euthyphros dilemma

[ijustprotectedmyidentity]

murder is good

killing innocent people is good

refute me

 

[Cognisant]

*kills ijpmi*

I don't believe murder is inherently wrong, in fact it's my firm opinion that nothing is inherently right or wrong, because the universe is without inherent meaning, but you can't break the contrived rules of society and still expect to be protected by them.

 

[ijustprotectedmyidentity]

cognisant thank you thats wat i was getting to, were in the same ground --- now back to euthypros dilemna

"god hath made the 10 commandments, he said killing is wrong" wat now cognisant

will you hold your previous notion of "nothing is inherently right or wrong, because the universe is without inherent meaning" a very nihilistic point of view might i add.

I say killing is wrong cognisant! because god has said so and gods word is supreme!

refute me!

 

[Lostwitheal]

"god hath made the 10 commandments, he said killing is wrong"*

*Allegedly

 

[Claverhouse]

...now back to euthypros dilemna

Killing people for no good reason is just rude. Manners always trump morals.



To a more weighty matter, the spelling of dilemma that the writer affects was present in the thread title, and never having been seen before on land or sea by me, was altered to normality --- since however things are written in posts, titles here must conform to acceptable standards: a/ because we have visitors from many nations, who are kind enough to use English and shouldn't be spooked by illiteracy, and b/ that things don't look as if stoned chimps were taught txtspeak.

However, I was puzzled enough to look up 'dilemna' and it appears to be an occasional variant --- never appearing in any dictionary or agreed to by language police --- that occurred as taught by some teachers in the mid to late 20th century, mainly in mid-America, and the best guess seems to be that as catholic schools were particularly prone to this error, there was once a typo in some tedious catholic schooltext which then spread; and that all who claim to have been taught this also believe with all their hearts that this is the way it should be spelt. Much as if one picked up the spelling of 'France' as 'Froncce' as a five-yr-old and then spent eternity insisting the French should alter their spelling...


Here's a nine page thread about the oddity at the free dictionary forum.




Claverhouse



i/ Grammarphobia blog says: Mostly, though, I find cries in the wilderness from people (both American and British) whose teachers apparently insisted on the spelling "dilemna" so vigorously that it became engraved on their brains!

Who were these teachers and where did they get this harebrained idea?

Did they (on both sides of the Atlantic) descend from a single Proto-Teacher born on another planet?


One might also point out that very few teachers devote even a coupla minutes to explaining each and every word in a language, since there's not world enough or time. I'm sceptical that all these people were actually taught this misspelling; just rationalising their illusion...


ii/ Oneofus forums has: Actually, according to the different sources I've checked, it has never been "Dilemna." Even a quick search in the Merriam Webster online dictionary gives us this:

Etymology: Late Latin, from Late Greek dilEmmat-, dilEmma, probably back-formation from Greek dilEmmatos involving two assumptions, from di- + lEmmat-, lEmma assumption

I still have no idea why I was taught to spell it with an 'n'.

 

[Cognisant]

will you hold your previous notion of "nothing is inherently right or wrong, because the universe is without inherent meaning" a very nihilistic point of view might i add.

Dude, I AM A NIHILIST.
Although the term has been abused over the years, so to clarify, I am a nihilist by the definition that I believe the universe and indeed existence itself is without any form of inherent meaning.

"god hath made the 10 commandments, he said killing is wrong" wat now cognisant

I don my armour of reason, I heft my shield of rationality, and I draw my sword of deconstruction from the fraying scabbard of self restraint, before roaring for all of earth and heavens to hear "Stay dead you omnipotent zombie bastard, or I shall teach you why suffering is an affirmation of life".

I say killing is wrong cognisant! because god has said so and gods word is supreme!

I refute thee, and may god try to strike me down if I'm wrong.
...
Anytime now.
...
Still waiting.
...
Getting bored.

 

[Anthile]

Well, murder is a very potent way to discard any kind of unwanted person. If there was no ban of murder, everyone had to fear for their lives. This is because the overwhelming majority of people value their lives. Nobody could trust anyone else, because even the weakest person could poison your food or stab you in your sleep. As I stated before, a society of fear is extremely counter-productive and this is why we have laws that prohibit murder now. Not that it was really necessary because it's not that humans would savage each other once the law vanishes. Humans are social beings after all. In a way, this law exists solely for those who would kill anyway.

 

[Claverhouse]

Not that it was really necessary because it's not that humans would savage each other once the law vanishes. Humans are social beings after all. In a way, this law exists solely for those who would kill anyway.

This seems to fall under the 'Naturally Good Fallacy'. You could just as well argue that if laws against stealing property were abolished then banks need not lock their money away; or that if laws against disorderly conduct were abolished then people wouldn't throw up in the lavatories of bars.

Outside Somalia, the nearest region to not make the sacredness of human life a fetish is the Congo, where about five and a half million people have been killed in the last ten years. Since this is not a specific pathology to sub-saharan Africans ( as are some other behaviours, such as mass rape as war, sodomizing pygmies to acquire magical protection, and harvesting albinos for magical albino parts ) it seems reasonable to conclude that without legal restraint more and more people would avail themselves of killing for both profit and fun.

It's not as if they have to kill each other --- each case can't be self-defence --- any more than gangsters in Mexican border towns have to smuggle drugs and top ( literally ) persons who displease them. They do it because they wish to.


And in slave or serf societies, where a person has had impunity to kill lower classes they did so. Obviously, in the latter case such as 18th century Russia they were constrained by christianity and society's scorn, but I never heard of a noble being hung for flogging a serf to death even in the very rare cases they did. In the Old South and ( before the French and British Abolitions of slavery ) in the Sugar Plantations of the Carribbean it seems a little more common to kill a slave simply because one could, but again law was not applied to the killers --- although the same constraints applied.

However, getting to real immunity, in ancient Rome one was entitled to kill a slave --- and theoretically any lesser family member, which happened --- and almost anyone else who got in one's way. Since legal punishment was possible [ but not automatic ] for killing another citizen etc. citizens weren't killed too much. A lot of slaves were killed though.



On a personal level, I am not lying when I say there are people whom I have loathed enough to kill them if there were no penalty whatsoever. Natural cowardly prudence forbids me to spend 20 years in a small cell, so I forgo these opportunities. The idea of the death penalty is an even greater deterrent to anyone not a halfwit.


Which I guess why so many people on Death Row in the United States appear to be actual halfwits.



Plus they're easier to catch.





Claverhouse

 

[Iuanes]

Well, murder is a very potent way to discard any kind of unwanted person. If there was no ban of murder, everyone had to fear for their lives. This is because the overwhelming majority of people value their lives. Nobody could trust anyone else, because even the weakest person could poison your food or stab you in your sleep. As I stated before, a society of fear is extremely counter-productive and this is why we have laws that prohibit murder now. Not that it was really necessary because it's not that humans would savage each other once the law vanishes. Humans are social beings after all. In a way, this law exists solely for those who would kill anyway.

So the fuck what? You're still taking your good for granted. Good society, being 'productive', fear, the majority. etc.

Any given being may self actualize only as a killer. Would you deny their nature as an ideology or on the field of actuality?

Moralistic philosophy is only a method of the fearful to dissuade the uncouth.

 

[Vrecknidj]

murder is good

killing innocent people is good

refute me

This isn't a formal dilemma or a formal argument. I don't get it.

Dave

 

[snafupants]

murderers are historically not happy people. the act of murder, while not governed/curtailed by any universal law, is usually dissonant to inborn physiology (exception: hannibal). perhaps a facile reservation would be cannibalistic societies, but their beliefs do not seem anchored in reality nor their cultures retained through the steamroller of history. obviously, there is little connection between sustainability through history and morality, merits of a particular culture (e.g., the united states/rome) quite the opposite probably. hehe, this does not say much for human decency: perpetuation of ceasars and hitlers. short story long, as claver says, murder is simply rude.

 

[DesertSmeagle]

Killing being wrong is just a reflection of society.

But there are some things that make it seem wrong.
God
And would you like it if someone killed you? I dont think i would.

But i say we kill all the murderers and rapists in prison. They just use up all of the tax payers money. They get better lunches than most grade schools, ( at least mine), and once they get out they just go and rape or murder someone else.

I see killing as wrong, but from my own perspective, not just because someone told me to think that. I wouldnt kill someone, because i see no purpose in it, and i wouldnt want to be killed so i would think that the other person doesnt wnat to be killed.. i would kill someone if i had a good enough reason. Like if they were trying to kill me. Killing innocent people could end a persons life, and that person that died could have become the next great person. Unless you see life from a fate perspective, and they were meant to die to keep society in order...i dont know

 

[snafupants]

^ the situation in california with pedophiles is an insane waste of money. first they serve their, say, twelve years in prison, at thirty thousand annually a head no less. then, indefinitely, they are sent to the funny farm and drugged up; by the way, this comes with the steep price tag of one hundred fifty thousand annually per ped! no wonder california is insolvent. that said, these people do not deserve to die, who is to say the wills part in the dance between biology and environment? collateral damage: no system is perfect. thanks for playing.

 

[DarkGreen]

if murder's good, then why aren't you dead already? victim's family's would come after you.

 

[DesertSmeagle]

I think if murder was good, wed all just try to kill eachother all the time

 

[SpaceYeti]

"Is a thing pious because it is god beloved, or is it god beloved because it is pious?"

 

[fenofeno]

Instead of refuting you, I'd like to say that innocence doesn't really exist. Innocence is ignorance. The difference between someone who has committed a crime and someone who hasn't is just the choice between doing it and not doing it, because I know everyone has thought of doing such things in their own head. Innocence, blah. We all have desire, and we can all be just as bad as we can be good.
I fully admit if I caught people doing something like hurting a child or animal, I would straight up kill that person, but I would not consider myself any more just for doing that action, in fact, I'd consider us equally bad, just in different ways.
To me it's not about good or bad, it's about the individual.
If you were killing and murdering people that you thought were innocent, who knows what they have actually done, who knows if they have killed or harmed another person or animal or destroyed someone's life. Perhaps they have and even they don't know they have.
People are certainly able to pull the wool over their eyes more often than not and to a shocking degree, so maybe those people deserve to die because they lack the strength to admit their own guilts. I can think of plenty of reasons that millions of people need to die right now. But if that action is good, I cannot say.
Good and bad totally depend on the perspective of the individual, no matter how much people like to think their idea is perfectly in line with another person's, when you get down to the minute details, it is not, and the reasons why they feel the same things are good or bad can even be vastly different because of the way people draw upon their own life experiences to form their value system. Like my grandmother used to say, "What's good for the goose, is not always good for the gander."
And also, God kills people doesn't he? And billions of people still think he's good.

 

[Zensunni]

cognisant thank you thats wat i was getting to, were in the same ground --- now back to euthypros dilemna

"god hath made the 10 commandments, he said killing is wrong" wat now cognisant

will you hold your previous notion of "nothing is inherently right or wrong, because the universe is without inherent meaning" a very nihilistic point of view might i add.

I say killing is wrong cognisant! because god has said so and gods word is supreme!

refute me!

You said murder and then you said killing. Murder is a legal category of killing a human.

To your point of the Old Testament: within the ten commandments, thou shall not kill. But the problem with that is that the Old Testament is filled with examples of Jews killing others. The obvious resolution to this situation is that killing is wrong within a society. The ten commandments are domestic law.

Murder is domestic law, killing is allowed.