erraticwisdom

Comments

1. Your a moron.

   jack

   Dec 14, 08:36 AM #
2. I reckon the point where we started living in groups and become dependent on each other for survival. Just as with other herding animals, killing in your own group (society) would be foolish for it would damage yourself. Perhaps that’s why we do wage war (against other groups), but not kill at random.

   Arjan van der Gaag

   Dec 14, 09:03 AM #
3. To jack: Did you mean to type You’re instead of your? The contraction you’re is used in place of you are, as in “You’re a moron.” The word your is used to denote ownership, as in “Your post is a fragment.”
   
   I think that Arjan van der Gaag has a good point.

   John

   Dec 14, 10:00 AM #
4. Morality is normative about behaviour, regardless of self-interest; that’s just definitional. If morality is nothing over and above rational self-interest, then clearly we should abandon the term, rather than risk confusion as you are by employing it to describe a phenomenon that already has a plethora of widely-used terms attached to it.

   Benedict

   Dec 14, 01:15 PM #
5. Benedict: I’m sorry, obviously, jack is right…I am a moron. What is a more correct title for the topic I’m discussing (so I don’t make the same error again)?
   
   Arjan: you do make a very good point. What you are referring to is supported in evolutionary biology. It is called kin selection and it explains strange altruistic behaviors in some organisms. This could explain why there might be less murder in groups where an organism will try to support close members.

   Thame

   Dec 14, 04:14 PM #
6. Murder is immoral because we’re not animals anymore. It is considered “immoral”, because in our common view, it is an unnecessary act.
   
   No one would reckon that you are an immoral person if you kill someone out of self-defense. However, killing someone consciously and knowingly is considered unnecessary and moreover, has great consequences for the murdered and his/her family and the like.
   
   I think you’re confusing two things. When it is a necessity, it is not immoral. When, however, there is no reason to do so—which in our current western world, there isn’t, it is considered immoral. Just like killing a random kitten is considered immoral, it does not harm you in any way by living on. And even if it does harm you, for instance by shitting in your garden, taking it’s life would be an act totally out of proportion in comparison to it’s “crime”, considering the fact that it doesn’t actually realise it’s shitting in your garden.
   
   But I’m getting ahead of myself.
   From a random reader, cheers.

   prodx

   Dec 14, 05:25 PM #
7. Morality is a conventionalism. The mores and values that a society possesses are constantly changing, over time; though there is the illusion that these are sacrosanct and static. Morality is predicated on the interests of society and by consequence, on the interests of the individual.
   
   Assuming that the idea of the social contract is valid, that men come together and surrender certain natural rights in exchange for the protection of other values, then the immorality of murder may make sense.
   
   In order to administer or rather regulate the transaction of rights between the individual and the state, the sole entity that is allowed to have the power of cohersion, laws are produced. Murder transgresses the social contract and thus puts the whole system at jeopardy. So, murder becomes something immoral because it endangers society.
   
   Although this arrangement produces a paradox – while no individual is allowed to take another member of society’s life, save by self-defence, the state does have the right to terminate the life of any individual, through legal means of course – it is necessary. As said, the state becomes the sole entity that is allowed the power of cohersion. And in order to retain this monopoly, the state must punish those that threaten this monopoly, which in turn ensures the protection of certain rights.
   
   Now, I totally disagree with the idea that murder is immoral because animals are no longer involved. Human beings are animals too and underneath all the logic and reason, lies instinct, which goads us forth into action! Even nowadays, morality, a human invention, partakes in the ‘animal kingdom’. Some of us will argue that eating animals is immoral for instance.
   
   À propos murder in the name of self-defence and it being sanctioned by the state, this is because the state is supposed to protect the individual, but at times the state is not able to do so. And whenever this occurs, any member of society is allowed to protect his life, after all the other member of society that is threatening his life is obviously going against the laws, the foundation of society and by consequence, stability.

   Juan

   Dec 15, 12:54 AM #
8. The group benefit hypothesis is probably correct, but the question itself is rather faulty in that it denies objective thinking.

   beajerry

   Dec 15, 06:30 AM #
9. Thame: well, game theorists like to talk about “rational agency”, but I think Rawls’s preferred term, “rational self-interest”, is probably slightly more precise, since it defines not only a cognitive property of the agent in question but also the domain about which they are deemed to be rational (so an agent might be completely irrational about, for example, theology, but still be a good reasoner about things that concern their physical wellbeing).

   Benedict

   Dec 15, 11:50 AM #
10. Juan, that is very well written.
    
    Though about the animal part, I don’t know if you were reffering to my point or not but I may as well respond, Benedict touched on the right topic. That is namely that of rational self-interest.
    
    It is irrational for a human being to randomly kill a kitten, but it is not for him to kill a cow. The reasons are obvious in that meat is a necessity for us to survive while cats are not on our menu, so to speak. And this is actually exactly what I was trying to portray.
    
    However, an argument could be made if a person kills cats for food, but speaking of general “morality” in our current societal systems (Europe, The US) that will not really work since in these parts of the world it wouldn’t really be a necessity to do so because of the abundance of socially accepted alternatives. Whether this is right or wrong is not for me to decide, but hey let’s be frank — since when did society dictate everything right.
    
    I think Ayn Rand did a good job with objectivism though there obviously are flaws in the system. Still, the argument holds. Where there is no need, I would consider life taking act “immoral”. Out of my own, personal, view on how things should be.
    
    Nice discussion by the way, keep them coming.

    prodx

    Dec 15, 04:17 PM #
11. I don’t know if calling it rational self-interest is even the appropriate term, for it does not seem that human beings really deliberate about things but do them, they act upon them driven by some internal desire, i.e., instinct, and in this case it is an instinct for survival. When your life is threatened, you will react accordingly in order to preserve it. You are in the moment and will not have the luxury of deliberating as to what course to follow.
    
    Concerning animals, as a vegetarian, my argument for why I do not eat meat has never been based on morality. I know a lot of vegetarians base it morality, viewing the consumption of animals as something completely immoral, especially the way our (American) meat industry handles the whole affair. Again, this demonstrates the dynamic aspect of values in a society. We even speak of animal rights, something foreign to other societies. I guess we are more ‘progressive’.
    
    Also, with regard to objectivity, for it has been thrown around. I have a feeling that we can never be truly objective. To suppose so is folly. We can attempt it, but never can we achieve it; not that I am saying that because it is unattainable, we should not set it as a goal.

    Juan

    Dec 16, 10:26 AM #
12. I totally agree with your last two points, however I have a comment which you surely couldn’t have missed, though I wonder why you did not touch upon it.
    
    I quote:
    
    ”...for it does not seem that human beings really deliberate about things but do them, they act upon them driven by some internal desire, i.e., instinct, and in this case it is an instinct for survival. When your life is threatened, you will react accordingly in order to preserve it.”
    
    Well, you surely must agree with me when I say that this is exactly in one’s rational self-interest? The fact that you do not deliberate about it does not suddenly change that. Also, my example focused on deliberate pre-meditated killing of animals without any instinctual need for it, i.e., there is no life threatening situation—much like in my kitty example.
    
    I think I have said in one of my previous posts that killing someone or thing out of self defence for fear out of your own life is, by my standards at least, completely legitimate.
    
    Look forward to your reply, cheers.

    prodx

    Dec 17, 05:54 PM #
13. It is rationally in one’s rational self-interest, but it’s after the fact. When you analyze it, you rationalize it, i.e, you make something to which rationality does not apply be rational.
    
    What do I mean? I mean that everything a human being is potentially capable of doing, can be rationalized; it’s a matter of finding a way of rationalizing. Therefore, if anything can be rationalized, then rationality is an invention. By this I do not mean it does not ‘exist’, but what I mean is that it is not ‘real’. It is simply an attribute we invent and append to something, in this case the action of murdering another human being and calling it self-defence, i.e., rationalizing an otherwise ‘immoral’ act.

    Juan

    Dec 17, 07:09 PM #
14. I think this is why humans haven’t evolved physically for thousands of years.
    
    This is something to ponder. All the comments + discussion are excellent too.

    Daniel Nicolas

    Dec 21, 04:51 PM #
15. To quote Juan:
    ”...Human beings are animals too and underneath all the logic and reason, lies instinct, which goads us forth into action!...”
    
    I disagree that Humans are animals, but that is another conversation. But I do agree that Humans have instincts. For example, I have a paternal instinct to protect my family at all costs. What happens then when two of our instintcs are in competition with eachother?
    
    C.S. Lewis describes a situation wher you hear a woman screaming in the distance, “You will probably feel two desires — one desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away.”
    
    The question then becomes what is that third thing the dictates what instict we ought to follow?

    Hmark

    Dec 22, 05:54 AM #
16. ‘Morality is the herd instinct in the individual’ – Nietzsche
    
    Human beings still want to kill. Its a suppressed urge.
    
    I became wrong regardless of the circumstances when civilisation reached a stage where it would take care of its own interests as opposed to the interests of an individual. For the survival of society/civilization as we know it, it is necessary for Public Good to win out in Public Good Vs. the Individual’s Interests. Hence the dilution of ‘the survival of the fittest’.
    
    I think you write very well and have good taste. Please keep blogging.

    Tarun

    Dec 22, 07:46 PM #
17. Sorry to post this here, but Juan, I think you have a very thought provoking blog. I don’t have all the background knowledge required to fully understand you, but I appreciate your writing as an interested layman. Is there any way I could comment on your blog? I just wanted to tell you how good I thought your blog was.
    
    I like this blog and Juan’s. You guys are good (not that you need my approval).

    Tarun

    Dec 22, 07:54 PM #
18. Survival instinct, The Idea of killing for growth implies the increase in the probablity of getting killed, hence the “immoral” tag to murder. It also has something to do with the fear associated with death, though I’m not sure of the origin of this fear it is possible that it came only after death was labeled as immoral.

    Sagar

    Dec 22, 11:59 PM #
19. Tarun: Thank you for the kind words.
    
    It think we’ve gotten off of the beaten path. The title of this entry is The Morality of Murder, and not the Morality of Killing. We are discussing the Morality (or lack thereof) of intentional and premeditated killings. Not all killings are intentional and premeditated. Of the ones that are, I would suggest that the intentional and premeditated killings carried out on the innocent are immoral.
    
    The next question in philosophy is always ‘Why?’ I make this suggestion because I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are [but not limited to] Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
    
    Anyone who attempts to deny another these Rights is acting in an immoral fashion, and must be pusnished..

    Hmark

    Dec 23, 05:33 AM #
20. Probably too absolutist to say that murder is culturally regarded as immoral in all contexts. The US, for example, kills some of its citizens in several states, legally and thus widely held to be justified (hence, not immoral in this case). Call it simplistic, but wouldn’t the evolutionary benifit be reciprocity? IE. limiting the impulse to kill within the species is advantageous because otherwise it would be genetically self-defeating. Like when the males of elk or whatever duel during mating season, it would probably be more advantageous to kill your rival, but the combat is ritualised to seldom end in death, because the elks as a group have enough trouble surviving the lions and whatnot.. So indivuidual Darwinian survival is also tempered by the genetic programming for survival of the group.

    NixonReverb

    Dec 24, 02:35 PM #
21. NixonReverb:I did not intend to be an absolutist, but even adding what you said, amounts to the same thing, legal murders are a result of fear of the society towards the individual who is executed.

    Sagar

    Dec 30, 12:52 AM #

22. I believe it’s: “you’re a moron.”

    sam

    Sep 16, 09:42 PM #

23. morality’s only purpose MUST be to build ties between people in civilization because a hunter gatherer feels no remorse in killing a rabbit or hunting a moose but to kill a human being is wrong y?because a human being is apperantly superior to an animal but this whole attitude of superiority is a clearly evoloutionary but not necasarily helpful to the individual

    ben f

    Jan 17, 08:39 PM #