Why is killing or harming another human wrong? What objective

>>2831344
edgy
Its only wrong in certain circumstances. For example, killing an innocent person 4noraison is morally wrong, but shooting some nig nog who broke into your house is ok.

>>2831352
Good post.
You can wrap this thread up now, OP.

>>2831352
I'm not trying to be edgy. Why is it wrong at all? If it is immoral to do so, then that would imply morals are objective.

>>2831344
Shouldn't you be in bed, young man?

>>2831359
Not all morals are objective, but some are. Harming/killing another human being is an incredibly heinous act that is only justifiable in certain situations. Go out and try to beat the shit out of some random asshole on the street. Chances are if you aren't actually an edgy faggot then you'll chicken out because you can't bring yourself to harm another human who hasn't done anything to you due to underlying primal instincts that hurting another person is inherently wrong.

>>2831387
But is there a reason I should care? And if it was primal instincts that provided the basis for harming another human being wrong, couldn't the reverse be true and primal instincts are able to be used to justify acts like theft or anything else? What if it wasn't in somebody's instincts to not want to harm another person, like, say, a sociopath? Would his actions then be justified as it's not part of his instincts?

>>2831403
You should fucking care because you're causing immense pain to someone, which is something that you should be able to fucking empathize with. Sociopathic individuals are defective in that regard. Most normal humans have the ability to possess empathy. Himmler vomited the only time he visited an actual concentration camp, because underneath all the bullshit dogma of his party there was still something fundamental that was disgusted with all the suffering it had caused. "Its bad because it hurts people" is a good enough reason to care, unless you are defective or just being an edgy faggot. Stop with this socratic bullshit.

>>2831344
>>2831359
There's pretty easy objective reason if you have any capacity to understand it.

If this thread isn't a retarded edgy teen rebellion stage, then you should be able to understand what a human feels when they are distressed and what causes such distress. Take your own experience as basic principle on whether or not taking another life is distressful or not. Do you feel pain when injured? Do you fear death? Do you feel distressed when your favorite thing perishes? Do you feel distressed when someone takes your precious?

Now assuming other humans feel the same thing as you, since humans are all biological copies, just reverse this question format and you should arrive at basic tier 1 level of ethics/moral system.

>>2831352
So Zimmerman>Roof?

If everyone in the world was allowed to murder, society would crumble. Don't feel like paying your rent? Kill the landlord. Don't like that guy your gf is hanging out with? Kill him. Some guy tailgating you all day? Good thing you keep a shotgun in the back.

>>2831446
The US courts sure do think so, considering Zimmerman is free, while Roof is facing the death penalty.

>>2831440
this anon is saying what I said but he's gooder at it

>>2831446
Yes, of course. Not by a lot, but what he did was less morally abhorrent than what roof did.

>>2831344
OP is literally a psychopath. Go seek help.

>>2831520
He's just an edgy teenage faggot, not a psycho. Now I see why the greeks put socrates to death for corrupting the youth. Socratic questioning is the most annoying shit on the planet.

>>2831506
Zimmerman is a damn saint, he was legally and morally clear in every sense of the law. He was just the victim of media corporations needing some clickbait and race baiters like Rev. Sharpton needing some more media attention.

That's a good question

why is killing you wrong?

>>2831597
Man some of you are so obsessed with Jews it's actually pathetic. There's like what, 14 million of em?

>>2831732
no way theres only 14 million jews, anon

File: embarrassing.png (128KB, 334x393px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 334x393px

>>2831440
That's not objective or a priori you fucking mongoloid, that's an argument from empathy. It's explicitly subjective.

>>2831758
>empathy is subjective
>emotions are subjective

DURRRR Are you a retard or something? These are biological and evolutionary properties.

>>2831768
>emotions are objective
Then why don't I feel that patriotic tingling when I hear the Star Spangled Banner like the average burgerlander?

>>2831780
You're retarded. Thats why.

>>2831780
Patriotism is subjective. Empathy is not.

File: 1488214031624.png (175KB, 397x399px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 397x399px

>>2831780
Foreigners don't have American souls, you silly.

>>2831344
you are a sapient being, if you value your own sapience this must be applied universally like the laws of physics so you must not be mean

>>2831791
Every individual person does not feel empathy to the same degree. Some people don't feel it at all. Further, it's not an object you can point to in the world, and you can't prove it to exist deductively, so in what sense are you using the word "objective"? I mean, the only way you can understand empathy is through comparison with a lack of it.
>>2831785
Not an argument.

>>2831800
>some people don't feel it at all
right, those people are defective, like sociopaths. Normal feel empathy to the point where they should know that killing and harming others is wrong.

Our entire morality is based on the belief that human life must be preserved. There's obviously no empirical evidence to support why we should believe that in the first place, but it's an axiom that everyone unanimously agrees with for obvious reasons.
If you cannot understand this, you are genuinely retarded.

>>2831800
If you "don't feel", then you're by definition mentally retarded. You're lacking critical elements that biology provides for normal healthy people.

File: onehundredandfifty.png (142KB, 500x278px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 500x278px

>>2831820
>if you don't feel empathy, you're not a "real" person
Literal nonsense. You've admitted that some biologically human things do not feel empathy, now you're backpedaling to cover the contradiction.

>should know that killing and harming others is wrong
Yet people with empathy do this all the time, for instance, in cases of self defense.
>b-b-but that's a special case!
If harming others isn't "wrong" in all cases, it's meaningless and useless to employ the rule generally speaking, as you are doing.
>>2831829
Some people are mentally retarded. Doesn't change the fact (this is an actual fact, nearly as we can tell) that have different emotional experiences from a "normal" person. Is an appeal to normalcy really the best you faggots can do when asked to provide a priori justification for the moral proscription against murder?

>>2831847
Its a medical normalcy. In all medical textbooks, the lack of emotion is a indication of mental deficiency.

Your mental retardation doesn't extend to other people, so the argument of moral from empathy and emotion still stands as this is what is medically healthy person would be.

File: mouseinthehouse2.jpg (126KB, 480x608px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 480x608px

>>2831877
Let me say again: if it doesn't apply in all cases, it isn't a usable general rule. If empathy is the objective justification for morality, then people without empathy are objectively amoral, i.e. morality cannot be applied to them. It would be inconsistent for you to do so, since if they can't be basically empathetic, they can't be moral. Exactly the sort of person you want to reign in with these interdicts against murder (sociopaths and psychopaths) are exempt from your moral framework.

Further, you're admitting that people are not "all biological copies," so your argument breaks down along those lines as well. One cannot simply reflect on then project one's empathy onto others as though they were mere copies of oneself.

>>2831916
Lets apply your method to a blind person.

>Non-blind people say the world exist beyond darkness
>Born-blind person cannot see because medically deficiency. So therefore he should believe the world is dark
Would a blind person be incapable of accept ing that light exist?

But alas, you might be beyond redemption as the argument rests on rational discourse. If your mental deficiency extends beyond simple emotional response to more rational side of things, then it might be hopeless to pursue a rational course of action.

>>2831934
If a person born blind truly can't receive and process any light, they won't be able to understand the idea of "light." Sure, they might "accept" that it exists because people try to describe it to them, but all that description will fail: you'll end up trying to, essentially, define what color is. A blind person might "recognize" that there can be such a thing as light: but in all of their day to day operations it is absent so, a praxi, it may as well not exist. The blind person has no impressions from which to derive their ideas. It would as pointless to tell them to watch shadows as it would to tell a psychopath to think about another's feelings.

>>2831958
so because you can't teach a psycopath to think about other people's feelings we are supposed to just let him harm people...?

>>2831958
Blind people can operate the traffic light. They understand what morning and evening are even when they cant see themselves. They operate in a world via proxy. They understand that non-blinds can see light and therefore are more visible. They understand that if you wear bright color as blind, you are more visible to non-blind. They understand its unsafe to walk in night due to non-blind people's vision is vastly limited.

They don't need to see light to understand it exist and operate on the model of world that depends on light's existence.

In a same way an medically deficient amoral person can operate on the world in this same way and they normally would do this. Just because they themselves cannot feel emotion doesn't mean other people don't. This also doesn't mean emotions of other people don't have consequences. Hence a proper rational amoral can still operate in this moral world simply via proxy knowledge.

This same method of knowledge is seen in use by NASA to detect planet's size. The fluctions of light that bends around the planet's tells them how big the world is relative to the sun.

If you're unable to make these deductions and inductive reasoning like these, you are mentally deficient in more ways than one. And should seriously re-consider your world view.

>>2831977
You're not "supposed to do" anything. Psychos will be psychos. Even the idea of self defense rests on certain logical assumptions (that you want to live, etc.). No action can be justified on a completely logical basis.

OP has been proved wrong repeatedly. this thread reeks of bait.

>>2831981
None of your commentary on blindness reconciles the fundamental disconnection between the representative idea and the direct experience. All you've shown is that blind people understand lights effects, which I never denied. I said that they operate as if the thing itself doesn't exist, since they've never known the thing. A blind person can only know the feeling of heat and the coolness of shadow, not the visual appearance of either, just as the psychopath only mirrors and pantomimes empathetic behavior.
>If you're unable to make these deductions and inductive reasoning like these, you are mentally deficient in more ways than one. And should seriously re-consider your world view.
I'm "unable to make them" because they're nonsensical. I could drive a truck through the holes in this argument.

>>2831387
>Harming/killing another human being is an incredibly heinous act
hi liberal, your peers are on reddit, not here

>>2832005
Nah >>2831958

Is out arguing everyone else here. Also morality is a spook and there is no such thing as objective morality.

>>2832015
t. OP

how do you respond to this >>2831824 ?

>>2831344
makes it more likely your own self preservation will be afflicted by like so I guess it depends on how you weight that occurances possibility and if its worth the trade

>>2832009
It doesn't matter if blind person can feet light or see light or only feel heat/cold.

It shouldn't matter to if you're emotionally retarded to know the world operates under the existence of morals and empathy. How do you rationalize the non-existence of emotions/empathy when there's overwhelming evidence for it? Just because you don't feel it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If pure experience is the only knowledge you accept then you shouldn't accept that earth is round, or other countries besides the ones you visited exist, or even things beyond your vision/hearing range.

>>2832017
"everyone", even if everyone thought that that wouldn't make it objective, just popular. Ancient societies like the Aztecs "all" agreed that sacrificing innocent people was the right thing to do, that doesn't make their morality objective.

>>2832015
Nice samefag

>>2832033
So? Did you even read my post? I never said it was literally objective, as in intrinsic to the universe, just that everyone agrees with it. And that's all that matters.

File: 1494819834711.jpg (123KB, 948x703px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 948x703px

>>2832033
OP explicitly said there is no objective reason. And not everyone agrees with it either, various historical cultures have had very different views to the sanctity of life. Even if I accept that everyone has a similar morality what need have I to also follow that morality when I can profit by disregarding it.

>>2832056
Ah, the ancient goalpost-moving technique!

>>2832076
How does "everyone" (not actually everyone) agreeing make it objective, I haven't moved any goalposts.

>>2832082
I am assuming you're OP. If you aren't, just ignore this.
You started by asking
>Why is killing or harming another human wrong?
and now the question has become
>Why should I agree not to kill if I can profit from killing?

>>2832095
I'm not OP but the arguement for it being wrong presented here is just that lots of people think it is. And ive yet to see a good arguement for the second question other than "its the right thing"

>>2832138
>the arguement for it being wrong presented here is just that lots of people think it is.
and what is the issue with that? people universally act as if it's true. that's good enough reason.
>And ive yet to see a good arguement for the second question
there's no objective reasoning. if you want to harm and murder others, go ahead. there's just no use whining when you eventually get punished for it, since everyone around you disaproves of your behaviour.

Objectively murder is unlikely to help you achieve the kinds of objectives normal people seek, like "getting money" or "having a family".

If your objective is simply to kill for its own sake, then no there is nothing objectively wrong with it, as killing would of course than achieve the objective you seek.