@Seer Travis Truman,
Seer Travis Truman;69357 wrote:
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.
We have the capacity to generate a priori knowledge in the form of abstract meaning and a posteriori knowledge from empirical experiences.
These two forms of knowledge are categorized in our memory as to likes and dislikes which identify what we naturally value. What we value from a priori knowledge is our sense of morals and from our a posteriori knowledge we derive our social ethics.
In time we culminate these experiences of moral and ethical instances into holistic moral and ethical principals. These principals are used to guide us toward our pursuit of happiness. Without meaning we have no values, without values we have no purpose, without purpose we cannot achieve any form of happiness.
What is moral is "right or wrong" and ethics define what is "good and bad."
While awareness "that" right and wrong exists is natural, we individually decide "what" is right and wrong for ourselves.
While awareness "that' good and bad exists is natural, we individually and collectively as a society, decide "what" is good and bad ourselves and us.
For some, the sanctity of life is absolute the abortion is wrong.
For others, the sanctity of life is conditional and abortion may be right.
If it is decided that abortion may be right, it could be decided that aborting a 5 month fetus is unethical and may qualify as murder.
So, your question, "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," is a moral question itself assessing the ethics of punishing people.
The answer is, we are naturally aware that "right" and "wrong" exists but "what" is right and wrong is a matter of social agreement and nothing more.
If we chose not to punish a murderer then logically, we could not punish a rapist, thief or any other criminal for that matter. This would contradict our natural inclinations to preserve life and species. There would be no deterrent. There would be no social predictability and we could not function as a group.
So, given "that" morality exists as form, we must choose "what" is moral and immoral. It doesn't really matter what this content is, but the form of morality cannot exist in a vacuum.