Murder

[jheath]

This topic is an offshoot of the need for religion debate. Thanks to a running verbal war between three members (K^2, Mortukai, and myself), the religion thread has become badly sidetracked into issues (such as the immorality of murder, among others) which really deserve their own proper topic... hence this post.

 

In response to repeated challenges to his world-view of ethical egoism (which would allow for murder provided it was in one's self-interest), K^2 threw down the gauntlet and asked the provocative question: "why should I consider murder to be wrong?" Society has many rules (moral and otherwise) which condemn murder, but what is at the heart of these rules?

 

Many religious people would reply that murder is against the rules of their particular god (the "Thou shalt not kill" of scripture), in a sort of appeal to authority; in this case, their ultimate authority. The problem with appeal to authority is that it doesn't get us any closer to uncovering the answer to "why?"; it's really just a form of "because I (or God) said so". If God were to descend from heaven and say "actually, it's ok to kill X" (which is exactly what men like Osama bin Ladin claim), does that truly make it so?

 

Others, (myself included) subscribe to the idea of an implicit "social contract", which claims that moral rules are simply the result of society attempting to establish the conditions for peaceful and prosperous coexistence. Under this model, murder isn't exactly "wrong" in a absolutist universal sense, just simply "bad for society." Society, through its police forces and moral censure, therefore attempts to discourage murder by imposing penalties, thereby making it in everyone's self-interest to not kill. The problem with this kind of thinking, as K^2 points out, is that there can always be times when the benefits of violating the rules can outweigh the costs.

 

 

I take it you'd have no issues with knifing someone in a dark alleyway if there are no possible witnesses and their wallet could make you marginally richer. 

Provided that I know that the person I'm killing would have no possible impact on my life, that I am 100% sure that no one will witness it, that I will not leave any evidence what so ever, and that the money in the wallet is sufficient to make me go through all the trouble of making sure all these things are true, yes.

 

There are, of course, many other factors or possible justifications. Mortukai identifies six levels of ethical reasoning for condemning murder, ranging from the emotional and pragmatic up through to universal principles. When asked about what could be the fundation of those universal principles, Mort replies:

 

 

You're trying to get me to point at some imaginary solid absolute rule built into the fabric of existence. I'm going to repeat myself here: morals are RULES of behaviour. If something is "immoral" then it is literally against the rules. Ethics are the reasoning methods behind the morals. A moral rule can be anything.

...

What you should be asking is "what makes any method of reasoning ethically valid", and for that the answer is simply "universality". If a system of ethics can apply consistently across all situations and maintain its internal coherence and purposes then it is valid.

...

[it should] always result in the preservation of life and liberty, and the maintenance of positive social functioning on all levels

 

So now, the gloves come off. What exactly makes murder wrong? Is it against some solid absolute rule of the universe, or merely "bad for society"? Are all types of murder equally bad, including euthanasia, executions, accidents, etc? What about murder through inaction, such as not feeding a starving man? Let's have at it.

[Eichhorn]

I can only talk for myself, but in my understanding it´s wrong to murder any living creature (or plant)

just for personal advantage(thinking of things like: money, emotion,and all other selfish motivations).

The only thing I can think of,that kind of "justifies" murder, is to kill someone to stay alive meaning selfdefense or hunting for food.

Nowadays in our civilised world I see no need to kill any living being for one of those reasons, especially

humans.There´s no need to stalk a deer to grant your clans survival(in most parts of our world) or kill pother people before they kill you. At least this should be no option, cauz in my opinion the "gift of consiousness" also brings a great responebility, we are able to fly to the moon and heal sick people, but

we don´t seem to be able to get the one thing, life is always a gift and we should protect it, not take it.

If this sounds vegetarian to you, I´ll have to dissappoint you. I eat meat, but I´m not happy ´bout it.

 

So, to summ it up you could say there is no such thing as a universal law saying, "Murder is not okay",

No nature itself created the priniple of "the survival of the fittest", but when we(humans) are able to use strange devices to communicate over a strange thing called "internet" or build buildings as high as hills, we definatly have to declare "protecting life" our moral guideline.

Personally I didn´t commit any murder because I just feel it´s not okay.So "feel", rather than think about this question.

[K^2]

In other words, murder is socially irresponsible?

[Eichhorn]

In other words, murder is socially irresponsible?

More or less, if you don´t have to kill to defend yourself it is.

 

[The_man]

I can only talk for myself, but in my understanding it´s wrong to murder any living creature (or plant)

just for personal advantage(thinking of things like: money, emotion,and all other selfish motivations).

The only thing I can think of,that kind of "justifies" murder, is to kill someone to stay alive meaning selfdefense or hunting for food.

Nowadays in our civilised world I see no need to kill any living being for one of those reasons, especially

humans.There´s no need to stalk a deer to grant your clans survival(in most parts of our world) or kill pother people before they kill you. At least this should be no option, cauz in my opinion the "gift of consiousness" also brings a great responebility, we are able to fly to the moon and heal sick people, but

we don´t seem to be able to get the one thing, life is always a gift and we should protect it, not take it.

If this sounds vegetarian to you, I´ll have to dissappoint you. I eat meat, but I´m not happy ´bout it.

 

So, to summ it up you could say there is no such thing as a universal law saying, "Murder is not okay",

No nature itself created the priniple of "the survival of the fittest", but when we(humans) are able to use strange devices to communicate over a strange thing called "internet" or build buildings as high as hills, we definatly have to declare "protecting life" our moral guideline.

Personally I didn´t commit any murder because I just feel it´s not okay.So "feel", rather than think about this question.

Ok, whats bothering me here, is your mention of "survival of the fittest", a term not coined by darwin but by social darwinist and racist herbert spencer. He proposed that in society the "fittest" will always win out over the weak. Whats bothering me here is that according to your survival of the fittest, murder is good for society because it weeds out the weak, and those who can not defend themselves. IDeally murder would be a great way to get rid of homeless people and other types of impoverished human beings who are justy a drag on society. The problem with that is is that society itself then begins to unfold, when anybody can kill anyone with impunity.

 

Sure its bad for society. However, everyone has the natural rights of life liberty and property/pursuit of happiness depending on who you ask. Well, depriving somone of life, when they did nothing to invalidate it, is wrong. If they would harm you or your property then it can be argued that you have a right to end their life, but to go forward and say that plants and animals should nto be killed for money is ludicrous, as the way everyone gets their meat and veggies is by buying them, therefore their will always be capitalism linked to food as long as there is capitalism.

And, there is also a vague anti hunting reference in there, something about no need to stalk a deer. Also before you said it is ok to hunt for food. I can say with confidence that most hunters eat their kills. Who wouldnt eat a big meaty ten point buck? Even if they didnt, and if they left the carcass, it would still end up being some scavenger fox/wolf/ coyote treat.

 

So all im saying is to mention survival of the fittest as something created by nature and to say that we humans have set up civilization to stop it is incorrect, because what is in nature is actually reffered to as natural selection, and even that is a human coined term. Whatever, im tired. Also tired of hearing myself rant. Good night.

[reticulatingsplines]

Murder is wrong because it deprives another being of the right to live.

 

To try and justify it through egocentric logic is a cheap attempt to remove oneselves from basic rules and moral standards. But, ironically, it doesn't make you immune from being human.

 

K^2, I guarantee all the logic in the world wouldn't mean two sh*ts after you killed someone. You've just taken a human life, and that effects you, regardless of whether you felt justified. Spouting a bit of QM to yourself is unlikely to salve to damage you've just caused to yourself. Guilt is an exceptionally powerful base emotion, something we feel because, as has been mentioned, we are social creatures that require certain social contracts - breaking these contracts leads to the feeling of guilt.

 

After committing a murder, you'd stop sleeping, eating, probably start feeling a little paranoid. You may begin to question your sanity. You're experiencing the stages of guilt that any normal person experiences after committing murder.

 

If you don't feel these things, we have a name for you: sociopath, or perhaps even a psychopath, if you actually enjoy it. That means the wiring in your head is wrong, fundamentally. Most people do not so easily discount basic morals with a dash of incomprehensible logic.

[K^2]

K^2, I guarantee all the logic in the world wouldn't mean two sh*ts after you killed someone. You've just taken a human life, and that effects you, regardless of whether you felt justified. Spouting a bit of QM to yourself is unlikely to salve to damage you've just caused to yourself. Guilt is an exceptionally powerful base emotion, something we feel because, as has been mentioned, we are social creatures that require certain social contracts - breaking these contracts leads to the feeling of guilt.

 

After committing a murder, you'd stop sleeping, eating, probably start feeling a little paranoid. You may begin to question your sanity. You're experiencing the stages of guilt that any normal person experiences after committing murder.

 

If you don't feel these things, we have a name for you: sociopath, or perhaps even a psychopath, if you actually enjoy it. That means the wiring in your head is wrong, fundamentally. Most people do not so easily discount basic morals with a dash of incomprehensible logic.

But that's just it. I do not feel bad about harming another person. Furthermore, I do not feel regret over any actions I have commited. I know in advance what the risks are, and I choose to accept them. After that, it is up to the chance. And yes, I suppose that makes me a sociopath. But to me, that just says that I do not fit what the rest of the people define as "normal", and I'm glad that I do not. I have the intelect quotient in the neighborhood of 160, I am 2-3 years ahead with my university classes, I have deep understanding of several fields of Physics, and I am highly experienced in digital logic and software engenering. I don't think there is any way to force me into "normal", whatever my view on killing might be. At the same time, these deviations from norm do not prevent me from fitting in in the society. I do not go arround breaking law all the time, and I find ways of getting along with people who surround me. Sociopaths tend to be good at lying (which is one thing I'm not particularly good at, even though I do not feel bad about that either) and have no remorse over commited acts. That makes some of them get carried away and turn to path of crime. These are the onese that you hear about. But there are a lot who know that it is more beneficial to blend in, and that is what they do.

[jheath]

 

Murder is wrong because it deprives another being of the right to live.

 

However, everyone has the natural rights of life liberty and property/pursuit of happiness depending on who you ask.

 

If you take a responsibility (like "you shouldn't kill") and flip it over, you get a right ("there is a right to life"). The statements pretty much say the same thing. Thus, when I am asking "why is murder wrong?", I am implicitly asking "why is there a right to life?" When I ask "is murder wrong in all cases?", that can be taken to mean "where are the boundaries to that right, if any?"

 

Let's see if we can probe the limits of this "right to life" with a few examples. Say a suicide bomber is about to go off next to me and a crowd of others. Wouldn't it be ok, or even morally obligatory, for me to kill him in an effort to keep him from pulling the pin? Sure, technically I'd be violating his right to life (after all, he could possibly have changed his mind in the last second), but I would be acting as best I knew how to defend my own right to life, not to mention the rest of the crowd.

 

What if it's not my life at stake, but my happiness? Would a woman be justified in trying to defend herself from a serial rapist if she had access to a gun? What about just fighting back by hitting and kicking? After all, the rapist could have a heart-condition that might kill him if a blow lands in just the right place. Surely protecting the rapist from possible harm is a lower priority than the girl's right to not be raped (derived from her right to happiness).

 

I can dream up many more examples like this. Take, for example, foreign invasion. Is it OK to shoot at the soldiers of the other army? After all, simply surrendering would spare you your life, while preserving the right-to-life of the invaders, no? What about if the hostile country threatens to enslave you and your countrymen, or kill a certain portion of the population, as the Germans did in WWII? If my right to pursue happiness conflicts with someone elses' right to life, where exactly do we strike the balance? After all, I shouldn't be able to kill someone just because their wallet would make me happier... or should I?

 

So, try to answer these two questions:

• Why do people have a right to life / happiness?
• What are the limits to that right?

 

-- EDIT --

 

@ K^2

 

Yes, yes, we're all very impressed by your IQ and your achievements as an undergrad. Please stop trotting out your credentials... you might've noticed that I didn't bring up mine in the QM debate. If your assertions are right, they'll be right no matter what your qualifications happen to be.

 

 

@ Lazzo

 

Sure, K^2's argument may strike you are ridiculous (actually, it's pretty self-consistent), but the question is "why is it ridiculous?" If you can prove K^2 wrong, you'll be addressing the heart of this debate.

Edited December 17, 2005 by jheath

[Lazzo]

K^2, I guarantee all the logic in the world wouldn't mean two sh*ts after you killed someone.  You've just taken a human life, and that effects you, regardless of whether you felt justified.  Spouting a bit of QM to yourself is unlikely to salve to damage you've just caused to yourself.  Guilt is an exceptionally powerful base emotion, something we feel because, as has been mentioned, we are social creatures that require certain social contracts - breaking these contracts leads to the feeling of guilt.

 

After committing a murder, you'd stop sleeping, eating, probably start feeling a little paranoid.  You may begin to question your sanity.  You're experiencing the stages of guilt that any normal person experiences after committing murder.

 

If you don't feel these things, we have a name for you: sociopath, or perhaps even a psychopath, if you actually enjoy it.  That means the wiring in your head is wrong, fundamentally.  Most people do not so easily discount basic morals with a dash of incomprehensible logic.

But that's just it. I do not feel bad about harming another person. Furthermore, I do not feel regret over any actions I have commited. I know in advance what the risks are, and I choose to accept them. After that, it is up to the chance. And yes, I suppose that makes me a sociopath. But to me, that just says that I do not fit what the rest of the people define as "normal", and I'm glad that I do not. I have the intelect quotient in the neighborhood of 160, I am 2-3 years ahead with my university classes, I have deep understanding of several fields of Physics, and I am highly experienced in digital logic and software engenering. I don't think there is any way to force me into "normal", whatever my view on killing might be. At the same time, these deviations from norm do not prevent me from fitting in in the society. I do not go arround breaking law all the time, and I find ways of getting along with people who surround me. Sociopaths tend to be good at lying (which is one thing I'm not particularly good at, even though I do not feel bad about that either) and have no remorse over commited acts. That makes some of them get carried away and turn to path of crime. These are the onese that you hear about. But there are a lot who know that it is more beneficial to blend in, and that is what they do.

Oh f*cking brother. I'm sorry but this completely ridiculous.

[jheath]

The_man makes an excellent point: if murder is "wrong" simply because it is "bad for society", then what keeps us from giving it a stamp of approval in situations when murder could benefit society?

 

For example, it would be a lot simpler to just execute everyone with the AIDS virus than spend all those millions of dollars on ineffectual cures. Kill the carriers, and you could effectively stamp out the disease forever in a matter of days or weeks, depending on how efficient you are. Likewise we could rid humankind of all known genetic disorders through targeted culls of the population. For all those who say that the cure (death) is worse than the disease (being ill, but alive), I could point to all the future generations that would have to deal with remarkably less suffering. Wouldn't this sort of overt eugenics qualify as "good for society"?

 

Of course, the flaw in this sort of thinking is that the social contract isn't predicated on being "good for society", but rather as being "good for me if I abide by the rules of the contract." A society that murders its weaker members is certainly not "good for me" if I happen, by accident of birth or circumstance, to be one of those weaker members. So long as I abide by its rules, I should expect to receive all the benefits of the social contract as much as anyone else through the principle of universality. Any social contract which automatically operates to my detriment would have no value.

[Mortukai]

 

But that's just it. I do not feel bad about harming another person. Furthermore, I do not feel regret over any actions I have commited. I know in advance what the risks are, and I choose to accept them. After that, it is up to the chance. And yes, I suppose that makes me a sociopath. But to me, that just says that I do not fit what the rest of the people define as "normal", and I'm glad that I do not. I have the intelect quotient in the neighborhood of 160, I am 2-3 years ahead with my university classes, I have deep understanding of several fields of Physics, and I am highly experienced in digital logic and software engenering. I don't think there is any way to force me into "normal", whatever my view on killing might be. At the same time, these deviations from norm do not prevent me from fitting in in the society. I do not go arround breaking law all the time, and I find ways of getting along with people who surround me. Sociopaths tend to be good at lying (which is one thing I'm not particularly good at, even though I do not feel bad about that either) and have no remorse over commited acts. That makes some of them get carried away and turn to path of crime. These are the onese that you hear about. But there are a lot who know that it is more beneficial to blend in, and that is what they do.

So basically you're saying that you don't feel bad about anything you do, because you are a sociopath, but that's good because who'd want to be normal anyway? Lol! Well, why don't you wear a snorkel to uni, and a pink tutu, and some snowboarding boots, and paint your arms green? Why don't you just randomly run around in circles screaming "Banana banana cow titties shoe cake!" over and over? Why don't you cover yourself in chocolate syrup and ask random old ladies in the street to lick you clean? Why don't you cut off some of your more useless fingers and toes?

 

I mean, f*ck, who wants to be normal anyway?

 

I think that's what lazzo was referring to when he said that you were ridiculous. Your logic is nowhere near as self-consistent as jheath seems to believe (he seems to have an abundance of faith in others, which I most certainly lack), because you have defined arbitrary limits on when it is "good" to not be normal, and when it is "bad" to not be normal. Most people implicitly understand these limits, due to their innate emotional responses, but seeing as how you have consistently denied these, you can't fall back on them to justify your arbitrary distinctions. So I'd love to see you logically support why you think it's ok to be a sociopath (which may harm another person, even destroying them utterly), but not ok to wear nothing but a piece of steak covering your privates and a turkey for a hat while running around trying to hug everyone while screaming "LOVE MEEEEEEEE!" (which will only weird them our and give them a funny story to tell their friends).

 

Anyway, just to see how consistent your "If the benefits for me outweigh the risks to me then I'll do it" "morality" is, I'd like to hear your arguments supporting your position on rape, killing children, and raping children. The rest of us have the luxury of falling back on evolved innate responses telling us that these are wrong, and the reasons are quite easily understood in terms of violation of rights and the social contract. However, you can't argue form any basis of rights or social contract, so I'm curious as to how you'd argue these things are wrong, or if you must concede that according to your position they are ok if you minimalise the risks to yourself.

 

 

Of course, the flaw in this sort of thinking is that the social contract isn't predicated on being "good for society", but rather as being "good for me if I abide by the rules of the contract." A society that murders its weaker members is certainly not "good for me" if I happen, by accident of birth or circumstance, to be one of those weaker members. So long as I abide by its rules, I should expect to receive all the benefits of the social contract as much as anyone else through the principle of universality. Any social contract which automatically operates to my detriment would have no value.

Very well stated!

[K^2]

@Mortukai: There is a big difference between not being normal and going arround acting like you are totally insane. I have absolutly nothing against wearing a pink tutu, but some people find it crazy, for some odd reason, and therefore wearing one would prevent me from being taken seriously by anyone who sees me. That's not good for me. The trick here is not being like everyone else, while still being able to blend in, so that no one takes a nottice of that fact.

 

 

Anyway, just to see how consistent your "If the benefits for me outweigh the risks to me then I'll do it" "morality" is, I'd like to hear your arguments supporting your position on rape, killing children, and raping children. The rest of us have the luxury of falling back on evolved innate responses telling us that these are wrong, and the reasons are quite easily understood in terms of violation of rights and the social contract. However, you can't argue form any basis of rights or social contract, so I'm curious as to how you'd argue these things are wrong, or if you must concede that according to your position they are ok if you minimalise the risks to yourself.

It is all the same reason. Even if I myself do not belong to a certain group, allowing that group to be misstreated can lead to destabilization of the society. I hope, it is sufficiently clear why, so that I don't have to waste my time explaining it.

[reticulatingsplines]

jheath: In response to your earlier statement, I suppose when we talk about murder, we are using the classical interpretation:

 

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

 

 

The important word there is unlawful, that is killing another human in a manner that cannot be seen as accidental (that would be manslaughter, depending on the circumstances) or in self-defence (this applies even to a police officer, who may be seen as defending the lives of other citizens). Obviously, a soldier on the field of battle has a different set of rules again: he is ordered by the state to kill those of an opposing nation or an invader.

 

The idea and concept of murder is thus, I believe, to be firmly rooted in the ideals of law and order, and defending the human right to live is an essential precept of the law. It is an essential precept because we understand it to be morally wrong to kill another human without justifiable cause.

[Mortukai]

 

It is all the same reason. Even if I myself do not belong to a certain group, allowing that group to be misstreated can lead to destabilization of the society. I hope, it is sufficiently clear why, so that I don't have to waste my time explaining it.

Oh no, you can't use that reason, because I've already used that reason and you've argued against it:

 

 

4. Killing is wrong because it destabilises social order, and without social order everyone would suffer. (stage 4 defined by justice and social functioning)

 

The distabilization I would cause alone is minimal. I will account for it when considering benefits vs costs of choosing to kill someone. However, once more, it tells me, in the worst case, that it is disadvantageous for me to kill someone without getting enough out of it, and that just goes back to point 2.

So according to your own words, the destabilization you would cause would be accounted for in your consideration of the costs and benefits. Thus we must conclude that for you, just as with murder: rape and the killing of and sexual molestation of children are all ok if the benefits of doing so outweight the costs, where the costs also include any destabilization that may be incurred by society. Anything you do is ok so long as you can get away with it and it benefits you to do so. Murder, rape, and child abuse must all be included in your system of ethics, and if your system of ethics is to have any value at all, it must be universal. How could anyone ever accept a system of ethics which allows raping children to be perfectly ok if you can avoid the penalties? Also I think you should argue for your system of ethics in a public place where "normal" people can overhear, and see how many are persuaded by your logic.

 

 

There is a big difference between not being normal and going arround acting like you are totally insane. I have absolutly nothing against wearing a pink tutu, but some people find it crazy, for some odd reason, and therefore wearing one would prevent me from being taken seriously by anyone who sees me. That's not good for me. The trick here is not being like everyone else, while still being able to blend in, so that no one takes a nottice of that fact.

So... you draw the line at appearances then? It's ok to be abnormal, so long as no-one notices?

 

Now where would be the point in that? What difference is there between being normal and having everyone think you are normal, or being abnormal and having everyone think you are normal.

 

And I'm left to ask, as you have in the past.... why would you care what others think of you? Why would you care if people take you seriously? Aren't you proud of being different? Remember this?

 

 

3. Killing is wrong because it hurts the feelings of others and is very detrimental to social relationships. (stage 3 defined by cultivating and maintaining positive interpersonal feelings)

And I should care why?

So you clearly don't care if you hurt other's feelings, or if you damage your relationships with them, so why on earth would you care what a stranger thinks of you, when you are spending this entire debate trying to argue why it doesn't matter if you kill teh very people who you are now saying you care if they take you seriously?

 

I must say K^2, you are an extremely internally inconsistant person.

[K^2]

Mortukai, are you seriously not seeing most obvious things, or are you just trying to pick on things for sake of proving me wrong? Ok. I'll clarify.

 

 

So according to your own words, the destabilization you would cause would be accounted for in your consideration of the costs and benefits.

Yes, of course. The destabilization reason is mostly there for purposes of rationalizing the laws. It is the laws that hold me back more than any impact I would have on society.

 

Anything you do is ok so long as you can get away with it and it benefits you to do so.

Precisely so.

 

How could anyone ever accept a system of ethics which allows raping children to be perfectly ok if you can avoid the penalties?

By making sure you can't avoid the penalties. I, personally, see no benefit in raping someone. People who do, will not care about whatever rules of ethics you might set up, so the only way to prevent it is by making sure that such people are caught.

 

Also I think you should argue for your system of ethics in a public place where "normal" people can overhear, and see how many are persuaded by your logic.

I have. It goes about half and half. Some people accept it, some do not. Most of the people who have a problem with it do so because of their religious beliefs.

 

And I'm left to ask, as you have in the past.... why would you care what others think of you? Why would you care if people take you seriously? Aren't you proud of being different?

I don't care what most people think of me, but there might be a few with whom I will need to communicate for my own profit. The oppinion that these people have formed of me might affect the outcome. So the appearances are important.

 

So you clearly don't care if you hurt other's feelings, or if you damage your relationships with them, so why on earth would you care what a stranger thinks of you, when you are spending this entire debate trying to argue why it doesn't matter if you kill teh very people who you are now saying you care if they take you seriously?

Because relationships with some people can benefit me. I do not care if I hurt the person's feelings, or if they think of me as an idiot. I do care, however, if I can receive something I need from that person, and their oppinion of me might play a role in the descision.

 

 

I must say K^2, you are an extremely internally inconsistant person.

I have been nothing but consistent. You are the only person who does not nottice it. It is not my fault that you cannot look two steps forward. Have you ever played chess? You must be really bad at that game.

[jheath]

The important word there is unlawful, that is killing another human in a manner that cannot be seen as accidental (that would be manslaughter, depending on the circumstances) or in self-defence (this applies even to a police officer, who may be seen as defending the lives of other citizens). Obviously, a soldier on the field of battle has a different set of rules again: he is ordered by the state to kill those of an opposing nation or an invader.

Thanks for pointing out that murder is different from killing in combat or killing in self-defense. I agree with you. What I'm getting at, though, is that war and self-defense are commonly accepted exceptions to this concept of "right to life"; this "right" isn't really absolute. There are exceptions and caveats, and I am questioning why we draw the lines where we do. After all, if the current exceptions don't hold up to logical scrutiny, what's to stop me from inventing a new exception saying "murder is wrong, except when *I* do it"?

 

Take the example of killing in self-defense. At what point does use of deadly force (or even just potentially deadly force) become justified? How certain do I have to be that my life is in danger before I'm allowed to pull the trigger? What if it's not even my life in danger, but just my well-being (i.e. the potential rape victim)? Am I allowed to act preemptively?

 

Here's a diabolical example for you: let's say I really hate the biker gangs in my neighborhood, and decide that I want to kill them all off. I could go out and provoke them (deface their bikes, insult their leader, whatever), pushing the group into a murderous rage. That accomplished, I flee back to my house, and they follow me; straight into an ambush. John Q. Biker breaks down my door, gun in hand, ready to splatter my brains all over the carpet, and walks right into a hornet's nest of machine gun fire. Technically I was protecting myself, and killed in self-defense. But I think everyone reading this knows what I really did was commit murder.

 

Likewise I could question the limits of the moral exception for killing in combat. Does government sanction automatically make killing OK? After all, what makes my commanding officer's order the touchstone of ethics, magically clothing the act of murder in the aura morality? What about resistance fighters operating without a command hierarchy... are they immoral for not having governmental approval? For example, if I were a guerrilla freedom fighter trying to undermine the rule of a despotic occupier, I hardly think the morality of my actions depend on whether I have orders from the state. Yet if that cause (liberating my countrymen from oppression) is good enough to justify killing, why not other causes, such as "defending the sacred land by killing infidels", or "I need the money"?

 

 

[jheath]

 

Your logic is nowhere near as self-consistent as jheath seems to believe (he seems to have an abundance of faith in others, which I most certainly lack)

 

Heh... my assesment of K^2's logic wasn't based on any particular faith his ideas; rather the opposite. K^2 has staked out the position of Ethical Egoism (bordering on ethical solipsism, actually). Ethical egoism works in a limited sense because acting in one's own self-interest naturally includes taking into account the laws and mores of society; laws which have been developed through our standard model of the social contract.

 

However, in many circumstances following ethical egoism to its extremes results in choices most people instinctively feel should be wrong. A case in point is my hypothetical "knifing a stranger in a dark alleyway"; since ethical egoism dictates that it is ethically good for us to do what is in our best interest, it condones killing others whenever the benefits outweigh the risks or costs. Most people would shy away from such a conclusion; K^2 remained consistent by answering "yes" to my rhetorical question. Reprehensible? Certainly... but nonetheless consistent.

 

I am surprised, though, that K^2 didn't see the same reasoning behind your example of rape-without-consequences as with my example of murder-without-consequences. Let's take a look:

 

 

How could anyone ever accept a system of ethics which allows raping children to be perfectly ok if you can avoid the penalties?

By making sure you can't avoid the penalties. I, personally, see no benefit in raping someone.

 

No benefit? Sex with anyone you want with no strings attached... how is that not a benefit? Provided one has no sense of shame, empathy, or regret, there are many obvious advantages to rape. Remember that incredibly hot girl in highschool who wouldn't date you? With a tranquilizer dart and some condoms, you could enjoy all the benefits of sex with her, without all the work and risk of rejection, and all with relatively little consequence to yourself. (Although I suppose I really shouldn't be giving out ideas like that.) If you're able to avoid the penalties, why would you see no benefit to rape?

 

[K^2]

You might think I'm crazy, but I would prefer the girl concsious and willing. So it really is of no interest to me to rape someone.

 

But, hypothetically speaking, if rape was an enjoyable activity for me, and I would be able to commit it with no risk, I really don't see what would stop me. The assumption that there would be no risk, however, does not seem to be reasonable. The risk could be quite small for a single act, but if repeated multiple times the risk grows and accumulates. So I don't think I would become a serial rapist even in that case.

 

The main reason, I think, that I do not become a criminal even with no sense of wrong-doing, is that whatever benefit I might get from a criminal act, there is almost allways a way to receive the same benefit without submitting myself to the risk. There are other ways to get money than robery, and there are other ways to get sex than rape. Add to that the fact that the fact that I see hate as the most irrational feeling, and have learned to successfuly avoid it, and I just don't have any good reason to murder, steal, rape, or commit just about any other crime. But I still do not see any of these things as wrong if a good enough reason does present itself in some particular case.

[Mortukai]

 

I have been nothing but consistent. You are the only person who does not nottice it. It is not my fault that you cannot look two steps forward. Have you ever played chess? You must be really bad at that game.

Lol, funny you should mention chess, seeing as how you've just painted yourself into a corner from which you cannot escape without losing. What am I talking about? Simple. This.

 

According to your position, which you have established quite clearly now, anything is ok if the benefits outweigh the risks. In other words, anything is ok if you can get away with it, because by getting away with it you avoid all the risks. Seeing as how you've consistently argued that your system of ethics is completely universal, and applies to all crimes against humanity, we can follow it through to its logical conclusions. According to your system of ethics, hypothetically, I could see a 12 year old girl who I might find particularly fetching for her age, and being the clever mofo I am, I could devise a way to kidnap her without being caught. Once kidnapped, I could rape her as much as I wanted, torture her in as many ways as I care to imagine, mutilate her body, rape her some more, then kill her to ensure that she never lives to tell the tale, then I might decide to f*ck her corpse a bit, you know, while it's still warm, and once I'm done, I could burn her corpse and bury the ashes in some random forest. So long as I took the precautions to not get caught, and thus so long as I've avoided all the risks, then by your system of ethics, I not only have the right to do these things, but I am fully justified in doing them. They are not in any way "wrong", because I reasoned that the benefits to my sadistic pleasure-seeking outweighed the minimised risks I might face.

 

This is the precise same rationalization as you've given countless times to justify murder and rape. If you do not agree that the above hypothetical would be ok in your system of ethics, then your ethics are inconsistent and thus invalid. If you do agree that the above hypothetical is ok, then you are arguing that even the most extreme acts of evil are fully justified so long as you could get away with it. Hitler would have been right and morally justified to commit massive genocide if he had won the war. The crusades were morally justified because the perpetrators have never been held accountable. If you rape and murder a child you are morally right if you avoid the risks. And as jheath has mentioned, if you stab someone in a dark alley to steal their wallet, you are morally justified in doing so because you won't get caught. Whether you sit there and say, as you have, that "well I would never do that because I don't see any benefit from doing it" says nothing about anything, because according to your system of ethics, if you DID see some benefit, then it would be ok.

 

Your whole system of ethics is an elaborate stage 1 of right and wrong being defined by punishment and laws (being that punishment is almost always tied to the laws). For all your espoused intelligence and logic you are reasoning at the very first developmental stage of ethics. Not once have you hinted at being able to reason at any higher stages than this simple "weigh the benefits against the risks and if you can benefit from any act more than you can lose then it is morally justified". The hilarious thing is that you think this is some sort of superior method of reasoning ethically. Stage 1 is the FIRST developmental stage. It's how children under the age of 6 decide what is right and what is wrong. You may be able to justify your stage 1 reasoning more coherently than they can, but duh, you are 20. And yet you're still stuck in stage 1, where many more intellectually "inferior" people are reasoning at stage 4 by your age, and many of the more intelligent of us are reasoning at stage 5 or 6 at the same age.

 

K^2, your system of ethics, whether internally consistent or not, is inferior and maladaptive. It says nothing of what is right and what is wrong, because all acts can be both depending on whether you can get away with it or not. It promotes and justifies any behaviour, no matter how heinous or reprehensible, so long as the individual feels that they can minimise the risks to enjoy the benefits. It is a system which endorses irresponsibility and deceit, subversion and greed, and a complete callous lack of remorse, compassion, and empathy. In essence it is a system which is offensive to the sensibilities of any reasonably socially adjusted individual.

 

[K^2]

You can't even admit that your argument against consistency folded. Well, you still have nothing.

 

First of all, I must make a note that just because I avoid the risks, does not mean that the action has no cost to me. It is really airheaded of you, Mortukai, to assume such things. If I have to design a carefull plan to minimize the risks, I waste time and effort. There are many cases where this is just not worth the benefit, so simply stating that there are no risks does not automatically imply that the benefits outweigh the costs. I don't think I wouldd not get more money, for example, buy carefully trapping people in dark alleys, stabing them to death, and taking their wallets, than I would by getting a full time job.

 

With that in mind, yes, the most horrible crimes are ok if you benefit from them. Why should anyone use any other guideline? This guideline gets the most for me, and as long as the society is efficient at punishing the criminals, everyone can follow the same guideline without risk of destabilization.

 

Now, you keep talking about the higher stages of ethic. They are all a load of crap. Why should anyone bother? You haven't given a single reason why anyone should care, ultimately, for anything other than self? Yes. There are a lot of dumb people in this world. They can't see the outcomes of their actions past immediate future. But these people will quickly learn that breaking the law will land them in jail or with a death sentence. They do not need to think of, "what if I can get away with it," because they cannot. For these people, the most rational behavior they can exhibit is to simply follow the law. Everybody else can predict the outcomes of their actions, and they do not need a rule of ethics to tell them what to do. The costs, risks, and benefits are on the table. The rest is up to them.

 

 

K^2, your system of ethics, whether internally consistent or not, is inferior and maladaptive. It says nothing of what is right and what is wrong, because all acts can be both depending on whether you can get away with it or not. It promotes and justifies any behaviour, no matter how heinous or reprehensible, so long as the individual feels that they can minimise the risks to enjoy the benefits. It is a system which endorses irresponsibility and deceit, subversion and greed, and a complete callous lack of remorse, compassion, and empathy.

Responsibility, compassion, and empathy are actually inherent in the rational behavior as a memeber of a society. Anything that hurts my friends, hurts me. That's compassion and empathy. And if I do not follow through with my responcibilities, I will not receive certain benefits from the society. But I have nothing against subversion, greed, and lack of remorse. I don't see why anyone should. Greed is a driving force of economy, subversion is an important element of any strategy, and remorse is just another word for being stuck in the past. You just have to make sure that these things do not hurt yourself.

 

As for your statement about this system being maladaptive, you are just being silly. Any changes in the society or enviorment are reflected in shift of balance of costs and benefits. It is the most universally aplicable system. Any system that says murder is wrong cannot be applied on a battlefield. Any system that says that stealing is wrong cannot be applied if you are dying of hunger, and stealing is the only way to get food. This system can be applied at any time in any place in any society by any person.

Edited December 19, 2005 by K^2

[Mortukai]

Oh, did I forget to mention that my attack on your consistency was purely to ensure that you would remain consistent for my hypothetical of kidnapping, raping, torturing, mutilating, and murdering of a 12 year old girl? I couldn't leave you with any options for dodging that one K^2, so I had to amplify your consistency by attacking it. Sorry, should have mentioned that perhaps. It's a dirty tactic I know, but it works. The old "bait'n'switch".

 

 

First of all, I must make a note that just because I avoid the risks, does not mean that the action has no cost to me. It is really airheaded of you, Mortukai, to assume such things. If I have to design a carefull plan to minimize the risks, I waste time and effort. There are many cases where this is just not worth the benefit, so simply stating that there are no risks does not automatically imply that the benefits outweigh the costs. I don't think I'd get more money, for example, but carefully trapping people in dark alleays, stabing them to death, and taking their wallets, than I would by getting a full time job.

Do you really believe that working full-time and paying taxes is actually a better way to make money than just simply stealing money whenever oppurtunity arises? Not only would the later grant more free time, but it would also grant more money per hour of work, and thus be far more efficient. For someone so hung up on the costs and benefits of X vs Y, you really aren't very good at assessing the true value of the pros and cons, and instead focus solely on the gross income. There's a huge difference between making $100K per year by working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, and making $50K per year by working 3 hours a week.

 

And as for the time spent "carefully planning to minimize the risks", surely someone with such a great intellect as you could accomplish such meager tasks in a negligible amount of time. I sure know that I can, not to mention the many criminals who do so regularly and don't get caught. And let's not forget that the time spent planning such things is cancelled out by the time spent travelling to and from a place of work, and the huge proportion of one's life spent working to make someone else rich.

 

 

With that in mind, yes, the most horrible crimes are ok if you benefit from them. Why should anyone use any other guideline? This guideline gets the most for me, and as long as the society is efficient at punishing the criminals, everyone can follow the same guideline without risk of destabilization.

What criminals? The ones who are acting to their own benefit? The ones who, according to your system, are acting in a morally justified way?

 

And here we see the true weakness of your system. It relies on the existence of laws which it does not support. Your system relies on other people having real ethics. Your system is a parasitic system which relies on the morals of others to create laws which are then used as guidelines for exploitation. It would be impossible to define any set of laws using only your ethics as a basis. Any laws you could create would be entirely circular. Your ethics say "it's right unless you get caught", but "get caught" implies laws must already exist. Without any laws in the first place, how could one get caught? One couldn't, and thus everything must be deemed as right without any repurcussions. No, you rely very heavily on the existing systems of ethics. Your morals are not self-sufficient. They are parasitic. The ethical systems from stage 3 onwards are all self-sufficient and non-circular.

 

 

Now, you keep talking about the higher stages of ethic. They are all a load of crap. Why should anyone bother? You haven't given a single reason why anyone should care, ultimately, for anything other than self? Yes. There are a lot of dumb people in this world. They can't see the outcomes of their actions past immediate future. But these people will quickly learn that breaking the law will land them in jail or with a death sentence. They do not need to think of, "what if I can get away with it," because they cannot. For these people, the most rational behavior they can exhibit is to simply follow the law. Everybody else can predict the outcomes of their actions, and they do not need a rule of ethics to tell them what to do. The costs, risks, and benefits are on the table. The rest is up to them.

Your ignorance and lack of any ability to understand higher ethics is astounding. I've given many reasons for why people should (and importantly, do) care about others. I think jheath has too. Caring about others carries benefits for oneself in terms of survival and reproduction. Caring for others, and having others care for oneself, also carries benefits for ones own personal physical and mental health. The converse is also true of not cariing for others. And before you attempt to claim that this is ultimately still only caring about oneself (it isn't really, any more than loaning money to others is only giving money to oneself, because of this magical thing called "mutual benefit" and reciprocation... the basis of the golden rule: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (the core of jheath's social contract)), there are even times when caring SOLELY about another can be logically beneficial to oneself, or more particularly, one's genes. For example, if one had a wife and child, and they were in immediate danger of dying, your ethics would dictate that you should let them die and not place yourself in harm's way, whereas most normal people.... as in... those capable of being human, would probably do whatever it takes to save them, even if doing so would mean their certain death. Why would they do this? Because you will die eventually anyway, and if you die without children, you are a genetic dead end. But if you save your child and die in the process, then at least your genes will continue to live longer in this world, and will have more chances of replicating. This is the whole basis behind animals loving and caring for and protecting their offspring: because this is the best way for any species to continue to exist. Any species that did not place the survival of its children above the survival of its adults probably died out pretty fast.

 

Now, the truly heroic of us will even place themselves in harms way to save strangers. Why? Well the reason is complex and has lots to do with sexual ornaments and the handicaps they incur being very sexually attractive. But it's plain to see for any human, that a mere fireman risking life and limb saving strangers in burning buildings is far more admirable, heroic, and sexually attractive, than some physicist who would kill those strangers if he could obtain some benefit from doing so.

 

 

As for your statement about this system being maladaptive, you are just being silly. Any changes in the society or enviorment are reflected in shift of balance of costs and benefits. It is the most universally aplicable system. Any system that says murder is wrong cannot be applied on a battlefield. Any system that says that stealing is wrong cannot be applied if you are dying of hunger, and stealing is the only way to get food. This system can be applied at any time in any place in any society by any person.

You're right, it is the most universally parasitic system. Under no circumstances can it ever become a self-sufficient system, capable of producing and justifying its own laws and boundaries, but under all circumstances, it can exploit and abuse the existing laws and boundaries for selfish ends. It can be cited by both president and murderer, missionary and rapist, environmental activist and pedophile, to justify anything you care to name as being morally right. Oh yes, K^2, you are truly espousing a most admirable system of ethics.

Edited December 19, 2005 by Mortukai

[K^2]

Mortukai, I can tell now that you cannot see beyond your next step. You keep droping an argument half way, without taking it to a logical conclusion, which would have been the same as my thesis.

 

 

Oh, did I forget to mention that my attack on your consistency was purely to ensure that you would remain consistent for my hypothetical of kidnapping, raping, torturing, mutilating, and murdering of a 12 year old girl? I couldn't leave you with any options for dodging that one K^2, so I had to amplify your consistency by attacking it. Sorry, should have mentioned that perhaps. It's a dirty tactic I know, but it works. The old "bait'n'switch".

Considering the fact that I've been nothing but consistent from the start, you just wasted a bunch of time and space on the forum while achieving absolutly nothing. Congradulations.

 

 

Do you really believe that working full-time and paying taxes is actually a better way to make money than just simply stealing money whenever oppurtunity arises? Not only would the later grant more free time, but it would also grant more money per hour of work, and thus be far more efficient. For someone so hung up on the costs and benefits of X vs Y, you really aren't very good at assessing the true value of the pros and cons, and instead focus solely on the gross income. There's a huge difference between making $100K per year by working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, and making $50K per year by working 3 hours a week.

In the long run, I can make more money without breaking the laws. There is only so much you can steal without increasing your risk. Yes, a thief with excelent strategies can make more than an average working man, but anyone posessing such strategic skills can make even more money in the open.

 

And if stealing becomes too easy, we, as a society, need to make stricter rules against it and enforce them better. Eventually it is a choice between what costs more money, thefts, or maintaining the police force. Some loss is, of course, unavoidable.

 

What criminals? The ones who are acting to their own benefit? The ones who, according to your system, are acting in a morally justified way?

A criminal is a person who violates the law. The law is created by society to maximize the benefit of individuals of the society. It does not have to be the same thing as maximizing the benefit of a particular individual. If you can't grasp a difference between laws and ethics, you shouldn't be even involved in this debate.

 

And here we see the true weakness of your system. It relies on the existence of laws which it does not support.

Apparently you have a very short memory too. I allready explained this on an example. This system fully supports existance of laws. It also supports existance of law enforcement. It does not support abiding to the laws, but acknowledges the risks of doing so. There is no weakness.

 

Your system relies on other people having real ethics. Your system is a parasitic system which relies on the morals of others to create laws which are then used as guidelines for exploitation.

Laws benefit me. I want there to be laws. Idealy, I want them to apply to everyone but me, but if everyone wants that, a compromise is to have laws that apply the same way to everyone. Such laws are better for me than no laws. Therefore, the laws can be created based on the same principles I have stated before. Therefore, no other principles of ethics are required for anyone else in society. It works with everyone going only after their own benefit.

 

And before you attempt to claim that this is ultimately still only caring about oneself (it isn't really, any more than loaning money to others is only giving money to oneself, because of this magical thing called "mutual benefit" and reciprocation... the basis of the golden rule: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (the core of jheath's social contract)), there are even times when caring SOLELY about another can be logically beneficial to oneself, or more particularly, one's genes. For example, if one had a wife and child, and they were in immediate danger of dying, your ethics would dictate that you should let them die and not place yourself in harm's way, whereas most normal people.... as in... those capable of being human, would probably do whatever it takes to save them, even if doing so would mean their certain death. Why would they do this? Because you will die eventually anyway, and if you die without children, you are a genetic dead end.

You are very right in the fact that I will claim that carying for others is carying for myself in the end. That is how I view it. You are also right that it works like loaning money, and that it does benefit others. But what is bad about that? That is the whole point of having social ties, isn't it? To be able to benefit from them by giving something back. I can argument all of it based on carying for myself alone.

 

You are way off, however, when you suggest that I should care about reproduction more than about my own well being. Yes, I will eventually die, but why should I cut my life short just to ensure that somewhere on this planet remain copies of my DNA chain? My mind exists only within this body. That's the part I care about, and not some complex bio-molecule that partially defines the shape, structure, and function of my body.

 

If I am going to risk my life for somebody else, it is going to be based purely on social ties, and not on blood relation.

 

As for survival of my species, I only care about it for as long as I myself am alive. Once I'm dead, this world can go completely to hell for all I care.

 

Now, the truly heroic of us will even place themselves in harms way to save strangers. Why? Well the reason is complex and has lots to do with sexual ornaments and the handicaps they incur being very sexually attractive. But it's plain to see for any human, that a mere fireman risking life and limb saving strangers in burning buildings is far more admirable, heroic, and sexually attractive, than some physicist who would kill those strangers if he could obtain some benefit from doing so.

You are just pointing out that risking oneself can be beneficial in certain situations, for example, when it can result in fame and/or admiration. This only strengthens my point by pointing out that a fireman risking his life to save a child from a burning building could be driven by the same set of principles that I have suggested. I don't doubt that a lot, if not most of them, are driven by some completely different ideology, but the point is, even if everyone in the world have followed the same phylosophy as I do, there would still be heroes, and there would still be sacrifices. Which completely destroys about a half of your counter-argument.

 

Under no circumstances can it ever become a self-sufficient system, capable of producing and justifying its own laws and boundaries, but under all circumstances, it can exploit and abuse the existing laws and boundaries for selfish ends.

Of course, it exploits the weaknesses of the legal system, but it also creates a need to prevent others from exploiting such weaknesses, ultimately resulting in each individual following such guidelines trying to strengthen the legal enforcement and create fair and well defined laws. This system is fully self-sufficient.

 

Now, lets see. Consistency - check. Self-sufficiency - check. Universality - check. There is nothing left for you to attack. This system works.

[reticulatingsplines]

Easy one:

 

Do you love anything, or anyone?

[Mortukai]

 

Mortukai, I can tell now that you cannot see beyond your next step. You keep droping an argument half way, without taking it to a logical conclusion, which would have been the same as my thesis.

I think in chess a good analogy would be thus: I move my pawn to attack your knight. You see this, and realise that if you take my pawn with your bishop, that I will swiflty take your bishop with my rook, so instead, you move your knight into a threatened square, such that if I take it, I will expose my queen. However, in doing so, you unwittingly expose your king to my bishop and then you're f*cked.

 

You think the battle is where I make you think it is, but in reality, it is not. You think you're so smart, but in reality, you can't see past what's put right in front of your nose. You think your "clever" little move won the battle, when in reality it lost you the war, which you didn't even know was occuring.

 

If this were a game of chess, an observant onlooker would realise that the entire battle has taken place on your side of the board. My side has been left unharassed, while a full offensive was being waged on your side, with you swiflty attempting to quash any threats as they arose. And yet, my side remains un-attacked. I dominated the board.

 

And while you were dealing with the pawns and knights I was sending at you, you didn't notice my bishop being positioned such that in one obvious counter-attack made by you, you would be left in checkmate. Never seeing the war for the battles.

 

See, K^2, the purpose of any debate is to persuade. To simply butt heads is futile, unless there is a win condition. In a debate, the win condition is always the support of the audience. In some cases the opponent may be considered an audience, but in reality, people like you and me do not concede points, and thus it would be futility incarnate for us to debate alone. Here, the audience is everyone who reads and posts to this topic.

 

So while you thought the battle was about whose position was consistent and whose was logical and whose was whatever... the reality was that the war was about whose position can be agreed upon by anyone who reads this topic. The reality is that everyone but you is capable of basic human compassion and empathy. No-one who reads this debate would allow themselves to side with you after reading that you consider kidnap, rape, pedophilia, torture, mutilation, necrophilia, and murder to be morally justified. Least of all on the sole basis that you can get away with it. I have used your own self-delusion of intelligence to demonstrate that your position is not only wrong, but stands against everything that humanity holds dear, by forcing you to say with your own words that the most abhorent acts are perfectly acceptable and indeed preferable where they can convey some benefit which is greater than their costs. Your only defense thus far on this matter has been to magnify the apparent costs and downplay the benefits, but anyone with half a brain can see through that sh*t and see it for what it is: a pathetic and puny attempt at distancing your position away from crime and associating it closer with acting in a responsible and socially adjusted way. Yet for the record, our definitions of "responsible and socially adjusted" would be impossible to arrive at were we to take your system of ethics as the standard. By your system, "responsible" would mean "acting in your own interests at all times and doing one's best to never get caught doing anything that others don't want you to do", and "socially adjusted" would mean "portraying an appearance of normality and courtesy while hiding one's true motives of exploitation and hypocrisy".

 

I know this is going to be almost impossible for you to grasp, but as I've said before, this isn't about logic. This is about being human. And you've shown yourself to be a most reprehensible human. No matter how logical his arguments may be, no-one will follow a psychopath, except other psychopaths.

 

Yes, this has all been an elaborate game. And you have already lost. No amount of logic or defense of your position will save you now. You've dug your own hole with logic, and now all you're left with is a shovel to dig your way out with. But you can't dig up. You can sit there and say "but my system works!!!!", but no-one's going to eat the healthiest sandwich in the world if it tastes like dogsh*t. The fact is, even if your system does work (which of course it does to a degree, though not as well as stage 2 reasoning, or any reasoning higher than that), it is made redundant by many other systems which work equally well, but which don't taste like monkey ass.

 

So while I could quite easily continue to deconstruct your arguments, I don't need to. I could demonstrate how basing laws on hypocrisy would never actually work. I could demonstrate how your claim that the desire for fame and admiration is sufficient for the creation of heroes within your system is false, and is also dependant upon foundations which you have already rejected. I could demonstrate how your assumption that you can make more money legally than illegally is patently false and contradicts the majority of evidence available. I could demonstrate how laws and ethics are not so far removed as you might think. I could do all this and more, and yet, why bother? You're a superstitious witch who believes that no-one else matters because they don't really exist and you support every morally repugnant crime known to man. I can't take you seriously, and I'd be surprised if anyone else really could either. I wouldn't ask a blind man for directions, and I would certainly never ask you for moral guidance.

[K^2]

Mortukai, you have made a big misstake in assumptions of what my goal of the debate was. Most people are ignorant and unwilling to accept logic. These people may read these posts and think that everything I proposed will lead to immoral actions. And you've been busting your ass trying to make sure that these people remain convinced of that. They will either way. You think you cornered me by making me admit that things considered immoral by many are not considered immoral by my logic, but that was my thesis. You made me admit my thesis. That was your victory? That's really pathetic.

 

There are, however, a few people, capable of setting their own feelings asside, and looking at an argument with no bias. It is these few people whom my arguments are targeted at. It is to these few that I want to demonstrate that cold logic with purepy egoistical goals is sufficient to build a society. Originally, that was to demonstrate that the society does not need a religion to keep it from self-destruction. It is clear from my argument that it does not. You have not shaken my argument in any way. If anything, you came up with your own examples of why the society can function exactly as it does now this way.

 

So the conclusion of the debate is that you have made yourself look like a moral man in the eyes of the religious and ignorant, while failing to do a single thing from preventing an unbiased observer from accepting my thesis. If there is even one such unbiased person who reads this, I won.

Edited December 20, 2005 by K^2

[jheath]

The following is pretty much a cheap shot, being dredged up from an unrelated topic laid to rest several months ago, but I couldn't resist:

 

 

You're welcome to your position if you like, but the attitude as I saw it doesn't help convince others of your logic. If that's fine by you, it's fine by me.

...I don't sugar-coat my logic because that would be dishonest, and to be truthful, I want people to think. If my logic was wrapped in gumdrops and chocolate, then idiots would agree with me as much as intelligent people. If it is hard to swallow, then only the intelligent people can agree with me because they are capable of putting aside their biases long enough to see reason, and smart enough to integrate it because truth is better than ignorance, no matter how blissful.

D'accord. I personally approach debating with the desire to convince people, regardless of my assessment of their intelligence, but hey... whatever works for you.

 

Now, of course, we have Mort saying "the purpose of any debate is to persuade." By that metric, have I just proven myself to be the strongest debater here, having convinced even the intransigent Mortukai?

 

Hmm... no. Couldn't be. That was easier than fighting a kitten.

 

(I realize I'm twisting quotes here which had been about style versus substance, but like I said... I couldn't resist. Having a long memory and quoting out of context is fun.)

 

 

 

In a debate, the win condition is always the support of the audience.

...

So while you thought the battle was about whose position was consistent and whose was logical and whose was whatever... the reality was that the war was about whose position can be agreed upon by anyone who reads this topic.

 

I suppose by this standard, William J. Bryan was the victor of the Scopes Monkey Trial, and George W. Bush won the 2004 Presidential debates. (For the die-hard Bushies out there, that was heavy sarcasm. Bush was a miserable failure during the debates, he is a miserable failure now, and he will remain a miserable failure until the last syllable of recorded time. Thanks in advance for eight years of mediocrity.)

 

While being able to convince others is a hallmark of a good debater, deciding win-lose should hardly come down to a popularity contest, particularly when it is so easy to poison the well against those defending unpopular positions. (Remember, your own position touting the superiority of men also failed to garner universal acclaim.) Besides, there's no need to resort to such a low standard for victory when in fact there is a gaping hole in K^2's logic just waiting to be exposed.

 

Ethical egoism depends on pre-established laws and police power in order to function socially. As K^2 has asserted many times, in a society with an operating social contract, the fear of punishment effectively channels the energies of an ethical egoist into socially acceptable avenues (i.e. working instead of stealing, cultivating relationships instead of raping.) The problem is that ethical egoism is poorly universalizable.

 

Let us imagine we have a society composed entirely of ethical egoists, modelled on the likes of K^2. This means there are no true altruists in this society, and no dedicated idealists (no men willing to sacrifice their own life in pursuit of an ideal, no matter much much others would benefit.) I'll concede to K^2 that there could be heroes, of course, (actually, dare-devils is a more appropriate description), but no-one in our hypothetical world would ever think of dying to defend another person, let alone a cause. This might lead to problems with creating a proper police force for such a state, especially since the population has no built-in compassion for others holding it back from brutality, but let's make the big assumption that the police are sufficiently trained and armed to never be in actual danger in the course of their work.

 

Now, this state of affairs works, to a point. By (mostly) following the rules of the social contract, everyone (mostly) enjoys its benefits. The occasional mother might get upset about her children being knifed for beer money when the police weren't around, but by and large murder, rape, and other crimes are held in check by a fear of the justice system.

 

Unfortunately, this state of affairs won't last for long. As K^2 himself admits, an ethical egoist would want "[laws] to apply to everyone but me"; having them apply to everyone equally is merely a grudging compromise. Given any amount of power, the ethical egoist will:

 

(a) seek to solidify and increase that power, and

(b) attempt to use that power to remove the constraints upon his behavior.

 

History is littered with examples of power corrupting even the most idealistic of men... how quickly, then, would power undermine the minimal public conscience of an ethical egoist? Democracy would be one of the first victims of an ethical egoist state, and given the nature of its citizens, its death would be accompanied by universal applause. Remember, there would be no-one idealistic enough to willingly risk death by openly defying the State, especially when the rewards for collaboration are so much greater.

 

Irresistably propelled towards dictatorship by the egoism of its leaders, and devoid of idealists willing to stem the tide, the delicate threads of the social contract would be shredded apart, replaced by the brutality of the mighty. In such a society there would be no checks against even the most monsterous of crimes, provided they are committed by the powerful. As succession of leadership passes on to the increasingly capable and ruthless, larger and larger portions of the population could be submerged into slavery. The eventual self-destruction of that benighted society would be the most positive possible scenario; the appalling alternative would be an unlimited and unending dictatorship.

 

When Mortukai and I talk about a social contract, we are talking about an ideal, not an authomatically given condition. It is something that, historically speaking, has required immense energy and sacrifice to even approximate. If it had been left to the ethical egoists, I highly doubt Western civilization would possess any of the ideals the philosophy of ethical egoism seems to take for granted.

 

 

[K^2]

Good argument, jheath. Yes, every individual, in such society, would try to rise to power. Yes, if an individual is allowed to rise to absolute power, things are going to be quite sh*tty for everyone else. However, allowing an individual or a small group to gain an unchecked power would be disadvantageous to the rest of the population, which will make them want to fight the power. Yes, fighting it openly might be dangerous, but everyone will see that it is of more benefit to them to overthrow that power, and will quietly work to reduce its influence. Furthermore, the society will want to set up the government in such a way that this does not happen in the first place. Limited terms in the government, public elections, constitutional rights, etc. All of these things are there to make sure that no single individual or group ends up with more power than someone else.

 

Lets look at the history of the world. Every now and then and individual rose to absolute power in what used to be a democratic state. Sometimes, the state remains under dictatorship for many generations of monarchs, but it eventually leads to civil unrest which eventually results in democratic state once more. And as the populations grows and communication methods improve, the outbursts of absolute dictatorship become shorter and less frequent, and it has very little to do with people's morals. When there is a dictatorship that causes opression of the population, the population is not going to be happy, and people will do something about it.

[Mortukai]

 

Now, of course, we have Mort saying "the purpose of any debate is to persuade." By that metric, have I just proven myself to be the strongest debater here, having convinced even the intransigent Mortukai? whatsthat.gif

 

Hmm... no. Couldn't be. That was easier than fighting a kitten.

 

(I realize I'm twisting quotes here which had been about style versus substance, but like I said... I couldn't resist. Having a long memory and quoting out of context is fun.)

Lol!

 

 

I suppose by this standard, William J. Bryan was the victor of the Scopes Monkey Trial, and George W. Bush won the 2004 Presidential debates. (For the die-hard Bushies out there, that was heavy sarcasm. Bush was a miserable failure during the debates, he is a miserable failure now, and he will remain a miserable failure until the last syllable of recorded time. Thanks in advance for eight years of mediocrity.)

Well, if you want to get technical, they did win their debates. Remember, they won their point. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, they won their point. By the standards of a debate, they won. That we can look back and say that they shouldn't have won is irrelevant.

 

Where two opposing sides meet in debate, and neither is willing to concede, then a third party must be invoked to decide the winner. Without such a third party, the debate is like each opponent butting their heads against a brick wall over and over again in complete futility.

 

 

Good argument, jheath. Yes, every individual, in such society, would try to rise to power. Yes, if an individual is allowed to rise to absolute power, things are going to be quite sh*tty for everyone else. However, allowing an individual or a small group to gain an unchecked power would be disadvantageous to the rest of the population, which will make them want to fight the power. Yes, fighting it openly might be dangerous, but everyone will see that it is of more benefit to them to overthrow that power, and will quietly work to reduce its influence. Furthermore, the society will want to set up the government in such a way that this does not happen in the first place. Limited terms in the government, public elections, constitutional rights, etc. All of these things are there to make sure that no single individual or group ends up with more power than someone else.

 

Lets look at the history of the world. Every now and then and individual rose to absolute power in what used to be a democratic state. Sometimes, the state remains under dictatorship for many generations of monarchs, but it eventually leads to civil unrest which eventually results in democratic state once more. And as the populations grows and communication methods improve, the outbursts of absolute dictatorship become shorter and less frequent, and it has very little to do with people's morals. When there is a dictatorship that causes opression of the population, the population is not going to be happy, and people will do something about it.

Ahh, but you are forgetting that each individual has no interest in themselves being restricted by the laws. Make the laws as harsh as you wish, but they are only there to keep everyone else in line. So regardless of the laws, each individual will still move to avoid them and gain personal advantage. Jheath was absolutely right.

 

Also your knowledge of earth history is rather lacking. "Democratic states" are a relatively recent invention. Monarchies, feudalisms, and dictatorships have enjoyed the vast majority of historical power structures.

[K^2]

 

Ahh, but you are forgetting that each individual has no interest in themselves being restricted by the laws. Make the laws as harsh as you wish, but they are only there to keep everyone else in line. So regardless of the laws, each individual will still move to avoid them and gain personal advantage. Jheath was absolutely right.

Why do you make me repeat myself? Yes, every individual try to avoid following laws, but that's harmfull to everyone else in the society, so everyone else will try to make that individual follow the laws. What is the power of one individual against the power of the entire society?

 

Also your knowledge of earth history is rather lacking. "Democratic states" are a relatively recent invention. Monarchies, feudalisms, and dictatorships have enjoyed the vast majority of historical power structures.

Depends on what you call recent. My proposition requires a fairly populated state, so I was talking about the past 2-3 thousand years, in which there where quite a few examples of democracies becoming monarchies and vice versa. I think, ancient Greece would be a good example here.

 

When the population is very small, it doesn't even matter if it is government democratically or aristocratically. Everyone's wellbeing tends to be so closely related that even if there is a separate class of people with special powers, they are interested in well being of everyone else, at least to some extent.

[Mortukai]

 

Why do you make me repeat myself? Yes, every individual try to avoid following laws, but that's harmfull to everyone else in the society, so everyone else will try to make that individual follow the laws. What is the power of one individual against the power of the entire society?

You're making the false assumption that the entire society is constantly aware of the motives and actions of all individuals. Not only that, but you are falsely assuming that every individual would be motivated to take action against any others who might try to explot the system. In reality, it is quite possible for individuals within a society to act against the wishes of that society, and do so without being caught. It's called crime, and it happens every day.

 

See, we already live in a society where everyone has a vested interest in having the laws apply to everyone (though for completely different reasons than those argued for by you). And yet, we still have crime, on all scales. We still have power structures and corruption. We still have serial killers and rapists. The point is, though, that under your system, crime would be much more rampant. Why? Because most crime doesn't affect more than a small number of people. Why would anyone in your system have any reason to stop a stranger from stealing a neighbour's car? They would have no reason to do so, and in fact would always stand to lose more than they would stand to gain. They gain nothing from seeing a criminal get caught, and they lose nothing if he does not. But if they intervene they risk their own life either immediately or through incuring the criminal's wrath, and if they let him get away with it, then they will benefit by their neighbour -who is competition- now having less than them. This is the core of why your system would never work. If everyone only looks out for number one, then everyone is left to fend for themselves. Only criminal acts which directly affect an individual will incite that individual to prevent them. And at the same time, every individual is trying to avoid the laws. Simultaneously, there are many instances where the promotion of crime and disorder... so long as it doesn't directly affect oneself, can actually lead to a benefit for oneself. And according to your system, such behaviour is morally justified. And yet, illegal. You have created a system whereby what is good and beneficial and morally justified is illegal. Laws are not respected or agreed with, merely invoked against others.

 

Have you ever heard of Vlad the Impaler? He is basically a historical example of precisely where your system would quickly lead. He epitomises what you support. The laws are invoked solely to keep others in line, while he himself is exempt from them. It is irrelevant that he was christian, because his behaviour was far more in-line with your system than with anything christianity supports.