Originally posted by Eminence
The Nazis had a "justification" for the Holocaust; the Jews were bad for Germany, so get rid of them.
That's not a justification. It wasn't rational, nor logical. They needed to blame somebody and they needed to do something about the group they blamed. That doesn't make it a justification. Otherwise I can kill your family and justify it with my voodoo big penis religion.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefingtonThat's why it's subjective.
That's not a justification. It wasn't rational, nor logical. They needed to blame somebody and they needed to do something about the group they blamed. That doesn't make it a justification. Otherwise I can kill your family and justify it with my voodoo big penis religion.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefingtonOf course not. At least, it doesn't require a rationalization that everyone else buys into. Extremists cite the word of God; that's their rationalization and justification, and it makes sense to them. I obviously don't buy it for a myriad of reasons, one of which comes from the skepticism towards this "word of God."
And here we are again. I thought for something to be subjective it has to have RATIONAL logic behind it.
I'm not getting where you're coming from, DS. The goals of subjective reasoning do not have to be logical. If I see a cow and I believe that the end is near, this does not mean I have made a rational observation. As for this idea of "justification", you have to realize that the idea of justifying something is simply having a "rational" basis for a conclusion. That's why there's flimsy justifications versus logical ones. Not all justifications are rational because they say they are.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I just thought the idea of a justification is "a rational, logical explanation". I don't buy into this subjectivity because anybody will be able to get away with anything.
This is why the system creates laws, to establish its own set of rules and regulations. What you fail to understand, is that the rules of the system, change from system to system.
I think there's a huge thick not-so-fine line between morality according to laws and customs and what is considered to be "objective morality". The latter is not able to be substantiated, because it would imply unbreakable rules and regulations which are found universally. It sounds great, but who on earth is qualified to give out universal laws which are fair and rational? That's the rationale of every religious body in the world; they know what's best. Suddenly, everyone knows what's best, and then it reverts back to subjectivism.
So bottom line? Subjectivity is real. Moral situations change depending on context, and who is involved. Some things are more black and white than others, but morality itself is not this clear cut.
Ok Janus so when have Murder/Theft/Rape been justified? As in logically excused. I know definitions change from time to time but those 3 have been pretty much the same for thousands of years.
And the rules of the system happen to be rational and logical. They aren't logical because they're part of the system, they just happen to be logical.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefingtonWar everywhere, until not that long ago. Looting, pillaging, etc.
Ok Janus so when have Murder/Theft/Rape been justified? As in logically excused.
And the rules of the system happen to be rational and logical. They aren't logical because they're part of the system, they just happen to be logical.Most of them are part of the system because they're logical.
Ok Janus so when have Murder/Theft/Rape been justified? As in logically excused. I know definitions change from time to time but those 3 have been pretty much the same for thousands of years.
The problem with your stance is that it presupposes things like right to life, sanctity of life, right to property, right to not be dominated, etc. It presupposes elements which themselves must rely upon a framework. Is that framework an objective logical one? Or is it the subjective values of a collective of humans which gives it merit?
Or, to put it this way, I feel that those things are morally wrong.
What's my logic behind it? Well, let's take murder: it deprives someone of life. I'd like to point out first that murder is strictly defined as illegal killing, and thus does not represent all killing. I can still butcher people so long as my society approves. So now I go to make a rational stance against murder. I say simply that it's unlawful, harmful, and it deprives someone of life. Now I have to substantiate why life is intrinsically good.
So is all life good? Yours? Mine? Charles Manson's? What aspects of life make it valuable? How can I measure that which is valuable in a living thinking human being? How does that reflect upon animals, which are also killed lawfully and unlawfully? What about plants and trees? How can I encompass the entire scope of life = good without coming into grey area?
Does that help out a bit, DS?
Originally posted by Janus Marius
What's my logic behind it? Well, let's take murder: it deprives someone of life. I'd like to point out first that murder is strictly defined as illegal killing, and thus does not represent all killing. I can still butcher people so long as my society approves. So now I go to make a rational stance against murder. I say simply that it's unlawful, harmful, and it deprives someone of life. Now I have to substantiate why life is intrinsically good.
So is all life good? Yours? Mine? Charles Manson's? What aspects of life make it valuable? How can I measure that which is valuable in a living thinking human being? How does that reflect upon animals, which are also killed lawfully and unlawfully? What about plants and trees? How can I encompass the entire scope of life = good without coming into grey area?
Exactly. I feel that mass genocide is wrong to the butchered party, and we must intervene in such cases (hopefully in a peaceful manner) for the purpose of maintaining that party's interests and desires. However, that action cannot be branded as 'evil'; it can be branded as 'evil according to our standards of life and morality', or 'evil to the murdered party'. It is not for us to claim that people who commit that are evil and deserving of violent retribution.
Similarly, your concept of excuses and justifications is different. What somebody views as a justification is, to another individual, an excuse. They simply operate on entirely different realms of logic. That being said, though, I do believe in some form of common rationality and logic that is used.
And my logic behind it is that murder or mass genocide is evil, and I will intervene whether or not your society approves and you commit this murder. This is generally America's stance.
What logic? What have you actually proven conclusively? Make a logical argument using the correct format, DS. You acting on social morals because you feel the act is evil isn't in itself an objective stance. It needs a basis, a foundation.
So again, where is the logos for "Act X is evil"? How are you measuring and defining evil?
The taking of an innocent life.
How do you define who's innocent? Using logic, mind you.
Premeditated murder.
So strictly speaking, if it's both illegal and planned, it's evil? How so? What if I have to plan to kill a corrupt military official because he plans to end the world as we know it by death and fire. I have to plan this to do it right, and of course it's against the laws. But it's for a greater good, namely the cost of not doing so could result in the end of humanity. The collective VALUE of humanity outweighs any single life, even if I assign no real objective value to life in general. So thus it stands that my act of planning the illegal death of Official X may not only be wrong in a sense, but also the better of the two options and thus morally correct in a sense.
When breaking down the morality of a decision, Kant used to have "Intention>Act>Consequence". Most ethical arguments can be broken down similarly. Kant, an Idealist who believed in metaphysical, objective values, argued that if the first two were somehow morally questionable, the entire act was damned. It was immoral, regardless of the benefits it might provide. He would argue that you could never kill, period. You could never steal, period. You could never be heretical, period. It's absolutism.
Only an absolutist sees things strictly in black and white, because they've come to the conclusion that there is no grey area, and that if any part of the act is tainted, it's immoral and shouldn't be committed, period.
Now, before I continue, I'd like for you to remind yourself that I'm presenting a counterpoint to your moral absolutism. I am NOT advocating murder, rape, torture, etc. on any moral grounds. Don't go all crazy and start attacking an argument I'm not making, because it looked like you were close to doing that earlier.
I would never put this in the same category as lets say the death penalty. Animals? Unless you're insinuating that animals are somehow equal to humans(a stance I will adamantly disagree upon), then there's no real comparison.
Again, you're barking up the wrong tree.
My thought-provoking questions were to get YOU to flesh out YOUR stance where apparently moral grey doesn't exist. You claim certain kinds of killing are morally wrong, but you are either unable or unwilling to substantiate why this is the case.
It's not a rational conclusion if you don't have the premises, DS.
Murder is defined as premeditated and wrongful killing of another human being.
1. the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought... Source
While you are right that murder, correctly speaking, includes some planning (Which explains legal wiggle room for crimes of passion, etc.), it is defined by law. Local law. Not divine law. If you live in a state which sanctions the murder of Jews, well... Well, you wouldn't be alive and on the internet. But you get the point. It's not murder if society thinks it's kosher. So if you're saying that murder is evil because it's "unlawful" and "planned", you had better categorize it under things like bridge jumping and graffiti, because that's one flimsy rationalization.
There's no "grey area" for murder in terms of humans unless you work for PETA.
As I've demonstrated above, that's simply not true. Until you substantiate a logical argument in favor of your position, you have to acknowledge this as being the case. Again, you cannot simply say "This is what it is" or "this is what I feel" and think that's logical reasoning. Just because you had to use A + B = C doesn't mean the conclusion is VALID.
Out of curiosity, Janus, do you use some sort of formula to measure the morality of an act? (Like Kant's Intention > Act > Consequence)? Because I personally believe such an absolutist formula is silly, and every action must be judged on its own merits.
And to further add the concept of 'lawful'- certain societies have, in the past, considered revenge to be a moral and purifying action necessary to a functioning society. Similarly, it was not considered murder to kill an incompetent slave in times past. Laws are dictated by fallible morals, not Gods.
This may surprise you, but I try my best to follow the Golden Rule. While it's not always apparent here, it's the most basic and reasonable ethical code. The trick of it is, it would be the best code if everyone practiced it. But not everyone does. However, I shouldn't entertain the idea that just because it's imperfect, I cannot adhere to it. It's morally satisfying for me, and that's good enough.