I've been stuck on this question for a long time now and

>>8679858
There is no God or objective ground for morals beyond freedom because freedom is all humans have (freedom here means making choices)

if you make the choice to kill someone, you have just eliminated all possibilty of them making choices forever.

This is wrong.

The end

>>8679864
Why then is it wrong to eliminate all possibility of freedom for an individual?

>>8679858
If you have reason to believe the net sum of their future actions furthers whatever cause/s you choose to champion, it's bad.

Otherwise, killing another human being is neutral to good.

>>8679858
The sixth commandment

>>8679875
because if the only thing a person can do is make choices, you just removed all agency they have and killed them forever. Freedom is our only guarantee in this world, and you took it away. It's wrong because it's not yours to take

>>8679880
Thanks, anon. It took a bit of thinking but I got it. Im guessing then in the case of capital punishment morality is relative to the welfare of the masses then? The state takes away the freedom of the murder to protect the freedom of others.

>>8679880
>because it's not yours to take
Well, why not?

kys to understand

>>8679858
If the definition of bad, according to google, is "unpleasant or unwelcome,"
and we assume that the person being killed is not willing to be killed,
then the killing of that person is unwelcome.
Therefore, killing is bad.

>>8679967
This is the most logically sound argument you're going to get out of this discussion.

>>8679967
>>8679971
Agreed.

>>8679967
/thread

>>8679858
>Why is killing another human bad

because a sufficient number of other humans who have power over you believe it is bad

>>8679858
Morals are not real.

>>8680158
>>8679971
>>8679993
itt: people who has never read a book

>>8679880
>Freedom is our only guarantee in this world
LOL

>>8680192
this lmfao

>>8680186

>OP asked for "an answer based on logic"

>I give answer logic-based answer

>You claim I've never read a book.

1. You have no evidence to back up your claim.
2. If your claim is true, then you're attempting to distract from my argument by pointing out my circumstance (ad hom circumstantial).

Try again.

>>8679858
>2016 /lit/ having this much problem debunking this or yell 'spooks'.
Reddit really did a number on this board.

>>8680196
This is genuinely the most reddit, pedestrian and embarrassing post i've read all day.

>>8680196
hahahaha do you have autism

>>8679864
>humans have the ability to make choices
lmao

Op here. Could we revert the thread back on topic instead of screaming autism and calling Reddit on ppl.

>>8680230
Because it can't be answered since you're using a good/bad dichotomy dogma.
The answer is that it isn't inherently wrong to kill someone, but since we're all humans, it goes against (most) people's conscience. So it is 'wrong' to kill someone because it makes you and others feel bad.

I like contractualism, preferably blinded. Contracts make people worry they're getting ripped off, which makes them think more clearly and precisely than plain old intuition.

Would YOU sign a contract saying "I agree that all of us can kill each other"? No, of course you wouldn't, but you might sign one saying "I agree that we can kill in self defence", or even "I agree we can kill heretics".

File: 1473960307635.jpg (55KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 720x720px

Killing another human isn't bad because their exists an instance where it's good, such as stoning a woman for infidelity.