Nope, not that different at all. This doesn't make it inherently worse.Quote by: truthreality
Lots of things are "primitive". Eating is "primitive". Breathing is "primitive". Whether it is good or bad depends on how you define it.Not really. Showing favoritism towards your group and neglecting another group is a primitive mentality.
I'm not at all. I just recognize it as subjective.Which is why I am confused as to why you are over complicating basic morality.
Alright... I would first ask if it is selfish to take something that you inherently need (like food, or a kidney).We can start with violence. Violence for selfish gain is unethical.
For example, if you consider a need to still be selfish, it is unethical for a starving man to rob someone to get bread he needs to eat.
Harm occurs but is not the intent. Your purpose is not to cause harm, it is just an unhappy side effect.What's your point? You are advocating killing someone for material gain. This involves harm.
Serious as a heart attack...
...and twice as deadly.
First it is interesting how you picked two different sources for your definitions, like you were trying to find the ones that best supported you. Also interesting that one source is a legal dictionary and one is not.
I was clear that you needed to intend to kill or seriously do harm which is absent from this definition.
Note that in your definition it says "especially with malice aforethought" obviously meaning it is not necessary.
Lets try the same source as you used for homicide.
The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
murder legal definition of murder. murder synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Notice malice is not even mentioned.
From the same page.
"The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or reck-lessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment."
The storys been told a million times,
but it's different when it's your life
Semantics. You said:
Which is not true. This is the definition of Murder:
Murder: The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
"Unlawful" killing "without justification" is malicious. The original definition you gave is Homicide, not murder.
That is a bit of a cop out. Based on that reasoning no criminal act is unethical as long as it was not their intent to harm. So I could rob someone ethically so long as my basic intent is not to harm, but to simply gain wealth.
When you kill something to eat it for example. The killing is inherently part of your intent. That does not mean it is criminal or anything, but one can't just sweep the killing under the rug because it was your real goal.
The storys been told a million times,
but it's different when it's your life
Seriously. Your position stems solely from selfishness and ego. You made a whole case as to why it is justifiable to kill people who suffer simply because suffering is something that all humans undergo. If it doesn't effect you in a negative way, then it is ok.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would label "breathing" and "eating as bad.
Morality is subjective so you can bend it to suite your agenda.
Stealing is unethical. You can acquire what you need without stealing. Murdering someone for their possesions is a typical criminal activity.
Your changing your analogy. First you were arguing that it is ok to murder someone for material gain. Now your analogy has to do simply with robbery. Stealing is unethical but under dire circumstances I would consider it justifiable. I hope you realize that crime is not the only way to get what you need.
In order to cause death you have to harm of the body. Period.
If you define the ethics of the action as relying on the intent, then yes, it will depend on the specific intent.
It is subjective. It depends on your personal definition which you have thus far left unstated.
Serious as a heart attack...
...and twice as deadly.
Most of law can be describes as semantics.
I agree that it is not murder if it can be justified or excused in law.
The storys been told a million times,
but it's different when it's your life
Please respond to the robbery example.
The storys been told a million times,
but it's different when it's your life
I never made it specifically about me. I would say that if it alleviates more suffering than it causes, then yes, it is okay.
Agreed. Which is why the fact that something is "primitive" and naturally occurring is a stupid criticism. Saying "lions do it to" is absurd.I don't think anyone in their right mind would label "breathing" and "eating as bad.
What agenda do I have?Morality is subjective so you can bend it to suite your agenda.
You seem to be the one wishing to impose your morality to restrict human behavior.
No, you can't always acquire what you need without stealing. Though this is not much of a problem in the US, in some parts of the world people DO starve to death because they can't get the food they need. Must they be "ethical" and choose to die instead of taking from someone else?Stealing is unethical. You can acquire what you need without stealing. Murdering someone for their possesions is a typical criminal activity.
Yes, I am using a different analogy to show that your position may not be consistent. For your position to be consistent it must be consistent in ALL cases, not just one analogy.Your changing your analogy. First you were arguing that it is ok to murder someone for material gain. Now your analogy has to do simply with robbery. Stealing is unethical but under dire circumstances I would consider it justifiable. I hope you realize that crime is not the only way to get what you need.
What then determines if a situation is justifiable? Why is it okay to commit one crime in dire circumstances, but not this other?
Yes, but again, this is not the intent. It is a necessary and unintended consequence.In order to cause death you have to harm of the body. Period.
Serious as a heart attack...
...and twice as deadly.
What specifically about the example? I can't use the analogy to test your ethics if you do not define what your ethics are.
Serious as a heart attack...
...and twice as deadly.
I was not testing my ethics. I am testing yours.
You said "Harm occurs but is not the intent. Your purpose is not to cause harm, it is just an unhappy side effect."
I said "Based on that reasoning no criminal act is unethical as long as it was not their intent to harm. So I could rob someone ethically so long as my basic intent is not to harm, but to simply gain wealth."
The storys been told a million times,
but it's different when it's your life
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks