Who decides what is good and bad?

[Land of Germany]

Scenario:
A man kills a man for one reason: he felt like killing. The only reason the man killed the man is because he just felt like it. Period.


Question: was the man wrong or right for killing the man?

If you answer "he is wrong for killing," why?
If you answer "he is not wrong/right for killing," why?
How did you obtain the authority to deem an act either right or wrong?

(Answer from a 'big-picture' perspective, if that makes sense.)

[Atlennas]

there is no such thing

[Germania Alliance]

It's simply about morals.

It's wrong because he killed the man. His reasons weren't justified.

[Beldonia]

In my opinion, it was a bad thing to do. Most people would agree with me. While I lack the authority to make an objective decision as to whether or not this is good or bad, I am entitled to have an opinion. In cases of right and wrong, that's all you get.

[Hypparchia]

Oh great, we've finally reached the stage where 5,000 years of practical explanations on why killing is wrong are being questioned.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Well basically I said to myself "Hang on... If that happened to me I'd be really pissed off. I'd prefer if there was something stopping, or at least reducing the risk of, me being murdered on a whim". Turns out a bunch of people had this exact same idea. They decided "Okay lads. To make this action less likely to occur, we're together gonna force anybody who does it into a big building for a long time where they'll likely be repeatedly raped by the other people in there. Capiche?"

So to summarise: "wrong" is just a set whose elements are actions that the social collective decides to put in it. Sometimes they'll collectively punish you for performing those actions. Is it scary that the collective can decide to do that to me? Yes. But everybody has that same fear. So we've set up some basic ground rules, or "rights", to protect ourselves from the chance that the rest of the collective will go mad with power.

That's my interpretation of "wrongness".

[Atlennas]

Oh great, we've finally reached the stage where 5,000 years of practical explanations on why killing is wrong are being questioned.

Please, it's bad because the state says it's bad. There used to be no problem with duels.

[Hypparchia]

Oh great, we've finally reached the stage where 5,000 years of practical explanations on why killing is wrong are being questioned.

Please, it's bad because the state says it's bad. There used to be no problem with duels.

Whatever.

[Land of Germany]

It's simply about morals.

It's wrong because he killed the man. His reasons weren't justified.

Again, where did you get those morals?
Who said killing had to be justified?

By the way, I think it is wrong. The proportion of theists (precisely Calvinists, which are hard to find in the theist society) and atheists is astonishing, but I'll voice my knowledge anyways.

The reason I know it is wrong is because when the Earth was formed, and Adam was made alive from dust and His breath, he ate the apple from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. His knowledge and his morals are embedded into everyone's mind, and I do not claim to know how after the some 8,000 years (I also do not claim to know the age of Earth, but it is not some ridiculous number with fifty zeros) humans are still born with the morals.

[Formidon]

I consider the killing wrong personally due to seeing senseless murder as a negative thing entirely.

On another note, this man simply wanted to kill the other just to commit the act. This man did not kill to survive or to benefit himself. If all human beings had his mindset, then eventually the race would die out which would make this a negative action. To decipher something as wrong or right, I like to think of a scenario where -every- individual has the exact same mindset as the one suspected of wrongdoing and assume what would be the result.


I can only seen extinction with a group of people who kill one another simply to kill. So the man's actions are wrong.

[Menassa]

Not only is it really impossible to kill someone with ought a motive this is the purest form of murder and is wrong in most of ways. The answer to this is measure for measure he spilled blood now his blood will be spilled.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Scenario:
A man kills a man for one reason: he felt like killing. The only reason the man killed the man is because he just felt like it. Period.


Question: was the man wrong or right for killing the man?

If you answer "he is wrong for killing," why?
If you answer "he is not wrong/right for killing," why?
How did you obtain the authority to deem an act either right or wrong?

(Answer from a 'big-picture' perspective, if that makes sense.)

Killing just because, to me, is wrong. I think actions require a motive. In this case, there was none. The man just felt like killing someone else because he felt like it and could.

[Lessnt]

Oh great, we've finally reached the stage where 5,000 years of practical explanations on why killing is wrong are being questioned.

When are they not being questioned?

[GreaterPacificNations]

The social contract. Most social mammals have some variation or degree of it. Basically we are evolved to be social creatures as a strategy to better our individual chances of passing on genes. The better we are predisposed to work co-operatively with other members of our social group, the better we do as social groups, the better we do individually. As such we are born with instincts of empathy, altruism, shame and the like. What civilisation has come to call morality is an abstracted extension of this basic trait common to all social mammals.

Ever heard of 'the golden rule'? The basic message pretty much every religion boils down to when you cut away the fat of mysticism and look mainly at their instructions on life. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Yeah- social contract.

[Barringtonia]

There's no hard and fast answer to this, killing is wrong because we say it is, however...

The reason I know it is wrong is because when the Earth was formed, and Adam was made alive from dust and His breath, he ate the apple from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. His knowledge and his morals are embedded into everyone's mind, and I do not claim to know how after the some 8,000 years (I also do not claim to know the age of Earth, but it is not some ridiculous number with fifty zeros) humans are still born with the morals.

There's quite a lot wrong with that.

[Big Jim P]

Right or wrong are entirely subjective. To the man being killed, his loved ones and most of society, it is wrong. To the man doing the killing, it would be right as , even if the killing is on a whim, the killer would take some pleasure from it. In this case, the opinion of the many outweigh the opinion of the one, and rightly so.

[Stuffed Taxidermists]

What about the said mans family. Did anyone think of them?
For god sakes think of the children!

[Menassa]

What about the said mans family. Did anyone think of them?
For god sakes think of the children!

what if this man was poor and lonely huh? what then?!

[Stuffed Taxidermists]

What about the said mans family. Did anyone think of them?
For god sakes think of the children!

what if this man was poor and lonely huh? what then?!

Well then....
I don't know, kill him if you want. He's not doing anything useful.
As long as it doesn't affect the children .

[KludgeMUSH]

A man kills a man for one reason: he felt like killing. The only reason the man killed the man is because he just felt like it. Period.

Well, if you look at it from a very basic level, this is essentially insane. Even animals do not kill members of their own species for absolutely no reason at all. Territory, resources, mates, these are normally understood reasons. No reason at all is basically extreme psychopathy. It is a behavioral aberration even from the standards of animals.

[Olthar]

Who decides what is good and bad?

Culture. Society. The collective opinion of humankind.

Next question.

[Lord Tothe]

Short answer: Philosophy.
Long answer: Find the introductory podcast on ethics at freedomainradio.com for an atheistic, purely rational discussion on the topic.

[The House of Petain]

Jesus.

[Barringtonia]

Dammit, I just got a call from Chulthu, he reminded my of my life contract where Article VIII, para. 4, sub-section 3.2 states: you decide what is good and bad, good luck negotiating that with the rest of society.

[The Parkus Empire]

My conscience is my sole authority in regards to ethics.