If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Objective!!
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Prove the existence of an objective morality.
Someone tell me why murder is absolutely wrong.
Someone tell me why murder is absolutely wrong.
0
Comments
you tell me why it is absolutely right
Practically all cultures think murder is wrong and all religions do. People who advocate 'absolute morals' consistently state murder as one of these 'objective morals'.
So, as a question to everyone, is murder always wrong?
Really? Why?
so, give some examples of when it is right
Thanks, because I just didn't type that out.
lets have some consistancy
I cannot. No more than you can give examples of when it's wrong.
Is killing a soldier in war wrong? Is it 'more wrong' than killing my next door neighbour?
So you've changed your stance now? Good.
In philosophy there is never an absolute, because no two people have the exact same perspective.
I am yet to come up with an example of when murder is right, it can be defined as wrong in any given example because of the infringment made by the murderer upon the, forgive the term, victim.
And I never stated I changed my 'stance'. Rights are dependent on the society you live.
The logical extension of a right to property is the right to own anything, provided you respect other property rights.
Therefore, there are some circumstances in which killing someone is allowed- ie, an opposing soldier in a war.
Murder is illegal.
Take murder. Some people will not see anything wrong with murder, therefore it is not an objective moral. However most people will subjectively see murder as wrong, therefore in a democratic society murder is subjectively seen as wrong.
Murder can sometimes be seen as right by the persons prepetrating the act. Take assassination, for example- it is murder, but sometimes the assassin sees the murder as "just rewards" for the victim.
Murder can most certainly be justified in extreme situations. You say it's always wrong because of the infringement upon the murderer - but can it not be argued that when a killer murders someone, they no longer have the rights that innocent people can claim?
As for assault, as long as there's a legitimate reason behind the assault i don't see anything philosophically wrong - if someone's having a go at you verbally or physically then assault can probably be justified.
I say it can be argued to be wrong because of the infringment upon the victim, not that it's always wrong, I still can't think of a time when it can be argued to be right more than wrong, even when mitigating circumstances apply. Neither did I suggest in any way that the rights of a murderer are less than that of the victim or someone defined as 'innocent'.
The question is of absolutes. There is can never be a situation in which your action affects another human being in a negative way can be defined at right, or wrong. Mainly because, as kermit said, for an absolute things have to be viewed as objectivly. Where the nature of morals is subjective, as everyone has a slightly different perspective.
Of course there can never be a moral absolute without religion, I do however disagree with you that killing someone under mitigating circumstances can't be argued to be more right than wrong. In civilised society, the right to life has to be by-and-large respected and upheld, but from a personal perspective I can't see why extreme acts provoked by extreme circumstances can't be justified in an individual sense.
What's religion got to do with it? And more to the point in many religions there's a holy war clause to be argued, thus removing the absolute.
The fact that you disagree proves that there is no absolute objectivity.
A prize to someone who can tell me where this is from.
Wrong on both points
Moral absolutes comprise more than murder, rape and assault - the holy war clause doesn't affect the moral absolute at all, it gives a moral absolute to countenance war.
Religion provides the moral absolute. God says what is right, what is wrong - there are your divine moral absolutes given by a higher power.
Without god/religion there are no moral absolutes, because nothing is given from a higher power - everything is relative.
But how do you define when God has says what is right? four religions interpret the old testament differently, Islam, Christianity, Judaism and people who are Mormons (what the hell is the world for that?)
Anyway, not everyone has religion, which removes the absolute from society at large.
Depends why its done. If I had an incurable disease and asked my hubby to let me go to sleep and never wake up and he did, then that would be classed as murder, but in my eyes its not murder.
So not all cases of murder is wrong.
Hmmmm...isn't god a human invention?
It's all theoretical...Christians will believe the moral absolute has been set out in the bible, Muslims will believe the moral absolute has been set out in the koran...athiests believe everything is relative, agnostics aren't sure either way.
Our government and judicial system still operate with a system largely based on the moral absolute.