>>7645686 >mocked No, just criticized. It's clear that he considered the idea very seriously and explained to the audience both its flaws and merits >lampshaded Dostoevsky didn't browse reddit so it's highly unlikely he "lampshaded" anything.
>>7645717 Ya, no you're retarded. A victim is someone who has wrong done unto them. What is more wrong than taking the life of someone?It doesn't matter if they're around to witness it's effects, even if it's effects are them no longer being alive.
>>7646160 Victimhood is a quality and qualities require existence. You can't have blue eyes unless you have eyes, and a person can't be a victim if he isn't a person.
>also, how does dying mean you cease to exist? shakespeare is dead, yet he's still in millions of peoples heads. No, some conceptual echo of him lives on. Shakespeare the person does not exist. You may hear people discuss his work and life but you don't hear people saying "stop hurting Shakespeare" because he is no longer a person.
>who are you to declare that existing and living are synonymous? how would you even rationalize a thought like that? What we call a person is basically a conciousness. Once that conciousness is gone there is no longer a person. When I stomp on on your leather jacket I'm not abusing a cow.
>It isn't a murder until the taking of life is completed. Absolutely false. If you have the malicious intent to kill and you strike to kill, it is murder. Regardless if the person survived the attack. Surely if you have the malicious intent to end ones life and you strike to fulfill your intention, it can be brought to court as an ATTEMPTED murder. A crime nonetheless, and differently a wrong . Nice logic you fucking dickhead.
>>7646269 >considering law authoritative in philosophical debate is silly as fuck Excellent counterpoint. You really fucked me up, calling my reasoning silly. Go you girl.
No. Thats ATTEMPTING to beat it. You tried to kill someone and you failed. So I guess you think that no harm was done and everyone should just go on their separate ways like nothing happened? There are still remedies for attempted murder i.e. consequential damages, recovery, meaning that something must have happened that was wrong in order to warrant such a response for restitution.
>>7646288 As I said, considering law authoritative in philosophical debate is silly as fuck. You might as well say having sex outside of wedlock is objectively wrong because it's illegal in Morocco. Saying 'b-but the law said so' is not an argument, lawyers don't have the last word on philosophical matters.
"Ah but I did not murder him! He survived the multiple stab wounds I inflicted upon him!" "Yea you're still going to jail dumbass. What's with this guy?" "I don't know judge, he must be some kind of autist."
>>7646319 What you're asking of me is basically 'prove that God doesn't exist'.
If you consider conciousness something transcendental and not a product of the brain then I'll gladly admit that I can't prove that it does not live on without the body, but that simple means we're working with entire different premises.
Maybe I should rephrase in this way: If conciousness is merely a product of the brain and ceases to exist when your physical body dies, then murder is a victimless crime.
>>7646322 >Although attempted murder doesn't necessarily have a victim either.
What? Maybe if you tried to shoot someone and you missed, no wrong was done to them but their life was still in danger. Which I guess, depending how you look at it could also been seen as a wrong or crime.
since you asked me: I don't consider consciousness something transcendental, only something that has been around since humanity has been around.
I think your error is getting caught up in the idea of a individualized consciousness. to me it is clear that consciousness does not exist in a vacuum. the idea that every person carries around a single consciousness bound to them is silly to me, a product of the individualism the "west" has been experiencing for the last few centuries.
if anything, believing that consciousness is not intertwined is silly to me. if we consider the fact that consciousnesses are intertwined a fact it becomes obvious that, even if consciousness would cease to exist with death, one person's consciousness could go, since parts of it would continue "living on" in other people.
in general, wouldn't you agree that the idea of assigning a single consciousness to a single entity with 100% clearly defined borders seems awfully constructed?
>>7646355 Exactly, let's say you shoot at someone with a silenced rifle from a distance and you miss and all they heard was a funny sound that they didn't identify as a shot. No harm has been done, there is no victim. And their life wasn't in danger since the bullet followed a trajectory in which it was at no point going to collide with their body.
>>7646428 It seems very sensible to be, but I'll gladly concede that my statement doesn't work when you don't accept a run of the mill materialist standpoint.
'Intertwined conciousness' just seems fancy imagery for people interacting to me.
>>7645717 That would be right if it wasn't because of 1) most people have family or friends who miss the dead one when he's gone, 2) most people feel empathy towards other people, 3) most people don't like the idea of running into someone who's ok with killing ohter people.
You must be like fucking autistic to not see all of the above as obvious.
>>7649486 Oh I agree, in most cases murder is not a victimless crime because of circumstances. But there are scenarios in which this is not the case, so it is not the murder itself that is the problem but rather the circumstances around the murder. This is an important difference.
>>7649587 There's no longer someone to be deprived. Non-existent people can't be deprived.
>>7649609 People can't be murdered since the murder removes the person. As long as there is an agent it is merely assault, it becomes murder when the agent is no longer there, so there is no agency to be violated.
>>7649661 (If every crime is a crime committed against someone who will eventually no longer exist and therefore cannot be a victim, then why isn't every crime eventually a victimless crime?)
Anyway, the point is that there was at one point in time a person, and through the act of murder you are committing the ultimate act of violence depriving them of all agency, turning them into a non-person. But their current non-personhood does not erase their past personhood. Just because the person you committed violence against no longer exists does not mean that a wrong was not committed at some prior point. Your manipulative linking of victimhood and temporality isn't clever.
>>7650124 >Even if we accept this stupid premise, society, friends and family all are hurt by their absence you moron As I already said in an earlier post:
>[...] in most cases murder is not a victimless crime because of circumstances. But there are scenarios in which this is not the case, so it is not the murder itself that is the problem but rather the circumstances around the murder. This is an important difference.
>>7650136 Exactly, and until the crime has been committed it's not murder.
>>7650275 look m8 if your goal is to look like a pedantic annoying autist you've succeeded, but if you're serious this is exactly the sort of pointless semantic pseudointellectual 'argument' that highschoolers use to make themselves feel clever and ensures the populace continues to view philosophy as retarded word games played by jobless liberal kids
Qualities being predicated around existence isn't necessarily true. And even so, it is the act for which the person is punished, not necessarily the outcome. Murder is an example of this. Acting with full and conscious intent to kill is the crime. Obviously this is influenced by the surrounding circumstances, which can serve to mitigate or aggravate the nature of the crime. But it is the act itself which is found to be the crime.
>>7650295 It's a legitimate argument regardless of how it might rustle 'the populace'.
>>7650370 There is per definition no murder committed while the person is alive. It can only be deemed murder retroactively when the person has been removed, up until that moment it's merely assault. As soon as it is murder, there is no victim.
>>7650391 Legally, sure, but that's philosophically irrelevant.
>>7650406 It's not a legitimate argument, it's definition-based masturbatory that has absolutely no relevance to anything.
No one will ever change their behavior based on this pointless bit of wordplay, save for revising their opinion of you to be 'an annoying twerp.' It is literally on the level of 'glorp is always followed by blorp. Glorp, therefore blorp.' That's a legitimate argument too. Like your argument, it is also pointless nonsense that changes nothing, communicates nothing, and does nothing but perhaps passingly entertain someone.
>>7650468 On a more pragmatic approach, the money was to up boost his poor ass and save his sister from an unwanted marriage. Although it is true he considered doing before the financial pit bottom for napoleonic reasons... But he would never have actually gone through with it if he had some money to survive. He was basically starving. Although he was cobsiderably lazy as well... Had been a neet for months... I don't know, I reAd ten years ago.
>>7650811 >How do you think it is a person? It's a bunch of dead cells without agency. We don't have agency when we sleep, do we cease to become people? Let's actually take this materialist though to its conclusion, shall we?
>>7650818 If you're going to talk legality, even if someone dies, that doesn't make you no longer liable for any crimes you committed against them in the past, because a criminal trial, unlike a civil court, is about you vs. the state, not you vs. the victim. If you are responsible for someone's death, that is a crime against the state. When it's not, it's called a wrongful death suit.
>That's the key point. Usually, not necessarily. Murder in itself is victimless, but can not be depending on the circumstances. baited/10 If victim-hood is a product of distress (via hypothetical means of murder as per your post...then the life preceding said murder fully predicated upon regular longevity and full of the typical human dread of the death and the like...necessitates that being denied said expectations is in fact victimizing by rendering said person's suffering, the intrinsic distress of life, futile.
>>7650835 If you steal from someone and they die, it doesn't abrogate the theft in the eyes of the law, because criminal law isn't persecuted that way. If you bring about the death of someone, it doesn't matter if they become a legal non-entity that you could not have committed a crime against, because the crime is against the state, not the victim.
>>7650721 No, again: Do labels not apply to dead people? This is getting a little philosophical, but think about this: if my father dies, does he stop being my father? As in, i can't call him such anymore?
>>7651057 >when you refer but you see, that's wrong. because i am in fact referring to the person when talking about a person. not the memory or concept of the person, but the person itself.
this is simply about definition. father isn't a vaguely defined word. if his sperm created me, then he's my father, regardless of wether he lives or not. the same goes for "victim". i don't know the exact definition of it, but i'm sure thst even animals and inanimate objects can fall victim to things. being alive, being distressed, none of it is even relevant.
There would be a victim, just that victim is dead. Qualities are not necessarily invalidated by death. Also death does not equal immateriality.
Your argument seems to accept that murder does exist, so what's the problem? Raskolnikov is evidently still guilty of murder, since murder is an act and not an outcome. All we're doing is arguing about semantics.
Whilst I see where you are going with this, I can't help but disagree, since you are asserting that all human life is worthless, and that simply avoiding hurting someone means that anything can otherwise be permissible. This leads into a whole host of problems that cannot really be reconciled with any kind of compassionate philosophy.
>>7652947 >This leads into a whole host of problems that cannot really be reconciled with any kind of compassionate philosophy. Why do you think so? It seems to me to be very compatible with compassion.
If human life is worthless, then simply killing people for the sake of achieving a specific goal is completely justified. If you believe that murder in itself is not a bad thing, then I would suggest that the philosophy in which this particular view is housed isn't very compassionate.
>>7652947 >>7653009 >you are asserting that all human life is worthless Where the fuck does he say that? Jesus you guys are pulling shit out of your asses. You all neglect his arguements and attack from these pseudo-angles, with your incredibly vague arguements. >>7652957 you're a champ. I believe in you. Im that kid of that police officer and you're the batman.
>Did it primarily because he feels superior to her and felt it was his right to do it, the money and saving Dunya from whoring herself out was a secondary factor >In the end he realizes that he's simply a fucking criminal whose arrogance made him do something dumb
>>7653009 Why would you conclude from my point that "crimes that do not harm anyone are victimless" that "human life is worthless"? Also, why do you think that the act of ending a life is per definition opposed to compassion? In a lot of cases it is the exact opposite.
Wow This is literally my first time on /lit/, a board where one would think people would be somewhat able to argue and discuss, but it all comes down to insulting people like on any other retarded board
>>7652896 It's normal for beings to want to continue existing. The act of murder, eradicating a being, is therefore a harm, delivered at the moment of eradication. It doesn't matter whether they feel anything, whether you're euthanizing them in their sleep. You're getting confused because rendering a being non-existent is an entirely different, ultimate sort of harm.
If murder isn't a bad thing, then human life must be worthless, otherwise you would regard it as a bad thing. This kind of rationalism naturally leads to a deemphasis on human life.
Also, what I'm arguing is not that acts of compassion aren't possible under your philosophy, just that they aren't compassionate in the primary instance. These supposed acts of compassion would always be predicated around rationalism, which in many cases is fundamentally opposed to compassion.
>>7655269 no its not harm. because the person is dead. You can't cause phsyical or psychological injury to someone who is dead. Whether that person wants to continue to live or not is out of the equation. He clearly states: "Murder literally doesn't have a victim because the person transgressed against ceases to exist by the very act, so there is no victim." So again you're attacking from an off-angle.
>>7655583 Let's say there are two basic kinds of harm. One kind inflicts suffering on a being, which requires that being to have subjective existence to experience it. You could "harm" an inaminate object by damaging it, but it can't result in suffering unless a being exists to suffer from it in some way. The other kind of harm inflicts total non-existence, including all capacity to feel the first sort of harm, turning a being which formerly had subjective existence into a mere object. The victim of this kind of harm doesn't become a victim by feeling the harm delivered, but rather by irrevocably losing all capacity to feel, to be. The harm itself, the moment of loss, by definition can't be felt. I can only imagine a p-zombie rejecting this concept, but maybe materialist autism really has reached that level.
>>7655269 It's not a sort of harm at all, that is my point.
>>7655412 >If murder isn't a bad thing, then human life must be worthless, otherwise you would regard it as a bad thing. So doctors practice euthanasia out of a disregard for people? I would say it is the opposite.
>Also, what I'm arguing is not that acts of compassion aren't possible under your philosophy, just that they aren't compassionate in the primary instance. These supposed acts of compassion would always be predicated around rationalism, which in many cases is fundamentally opposed to compassion. All acts of compassion must incorporate reason of some sort, reason is not opposed to compassionate acts but essential to it.
>>7655613 You may not like the idea of non-existence, but the discomfort experienced by entertaining said idea only takes place because you do exist. Non-existence only seems horrific to existers.
The idea that your second kind of harm is harm at all is a delusion, as has been explained multiple times in this thread. Non-existence has never hurt anyone. Saying that non-existent people are harmed by non-existence is like saying my car is damaged by me not having one. You might as well say I'm doing harm by not inseminating women all the time because each moment I do not I'm depriving hypothetical babies from existence. The unborn and the dead are both hypothetical persons, after all.
I'm sort of running out of ways to say that hypothetical persons who do not exist can't be subjected to things, be it hurtful or pleasant or anything at all.
The reason people think murders have victims seems the same reason people put pillows in coffins. It is, on some level, a refusal to accept what death entails.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.