Why is a personal True Reality murder "wrong"?
What makes it "wrong"?
What gives society the so-called legitimate right/business to claim murder is wrong and that it has the right to judge and punish murderers?
The question is : Why is the individual responsible?
To the sane thinker, obviously the answer is that society HAS no basis, justification or business punishing anyone for murder. Why should anyone be responsible? The Truth dictates that no-one is responsible for their actions.
Well you could start by looking up the definition of wrong and then asking yourself how this would apply to murder.
Society determines what is right and wrong based on the prevailing morality
which is based on human instinct
and, more widely, traditions passed down for thousands of years.
I'd like to believe most people have a conscience or a moral compass or whatever you'd like to call it.
Do you mean to suggest it's simply a fear of repercussions that keeps you from murdering every person you want to?
No moral theory is based on instinct, and anyone with natural instinct would know that the legal system is not "good" or "moral".
This is your personal theory, I take it? How can you make such a claim? What senses are involved? Would an alien be expected to be able to observe/understand moral theory based on human instinct? How can such a thing be objective? If My instinct said the opposite of yours, how would you hold Me to your standard
Appeals to tradition are illogical and ridiculous. You just beg the question again in a different form (postponement of the problem).
Most people cannot even recognise the Truth, despite Myself presenting it.
I do as My True Reality dictates, re-percussions or not.
Your answer, as it stands, is not sufficent in the least.
Most moral theories are based on :
2. God "commanments"
3. Some kind of "deal"/"contract" system.
Here is another way to attack moral theories that society currently uses (This is really a test, to see how bright you are):
A. If a serial killer (lets call him Peter) is in court, and tells the judge "he did it", he is not mentally ill/impaired, and is not responsible, can his claim be proven wrong?
What if he were to argue that his brain was made up of atoms, and his brain controlled his memories, thoughts and actions. His brain is controlled by the laws of physics - and determinism. He therefore argues that he cannot control his actions, they are controlled by the laws of nature/physics.
If determinism is True, Peter cannot possibly be any more accountable than someone who is thrown over a balcony and lands on an old lady, killing her. The same laws of nature that made his body fall onto the lady, made Peter kill via the physical control of his brain, which in turn controls Peter. He ultimately had as much choice and the falling man.
It cannot be proven that determism is wrong. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that Peter may well be 100% correct in that he is not able to control his actions and therefore not morally responsible.
How can Peter be morally responsible now?
Well, most people have some sort of conscience which is surely based on instinct.
We're naturally inclined to preserve our own species
Which means we don't do things which have come to be seen as violating the rights of others.
The Golden Rule is "do unto others what you would have done unto you."
Anyone who is in a sane state of mind can surely see the logic behind this.
If what you believe is right conflicts with what people in general (society) believe is right, then you are not completely sane.
It's just the way it works. It's practical democracy, the majority is right and the rest are wrong. No amount of philosophical conjecturing will ever change that.
They really aren't so illogical and ridiculous. Tradition is just the way we've made things work for thousands of years and the way they will continue to work if we keep those traditions. If society doesn't have a moral code based on respect for others, it will negatively impact everyone.
That's a pretty self-important thing to say.
That sounds like existentialism. If mainstream society's reality conflicts with yours, then, as I said, you're wrong for everyone but yourself and the small amount of people who see things according to your moral code. There can't be moral relativity in a society if it is to work efficiently.
I'm not a fan of presumptous people trying to test my intelligence.
Who is Peter claiming did? Himself? In any case, physical and circumstantial evidence is what proves a crime like murder.
If his brain is controlling him, it is also controlling his arguments that it is controlling him.
So Peter's identity is his brain,
which must be held responsible for what it has caused him to do.
Peter cannot be acting as a separate identity blaming his brain for causing him to act, they are the same thing.
Though determinism cannot be proven wrong, it cannot be proven right, which means that theories based on it cannot be acceptable in a court of law.
You've still not proven that determinism and more specifically your limited view of it is true and infallible, because you can't.
What makes something "wrong"?
society HAS no basis, justification or business punishing anyone
The only way to decide if something is wrong is what you think.
Paying a prostitute for sex is wrong because you get arrested for it.
Paying the same woman to have sex with you on videocamera is not wrong because you don't get arrested for filming pornography.
Killing your neighbor is wrong because you will do time for it.
Killing iraqis is not wrong because you get a medal for it.
Having sex with a woman who is 18 years and 1 day old is not wrong because sex is natural.
Having sex with a woman that is 1 day short of 18 is extremely wrong because you will be doing a long time behind bars for it.
Smoking cigarettes is not wrong because you dont go to jail for it.
Smoking marijuana is wrong because you do go to jail for it.
I suggest that society has a right to function as a society...and can institute laws to allow for that to occur.
i think that captures the way most people within the general public feel on the subject. since you formulated it in more or less certain terms we can now argue about it.
society has no history before man. it was created by man. assuming the man knew what he was creating ( and if we read the constitution we should come to the conclusion that it is a good assumption ) he would not have created an entity which would put it's own rights over that of man who created it.
therefore society has no INTRINSIC rights ( unlike man, who does ) but only those rights which man gives it.
the rights of society then can NOT be justified by its need to exist or function. whether such "need" exists is to be determined by man, because the man, who created society, never authorized any rights to self-awareness let alone to self-preservation for society.
i would go even further and state the society CAN HAVE NO RIGHT TO SELF AWARENESS because that would constitute a conflict of interest with its primary goal of providing for man.
although I am perfectly willing to acknowledge there are boorish, selfish, self-absorbed types who would not.
My guess is that type would be in the minority...which is why societies have evolved the way they have.
And who says men have rights?
Where does all this come from? Some god?
not me. look at the constitution and the bill of rights - it's all there. i didn't create our society and neither did you. it is not up to us to decide what the intention was when it is all well documented already.
insults are not argumentation. although i know for the most part that's the only thing "progressives" like you are capable of. don't worry - i will reform you.
you guess correctly. an average person who is dumb as **** comes to all the same conclusions that you have come to.
not at all. it simply follows because man pre-dates society and forms it willingly.
start with a single man on a deserted island. he has every right you can think of except those that have to do with other people ( since there aren't any other people ). thus he certainly has the rights for example to FREEDOM OF THOUGHT as it involves no other person.
in our modern progressive slave society i am not sure if we still have that right. if we do then at least the people have allowed themselves to be intimidated into not exercising it.
So you are saying that because our Constitution says something...it has to be so for all of humanity???
as for you “reforming” me…you have a better chance at raising Titanic.
And you are saying that man has no right to give up rights in the interest of forming a functioning society? Why is that?
we're going to have to leave humanity out of this for now. before we can think in the abstract we should first be able to analyze concrete examples.
good to see you admit to being completely myopic and a waste of time :thx:
well, according to the fathers the rights are inalienable.
the man has the right to give them up but he has no ability to do so. the rights stay with him whether he likes it or not.
consider this story:
Prosecutors think motivational speaker asked killer to stab him to death - NYPOST.com
the guy asked to be killed. yet the person who obliged him is still going to prison. even though the man tried to give up his right to life it still stayed with him.
anyway Frank i have no time now ( and i do think you are just another personality of Jack Flash ).
i will excuse myself.
Frank i have no time now ( and i do think you are just another personality of Jack Flash ).
i will excuse myself.