Who decides what is good and bad?

[The Parkus Empire]

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.

As is using a computer.

[Nacional-Socialist Russia]

killing is neutral,because it depends of how bad/good the victim is,if you kill hitler,you deserve a blowjob and a free ticket to heaven,but you kill a baby,you deserve a rape and free ticket to hell.

[Siorafrica]

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.)

It's impractical and thus is wrong. And I'm going to get back some relativist rubbish in 5,4,3,2,...

[The Parkus Empire]

killing is neutral,because it depends of how bad/good the victim is,if you kill hitler,you deserve a blowjob and a free ticket to heaven,but you kill a baby,you deserve a rape and free ticket to hell.

What if you kill baby Hitler?

[Jafas United]

Killing is a crime, no ifs or buts. Doesn't matter if you were drunk, insane, angry, depressed or whatever. You do the crime, you do the time.

[Big Jim P]

Killing is a crime, no ifs or buts. Doesn't matter if you were drunk, insane, angry, depressed or whatever. You do the crime, you do the time.

What about self defense? Defense of the innocent?

[Rambhutan]

At the risk of sounding like an objectivist, the reason killing is seen as wrong is not something imposed by the state, it is imposed by people themselves out of rational self interest. If you kill someone their friends and relatives are going to try and get revenge on you and your relatives. You will suffer for the act you committed. Morals are just pragmatic rules that help us get along with each other.

[Jafas United]

Killing is a crime, no ifs or buts. Doesn't matter if you were drunk, insane, angry, depressed or whatever. You do the crime, you do the time.

What about self defense? Defense of the innocent?

Yes, that is an exception, but we're talking in this context. You don't just murder someone for the hell of murdering someone.

[The Parkus Empire]

At the risk of sounding like an objectivist, the reason killing is seen as wrong is not something imposed by the state, it is imposed by people themselves out of rational self interest. If you kill someone their friends and relatives are going to try and get revenge on you and your relatives. You will suffer for the act you committed. Morals are just pragmatic rules that help us get along with each other.

Which is why I prefer to make an arbitrary distinction between morals and ethics.

[Big Jim P]

What about self defense? Defense of the innocent?

Yes, that is an exception, but we're talking in this context. You don't just murder someone for the hell of murdering someone.

You made the blanket statement, complete with conditions. Its a little late for invoking context.

[The Parkus Empire]

What about self defense? Defense of the innocent?

Yes, that is an exception, but we're talking in this context. You don't just murder someone for the hell of murdering someone.

Well you can, but Folsom Prison sucks.

[Metroarachnidanopolis]

Yes, that is an exception, but we're talking in this context. You don't just murder someone for the hell of murdering someone.

Well you can, but Folsom Prison sucks.

*sees Johnny Cash reference, smiles*

[Lackadaisical2]

Whether it was good or bad for me.

[Trivasileia]

Killing someone, if it's for no reason at all(i.e. on a whim), or if it's for some kind of unjustifiable, strictly personal gain(i.e. monetary gain, satisfaction, etc), then, it's murder, and the man doing it is called a murderer.

Killing someone, for a good reason(i.e. he is a murderer, on grounds of self defence), then, it's NOT murder. In fact, in the specific case of the man being a murderer, killing him is justice.

Axiom: "Every life is sacred. Each and every man has the right to live, and the right to live his life as he so chooses. To deny a man of said rights, means that you automatically forfeit your rights as well. What that means is that, since you no longer possess those rights, killing you does not violate the sanctity of life."

[Futurephilosostan]

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.

Oh, that's a quite a bit of stretching imagination you got yourself there.

Explanation is quite simple: everyone, including me and you, has survival instinct, based on which we try to prevent our death. Therefore people invent and use necessary laws, morals, and social contract as tools to ensure their survival.

Simple, isn't it!?

[Cthag-antil]

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.)

Morality is ultimately relative.

However the vast majority of humans generally subscribe to the philosophy that murder is unacceptable.

There are sound logical reasons for this particular social contract which I don't feel the need to explain because they should be self evident.

A social contract is a generally accepted agreement between members of a society usually codified in law.

Another social contract is the respect for private property...in that I wont steal/damage your property if you dont steal/damage mine.

Different societies may have different social contracts...or slight variances of the fundamental ones found in most human societies.

Social contracts are not limited to humans.

[Cthag-antil]

Killing someone, if it's for no reason at all(i.e. on a whim), or if it's for some kind of unjustifiable, strictly personal gain(i.e. monetary gain, satisfaction, etc), then, it's murder, and the man doing it is called a murderer.

Killing someone, for a good reason(i.e. he is a murderer, on grounds of self defence), then, it's NOT murder. In fact, in the specific case of the man being a murderer, killing him is justice.

Axiom: "Every life is sacred. Each and every man has the right to live, and the right to live his life as he so chooses. To deny a man of said rights, means that you automatically forfeit your rights as well. What that means is that, since you no longer possess those rights, killing you does not violate the sanctity of life."

Mere philosophical idealism.

Killing and murder are subjective labels...when the USA bombed Nagaski and Hiroshima (or when the British firebombed Dresden) did they kill or murder innocent civillians?

You also place much empthasis on abstract mutable notions of 'rights' which in the grand scheme of things are utterly meaningless.

You cant make life and death decisions on such empty premises.

You have to consider the actual and practical rammifications.

Executing murderers will have profound effects on the relationship between the state and its populace...the state will in your dark world have the authority of God...able to define you as human and deserving to live or the reverse...able to destroy you should you be found guilty...(whether you actually are or not will not matter in the end)

My philosophy is simple...Do not kill because ultimately unless it is immediately necessary to protect your own life or that of others killing is a hateful/vengeful/selfish act.

People are given choices to make in life...sometimes they make mistakes or choose the wrong paths...all out of ignorance...yes it is my responsibility to ensure that I dont kill anyone...however if society lets people down and allows them to slip into darkness...through poverty, hard drugs and poor education for example...then we should accept that many criminals are a symptom of our dysfunctional society...to punish them with death is somewhat unjust and hypocritical.

When we punish criminals we should reflect on the weaknesses of our society that breeds such criminal or anti social behaviour.

[Trivasileia]

Killing and murder are subjective labels...when the USA bombed Nagaski and Hiroshima did they kill or murder innocent civillians?

of course they murdered innocent civillians. Unless I am mistaken, they weren't exclusively army bases.

You cant make life and death decisions on such empty premises.

They're not empty premises. They are quite clear.

Executing murderers will have profound effects on the relationship between the state and its populace...the state will in your dark world have the authority of God...able to define you as human and deserving to live or the reverse...able to destroy you should you be found guilty...(whether you actually are or not will not matter in the end)

That is no proof of the faults of the punishment. It is only proof of the faults of the process of trial. As for the state having the authority of God, well, so what? It already has, one way or another, when it denies you the freedom to live your life as you choose, for any number of years, as a punishment for your crimes.

People are given choices to make in life...sometimes they make mistakes or choose the wrong paths...all out of ignorance...yes it is my responsibility to ensure that I dont kill anyone...however if society lets people down and allows them to slip into darkness...through poverty, hard drugs and poor education for example...then we should accept that many criminals are a symptom of our dysfunctional society...to punish them with death is somewhat unjust and hypocritical.

No it's neither unjust nor hypocritical at all. When there's a symptom, I'll grant you, you must look for the cause, and cure the cause. But until that point, you still have to deal with the symptoms. You can't justify or even excuse a criminals actions by saying that he is a victim of society, or even of his own genetic material, incappable of holding responsibility for his actions. Personally, I would feel much safer living in an enviroment were my kids had a miniscully small chance of being unjustly found guilty of murder, and then executed, rather than living in an enviroment were my kids had a substantial chance of being murdered by an escaped convict.

[Ashmoria]

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.)

each adult person has their own authority to judge the behavior of others. what they lack (in society) is the authority to enforce that behavior with punishment. except for the punishment of personal shunning and public expression of their opinion.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Everyone does. Generally, people ask each other on a large scale what they find good and bad, and then we make laws punishing people for doing what the majority think is wrong. Welcome to Earth.

[Chinese Regions]

The society decides, he was brought up to believe you can kill anyone just by feeling like it

[Cthag-antil]

Personally, I would feel much safer living in an enviroment were my kids had a miniscully small chance of being unjustly found guilty of murder, and then executed, rather than living in an enviroment were my kids had a substantial chance of being murdered by an escaped convict.

It is very unlikely that you would be murdered by an escaped convict.

Hehehe

[Romania Mare1]

me and myself

[Furious Grandmothers]

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.)

Inherently, good and bad do not exist anywhere in the universe. Right and wrong do not exist. Rights (such as rights to live) do not exist. These are merely subjective, human constructs.

Therefore, it doesn't make sense to say objectively that killing is bad, murder is wrong, genocide is evil, etc. It's meaningless to say so.

Confused already? Ask me if you have any further questions, OP.

[The Sino-Luciferian Empire]

Morals and Ethics do not exist, therefore it was neither inherently right or wrong. End of Story.