, at least as I see it, between "pot calling kettle black" and "poisoning the well." One deals with individual actions, and the other with the assumption that membership in some class disqualifies an argument by default.

If, for example, I criticized Matteo for being nit-picking and gratuitously argumentative, he might well be justified in saying "who are you to talk?" To accuse another of your own faults requires a level of tone-deafness that makes the accusation at least questionable.

But I would contend that if I make a statement such as "Hugo Chavez is a tyrannical demagogue," then (assuming I'm not a tyrannical demagogue myself, or known as an apologist for someone as bad or worse) the class, nation, religion or political party to which I might belong or be assumed to belong is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of whether my charge is true or justified. If the statement is false, it's false because Chavez is not what was said, not because it was said by an American.

What you say is grammatically exact, and factually wrong.
If I say that, in a team of soccer of 11 white players, "there 10 white players, and then there is Smith", I someow imply a false statement, that is, that Smith is not white (otherwise, why would I say that there are 10 white players and then there is Smith)?
However, I am not saying a lie, as I do not say that Smith is black, asian, etc.

Same thing here.
If you say that Chavez is an ass, (hope I will not receive a warning for that), you imply that the other rulers in the world, especially the President of your own country, are better.
Which is false (IMHO)

 

[bruto]

What you say is grammatically exact, and factually wrong.
If I say that, in a team of soccer of 11 white players, "there 10 white players, and then there is Smith", I someow imply a false statement, that is, that Smith is not white (otherwise, why would I say that there are 10 white players and then there is Smith)?
However, I am not saying a lie, as I do not say that Smith is black, asian, etc.

Same thing here.
If you say that Chavez is an ass, (hope I will not receive a warning for that), you imply that the other rulers in the world, especially the President of your own country, are better.
Which is false (IMHO)

I simply and completely disagree with you on this, and with the comparative examples you cite. The first statement is clearly concerning the makeup of a team, and while the implication is not explicit, the form of the statement is clearly intended to distinguish one member from the rest in some way. To make such a statement and then say that there is no distinction is obvious and intentional misdirection.

The second statement makes no external reference at all. It is a statement about the qualities of a single person, with no other context. It is no different except in its degree of subjectivity from saying that Chavez has black hair. The inference is entirely yours. In any case, had you thought an invidious comparison was implied by the statement, you could have questioned it rather than attacking it as a given, and whatever the outcome, it still remains true that being an American alone does not disqualify a commentator from judging other world leaders, no matter how malignant our own president is. Likewise, when I (or you) say that George W. Bush is an ass, it need not be interpreted as suggesting that he is worse than Kim Jong Il or Robert Mugabe. He can be, and undoubtedly will continue to be, an ass in his own right. You are also qualified to make that observation if it is true, without worrying about how he compares to Tojo, Mussolini, or any other leader for whom some misguided and misinformed person might try to hold you responsible.

edit to add: I think this exchange should end here, since I doubt we'll ever agree, and it seems like a derail, but suit yourself.

 

[GreyICE]

In Italy we would say that your OP is like unbaked pizza dough.

 

[slingblade]

You said that death ends everyhing (=to be out of options).
Please, prove it.

Back up. I did not make the original comment to which you replied "reincarnation." Someone else said that. I have made no claim. I only asked you a question:

Do you think reincarnation is as viable an "option" to the dead, as finding another job after you've been fired is to the worker?

I ask, because it's a flippant response on your part, and not worthy of the debate. So man up to it or admit you were being facetious and move on, k?

The rest is all off-topic, so I'm backing away from it. Start another thread or something, in politics. Or don't, whatever.

 

[Polaris]

I am not a supporter of Chavez;

Coulda fooled me:

Provided that I do not consider Chavez that bad. He has the cojones to stand up against American imperialism.

 

[Cavemonster]

Is murder bad?
Well, I don't know what universal "badness" is, but I find murder undesirable.

Life, freedom, and to a certain extent property are interlinked. When I, as an individual take these things away from others, I put myself and those I care about (in the broadest sense) at risk of losing their lives, freedom and property.

Every time someone kills, steal or imprisons for their own reasons, they create anger on the part of others, along with a reinforcement of the idea that these are possible and acceptable actions. When allowed, these things tend to grow, making everybody less safe, that's why we have legal systems, not so much to stop people from stealing and killing, but to regulate the reactions to it so that these violations don't spread exponentially.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Back up. I did not make the original comment to which you replied "reincarnation." Someone else said that. I have made no claim. I only asked you a question:

Do you think reincarnation is as viable an "option" to the dead, as finding another job after you've been fired is to the worker?

I ask, because it's a flippant response on your part, and not worthy of the debate. So man up to it or admit you were being facetious and move on, k?

The rest is all off-topic, so I'm backing away from it. Start another thread or something, in politics. Or don't, whatever.

Yawn!!

I have no time to check now, but it may be that I thought it was you who made the original claim, as you probably replied to a comment of mine who was not directed to you.
Again, about your question:
" Do you think reincarnation is as viable an "option" to the dead, as finding another job after you've been fired is to the worker?"
I make no claim whatsoever.
If anyone claims that death ends all (you, or anybody else), it is up to him/her to prove it.

Coulda fooled me:

I take it as an apology

 

[Frozenwolf150]

After giving the OP much thoughtful introspection, I think I've finally arrived at a satisfactory answer to why homicide is bad.

 

[Polaris]

I take it as an apology

That's nice, but I still don't care for you.

 

[slingblade]

Yawn!!

Nice. I'm bored by your thoughts, too. Have any new ones? Any at all, that also make sense? If they're grounded in fact as well, you may have a hat trick.

I have no time to check now, but it may be that I thought it was you who made the original claim, as you probably replied to a comment of mine who was not directed to you.

Isn't it too bad you're on a public discussion board, and when you put posts out there, you don't get to control who responds? I hope it bothers you, that lack of control.

Again, about your question:
" Do you think reincarnation is as viable an "option" to the dead, as finding another job after you've been fired is to the worker?"
I make no claim whatsoever.

So you were being flippant, and lowering your own discussion. Got it. Thanks for owning up to it. That took guts, admitting you were playing the fool.

If anyone claims that death ends all (you, or anybody else), it is up to him/her to prove it.

And if anyone, including you, claims that there is existence after death, or anything but an end to existence, it is up to him or her to prove that.