Basic E&M question

[Ana the Ist]

How are you defining murder? How do you distinguish it from killing that is not murder? In almost all discussions I've run across, murder is defined as illegal killing.

Same as anyone else...

The point is "illegal according to whom"? We always defer to the laws of the nation where the murder occurs do we not?

Moreover, if we're talking about an invading force...we're talking about an action which legally resembles murder. Let's put it this way...

If some guy came to the U.S. under the direction of his nation and killed a bunch of people...is it not murder?

If we're talking about multiple guys...is it less murdery?

If we dress them up in uniforms is it less murdery?

To you, the person who's countrymen were killed...would the reasons why he killed those people change your views on the murder?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Same as anyone else...

The point is "illegal according to whom"? We always defer to the laws of the nation where the murder occurs do we not?

No we do not. When has a soldier been extradited for killing on the battlefield? "Illegal according to whom" is exactly the right question. There is no governing body that prosecutes for deaths in the normal course of war. War crimes can be prosecuted if and only if the "offending" country submits to the rule of the international courts. If they don't, there's nothing that can be done. Except ... maybe ... start a war.

Moreover, if we're talking about an invading force...we're talking about an action which legally resembles murder. Let's put it this way...

Yeah and capital punishment resembles murder. Resembling isn't is.

If some guy came to the U.S. under the direction of his nation and killed a bunch of people...is it not murder?

Yes. Why? Because the scenario you propose isn't war. It may initiate war. When we declare war on the offending country, all subsequent killings are the normal course of war. The soldier that kills our soldier in the normal course of war has not committed murder.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No we do not. When has a soldier been extradited for killing on the battlefield? "Illegal according to whom" is exactly the right question. There is no governing body that prosecutes for deaths in the normal course of war. War crimes can be prosecuted if and only if the "offending" country submits to the rule of the international courts. If they don't, there's nothing that can be done. Except ... maybe ... start a war.

We don't extradite soldiers because we don't want to...seriously, even if a nation's justice system could absorb tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of murderers or accomplices...who would want to?

As for war crimes...what is a war crime anyway? The idea that you murdered the wrong people? Or that you did it in an especially horrible way?

And consider what isn't a legal defense of a war crime...the notion that your nation ordered the war crime isn't a defense.

War is simply sanctioned murder on a mass scale.

Yeah and capital punishment resembles murder. Resembling isn't is.

One can make that argument.

Yes. Why? Because the scenario you propose isn't war. It may initiate war. When we declare war on the offending country, all subsequent killings are the normal course of war. The soldier that kills our soldier in the normal course of war has not committed murder.

Of course it is...if a man came to the U.S., killed people, and we caught him...do you think he wouldn't stand trial for that murder if his nation had declared war?

 

[Chesterton]

I pointed out that your question is a false dichotomy....do you need me to explain what that means?

You said it was, you didn't point out how. There's no dichotomy to it, it's a yes or no question.

I've explained why we disagree...I just haven't given you my opinion.

You've done neither.

Untrue...and obviously untrue at that. I'd say that most people support a war or two in their lives...which is explicit approval of murder.

Regardless of these blatantly obvious facts, you don't know what people think...if your understanding of morality requires that you do, then you've already failed to understand it.

Killing in war is not murder.

Laws are hardly based upon morality...it's against the law because it's hard to have a functional society with people assaulting each other.

The vast majority of laws are based on morality, but anyway, the desire to have a functional society is itself an expression of morality.

Right...but if we want to know how he feels about a moral situation/choice, we'd have to explain the situation to him. It would be like asking you if you're against old ladies being shoved...but not telling you that they're being shoved out of the way of oncoming traffic. The situation will change how you feel about the action, right?

In any abortion, as in any Holocaust, as in any murder, we know the situation - someone's being killed against their will by someone who has some "reason" to do it. If you really think you can talk the victim into accepting his fate cheerfully or whatever by explaining the reason, then you should be world's greatest salesman, or politician, or something.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You said it was, you didn't point out how. There's no dichotomy to it, it's a yes or no question.

Your question was this...

"Do you think my "opinion" could be right or wrong, or is it just like choosing a milkshake flavor?"


You've given me two options, both of which I disagree with. Not only can your opinion not be factual, but choosing moral opinions isn't like choosing a milkshake flavor. Both options in your false dichotomy are wrong.

Does that explain it?

You've done neither.

I disagree lol.

Killing in war is not murder.

You can make that argument if you like...but unless you've got better points than Tinker, I wouldn't bother.

The vast majority of laws are based on morality,

Property. The majority of law is written regarding property. Legislating morality is exceedingly rare and that's because it usually works poorly.

but anyway, the desire to have a functional society is itself an expression of morality.

I'd say it's an expression of necessity...but I'd love to hear why you think it's an expression of morality.

In any abortion, as in any Holocaust, as in any murder, we know the situation - someone's being killed against their will by someone who has some "reason" to do it.

Abortion isn't illegal...therefore it isn't murder. Your opinion doesn't change that.

If you really think you can talk the victim into accepting his fate cheerfully or whatever by explaining the reason, then you should be world's greatest salesman, or politician, or something.

We've already agreed that certain people under certain circumstances would agree with their death...no matter how immoral you see it. I'd wager that if I did a survey of people on this forum, at least some wouldn't want to be born with severe deformities, mental deficits, or even to an unloving parent.

 

[quatona]

I'm assuming you're just having fun trying to turn a phrase on me, but in the event you honestly didn't understand what I said, I'll clarify. I don't care one whit whether you're curious about my ideas. I meant that, should you agree the claim under discussion was incomplete, I thought you might be curious enough to develop your ideas about how to fill the gap.

As has been clear from my post, currently I have no reason to assume that genetics/environment/experience as the factors determining taste is incomplete.
So neither do I have a good reason to see or fill a gap.

When a question hangs out there with no answer,

The question "Which factors determine taste?" has been given a good answer, imo.

I don't wait for other people to offer an answer.

Yes, that´s exactly what you have been doing here with me. You felt a question wasn´t completely answered, and you keep asking me to find and offer an answer.

My curiosity prompts me to seek an answer. I thought maybe you might be of the same inclination, but I was wrong ... at least insofar as the stated parameters of the discussion go.

Yes, I already told you why I am not inclined to invent additional factors just because you feel they are incomplete.

And again: Your initial request to be "open to the possibility" is being met. I am open to consider additional factors once they are postulated.

 

[quatona]

Okay, fair enough. But as an aside I'll note that your whole thread is you making value judgment.

Namely? (Please respond without putting words in my mouth.)

In talking with someone who feels as you do, we theists always seem to have the "home field advantage".

I kindly suggest we keep it this way: You tell me what your feelings are, and I tell you what mine are. Not vice versa.

You had the right impression the first time. That's why punishment is a feature of criminal justice systems.

Please explain this logic to me. It escapes me completely. While you are at it, please also explain how you got from "morality" to legislation.

You're saying that in the heat of the moment you might blurt out "that's wrong!", but maybe an hour later, or a year later, you might change and think that smashing the guitar was not wrong?

No, I am saying that in the heat of emotional turmoil we sometimes say things we don´t even believe. So no, I wasn´t talking about a change in beliefs or thinking.

That kind of sidesteps the question of whence springs the emotion in the first place.

Except that
- that question hasn´t been asked here so far
- I thus couldn´t sidestep it
- it´s irrelevant for the hypothesis I outlined.

And, why do you think emotions would need to be rationalized?

Personally, I don´t think they need to. You would have to ask those who do it and feel the need to do so.

You think they are not true and accurate?

I don´t even know what it could possibly mean for an emotion to be "untrue" or "inaccurate". They are emotions, not attempts at epistemology.

If you feel sad when grandmother dies is that not right and appropriate?

You are the one who uses "feeling" and "right/appropriate" in one sentence, not me. So I guess you´d also be the one to call certain feelings "wrong/inappropriate" - not me. It´s your categorization, not mine. So it would be upon you to tell me why and how you feel the need to rationalize emotions - not me.

(Thank you for sharing an idea of yours. Maybe if I'll be a bit more direct and you'll be a bit more forthcoming the conversation can be more fruitful. )

Well, again it resulted in you superimposing your basic assumptions upon my statements. So from my perspective, this didn´t go too well, sorry.[/QUOTE]

 

[Chesterton]

Your question was this...

"Do you think my "opinion" could be right or wrong, or is it just like choosing a milkshake flavor?"

You've given me two options, both of which I disagree with. Not only can your opinion not be factual, but choosing moral opinions isn't like choosing a milkshake flavor. Both options in your false dichotomy are wrong.

Does that explain it?

Okay, thank you for the second half answer about milkshakes. But in the first part why did you change "right or wrong" to "factual"? You can't just answer yes or no to what I asked?

I'm reminded of an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond. Raymond's done something to embarrass the wife in front of other people, and she's angry and crying about it. He's telling her "Stop crying. It wasn't that big a deal, I didn't do it on purpose, and they've probably already forgotten it, you shouldn't be reacting like this". She's yelling "But these are my feelings! You can't tell me how to feel!" And he says "Yes. I can. Your feelings are wrong."

I disagree lol.

Yeah this is getting a bit Monty Python Argument Clinic-ish.

You can make that argument if you like...but unless you've got better points than Tinker, I wouldn't bother.

I think he's about right.

Property. The majority of law is written regarding property. Legislating morality is exceedingly rare and that's because it usually works poorly.

And you don't think property is a moral issue? As bad as getting sucker punched is, property is a way more important moral issue.

I'd say it's an expression of necessity...

It's not necessity really. There are animal species that have been around successfully a lot longer than us with no laws about hurting each other.

but I'd love to hear why you think it's an expression of morality.

Because it's wrong to cause pain to another person for no good reason.

Abortion isn't illegal...therefore it isn't murder. Your opinion doesn't change that.

We've already agreed that certain people under certain circumstances would agree with their death...no matter how immoral you see it. I'd wager that if I did a survey of people on this forum, at least some wouldn't want to be born with severe deformities, mental deficits, or even to an unloving parent.

I can agree that suicide happens too, that's not the same as what was originally brought up as an example.

 

[Chesterton]

Namely? (Please respond without putting words in my mouth.)

Start with two thoughts in your OP. First line: "So this is taken from another thread that I don't want to derail." You must think, in some way, not derailing is "better" than derailing.

More importantly, "It seems we (non-Christians) get questions like his a lot here (mostly from theists/Christians), and I always have the feeling they must be based on some unmentioned premises, preassumptions or concepts that I don´t share..."

I think I can conclude one of two things from that. Either you don't share the premises, preassumptions and concepts because you don't understand them, they've never occurred to you, which possibility prompted my initial response about you being a jungle dweller, or you do understand them and you reject them. Since jungles in Germany are few and far between, I reason that you probably do understand them, and have made a value judgment about them, and that's why you don't share them.

I kindly suggest we keep it this way: You tell me what your feelings are, and I tell you what mine are. Not vice versa.

Kindly?? What do you mean??

Post #82

Chesterton: Do you think people should be nice and polite to each other?

quatona: No, I don´t.​

(Honestly, I'd be perfectly willing to play this game on your terms, whenever you get around to telling me what they are.)

Please explain this logic to me. It escapes me completely. While you are at it, please also explain how you got from "morality" to legislation.

When a human does something immoral, humans feel that human should be punished. Sometimes even the person who committed the immorality will acknowledge that they themselves know they should be punished. And morality and legislation are practically the same thing, there's no "going" from one to the other.

No, I am saying that in the heat of emotional turmoil we sometimes say things we don´t even believe. So no, I wasn´t talking about a change in beliefs or thinking.

I think you're wrong about that. In American law, an emotional outburst ("excited utterance") is an exception to hearsay, because it's presumed to be accurate and honest.

Except that
- that question hasn´t been asked here so far
- I thus couldn´t sidestep it
- it´s irrelevant for the hypothesis I outlined.

Emotions exist, and if they exist they exist for some reason, i.e., something caused them. Why they exist would be entirely relevant to your hypothesis.

Personally, I don´t think they need to. You would have to ask those who do it and feel the need to do so.

I generally don't do it either.

I don´t even know what it could possibly mean for an emotion to be "untrue" or "inaccurate". They are emotions, not attempts at epistemology.

I know. See my first post in the thread. I'm well aware that you don't know what anything means.

You are the one who uses "feeling" and "right/appropriate" in one sentence, not me. So I guess you´d also be the one to call certain feelings "wrong/inappropriate" - not me. It´s your categorization, not mine. So it would be upon you to tell me why and how you feel the need to rationalize emotions - not me.

I don't rationalize basic emotions any more than I rationalize basic math.

Well, again it resulted in you superimposing your basic assumptions upon my statements. So from my perspective, this didn´t go too well,

I swear this is like me talking to a female. I'm constantly putting my foot in my mouth and saying the wrong thing.

sorry.

"Sorry"?? What do you mean??

 

[Ana the Ist]

Okay, thank you for the second half answer about milkshakes. But in the first part why did you change "right or wrong" to "factual"? You can't just answer yes or no to what I asked?

I'm reminded of an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond. Raymond's done something to embarrass the wife in front of other people, and she's angry and crying about it. He's telling her "Stop crying. It wasn't that big a deal, I didn't do it on purpose, and they've probably already forgotten it, you shouldn't be reacting like this". She's yelling "But these are my feelings! You can't tell me how to feel!" And he says "Yes. I can. Your feelings are wrong."

Because there's more than one meaning to right and wrong...I used the term factual because of how I thought you meant them.

Yeah this is getting a bit Monty Python Argument Clinic-ish.




I think he's about right.

Really? What exactly is the part that keeps it from being murder? The idea that your nation ordered it? Or the idea that a soldier won't be prosecuted for it? Or....?

And you don't think property is a moral issue? As bad as getting sucker punched is, property is a way more important moral issue.

I think it's a necessary issue for the existence of a society.

It's not necessity really. There are animal species that have been around successfully a lot longer than us with no laws about hurting each other.

How many of those have societies?

Because it's wrong to cause pain to another person for no good reason.

"Good" being the subjective part of that statement we all disagree on...meaning effectively that it's ok to cause pain in people for all kinds of reasons.

I can agree that suicide happens too, that's not the same as what was originally brought up as an example.

You're point being?

 

[Chesterton]

Because there's more than one meaning to right and wrong...I used the term factual because of how I thought you meant them.

I hope you're not at a desktop 'cause if you keep wiggling like this you're gonna fall out of your chair.

Really? What exactly is the part that keeps it from being murder? The idea that your nation ordered it? Or the idea that a soldier won't be prosecuted for it? Or....?

Yes, both of those things. Murder is just a legal term that isn't applied to soldiers waging war. They're killing, not murdering. Not even every domestic homicide is murder; there's negligent homicide, manslaughter, wrongful death, etc.

I think it's a necessary issue for the existence of a society.

And it's necessary that people know who owns what and that they're prevented from just taking what doesn't belong to them. That would be wrong and immoral.

How many of those have societies?

"Society" meaning a group of them living together? I'd think a lot of them do.

"Good" being the subjective part of that statement we all disagree on...meaning effectively that it's ok to cause pain in people for all kinds of reasons.

Maybe that's subjective but nobody except a psycho's going to say anyone can do it "for no good reason".

You're point being?

A suicide can make a choice, a baby in the womb can't. (Although they tell me I came out of the womb with the umbilical cord wrapped around my neck. Maybe I was trying to off myself?)

 

[quatona]

Start with two thoughts in your OP. First line: "So this is taken from another thread that I don't want to derail." You must think, in some way, not derailing is "better" than derailing.

Ah, you meant I have preferences. To my knowledge I never claimed otherwise.

More importantly, "It seems we (non-Christians) get questions like his a lot here (mostly from theists/Christians), and I always have the feeling they must be based on some unmentioned premises, preassumptions or concepts that I don´t share..."

I think I can conclude one of two things from that. Either you don't share the premises, preassumptions and concepts because you don't understand them, they've never occurred to you, which possibility prompted my initial response about you being a jungle dweller, or you do understand them and you reject them. Since jungles in Germany are few and far between, I reason that you probably do understand them, and have made a value judgment about them, and that's why you don't share them.

Ah, you meant I disagree with certain ideas? Yes, sure.
Apparently you were under the impression that I had implicitly claimed that I have no opinions. I never meant to claim that.

Kindly??

What do you mean??

Without demanding anything.

Post #82

Chesterton: Do you think people should be nice and polite to each other?

quatona: No, I don´t.​

(Honestly, I'd be perfectly willing to play this game on your terms, whenever you get around to telling me what they are.)

No idea what your point is here.

When a human does something immoral, humans feel that human should be punished.

Some do, some don´t.

Sometimes even the person who committed the immorality will acknowledge that they themselves know they should be punished.

Some do, some don´t.

And morality and legislation are practically the same thing, there's no "going" from one to the other.

No, they are not the same thing. They have different objectives.

I think you're wrong about that. In American law, an emotional outburst ("excited utterance") is an exception to hearsay, because it's presumed to be accurate and honest.

I don´t base my understanding of human behaviour on American law.

I have more than once called people "idiots" and alike in an emotional outburst, knowing fully that they were pretty intelligent. Just to give the first example that comes to mind.

Emotions exist, and if they exist they exist for some reason, i.e., something caused them. Why they exist would be entirely relevant to your hypothesis.

No, it isn´t. Because my hypothesis wasn´t about how emotions come into being. It was about the relation between emotions and rational thinking.

I generally don't do it either.

When you say that emotions are "just/right/correct/appropriate (or the opposite), yes you do. That´s my hypothesis. I am aware you don´t agree with this premise. I just want to provide the opportunity for you to understand it before you tackle it.

I know. See my first post in the thread. I'm well aware that you don't know what anything means.

Yes, there are certain words and phrases that I need to be explained. Especially when different people use them in different meanings.
Apparently you are unable or unwilling to answer my questions. It´s noted and respected.

I swear this is like me talking to a female.

Would you like to expand on the problems you have with women? Should we create a new thread for that?

I'm constantly putting my foot in my mouth and saying the wrong thing.

You started out by telling me that you wanted to understand my ideas.
When you paraphrase my thought in a way that demonstrate to me that you have not understood them, I was assuming that pointing this out would be in your best and self-declared interest (i.e. making sure you have understood them).
After all, this is the unique opportunity for you to learn it first hand from world´s leading expert on what my ideas are and aren´t.

"Sorry"??

What do you mean??

I mean that I always find it sad when one person feels there is some good progress in the conversation, and the other doesn´t. I.e. when there is a discrepancy in the feelings of the persons interacting.

 

[Chesterton]

Ah, you meant I have preferences. To my knowledge I never claimed otherwise.

Labeling it a preference makes no difference. Everyone prefers right to wrong. Are you part of a peculiar minority, or do you think everyone is the same as you, but just deluded in thinking their preferences can actually be right or wrong?

Ah, you meant I disagree with certain ideas? Yes, sure.
Apparently you were under the impression that I had implicitly claimed that I have no opinions. I never meant to claim that.

If an idea can't be right or wrong, then on what basis would you agree or disagree with an idea? On what basis do you form an opinion?

Without demanding anything.

What's the difference?

Some do, some don´t.

If they don't acknowledge it expressly, I think most acknowledge it in their thoughts. That's why they expressly attempt to make excuses and rationalize what they did.

No, they are not the same thing. They have different objectives.

Mostly they're the same overlapping objectives.

I don´t base my understanding of human behaviour on American law.

Why not? What do you base it on?

I have more than once called people "idiots" and alike in an emotional outburst, knowing fully that they were pretty intelligent. Just to give the first example that comes to mind.

Okay, well "idiot" is pretty general and is not really a moral evaluation. We idiots usually don't choose to be such. But I'd guess that you've never called someone "thief" or "liar" unless you thought they had stolen or lied, whether or not you were emotional at the time.

No, it isn´t. Because my hypothesis wasn´t about how emotions come into being. It was about the relation between emotions and rational thinking.

I'd like to hear more about it.

When you say that emotions are "just/right/correct/appropriate (or the opposite), yes you do. That´s my hypothesis. I am aware you don´t agree with this premise. I just want to provide the opportunity for you to understand it before you tackle it.

I don't understand it. Can you explain?

Yes, there are certain words and phrases that I need to be explained. Especially when different people use them in different meanings.
Apparently you are unable or unwilling to answer my questions. It´s noted and respected.

The short simple answer might be cause and effect. If a cause has the effect of making you feel bad, the cause is bad. If it makes you feel good, the cause is good. Of course planet Earth is and always has been a democracy, and individual instances get decided by the majority. And people on the fringe can feel however they like, but they don't get to have veto power over these assessments.

Would you like to expand on the problems you have with women? Should we create a new thread for that?

Ha ha.
No.

You started out by telling me that you wanted to understand my ideas.
When you paraphrase my thought in a way that demonstrate to me that you have not understood them, I was assuming that pointing this out would be in your best and self-declared interest (i.e. making sure you have understood them).
After all, this is the unique opportunity for you to learn it first hand from world´s leading expert on what my ideas are and aren´t.

Have I not asked you to help me understand your ideas? At least once you demurred because you thought I "wasn't really curious" and so you didn't say anything. I'd be happy to just remain silent and let you talk. Females seem to prefer it when I do that.

I mean that I always find it sad when one person feels there is some good progress in the conversation, and the other doesn´t. I.e. when there is a discrepancy in the feelings of the persons interacting.

That's a little strange. I only find things sad when they are "bad" or "wrong".

 

[Ana the Ist]

I hope you're not at a desktop 'cause if you keep wiggling like this you're gonna fall out of your chair.

Last time I checked, Webster's had something close to a dozen definitions of "right"...and you seem to be confusing the concept of "factually right" with "morally right" but I'm open to any clarification you'd like to make.

Yes, both of those things. Murder is just a legal term that isn't applied to soldiers waging war. They're killing, not murdering. Not even every domestic homicide is murder; there's negligent homicide, manslaughter, wrongful death, etc.

Gotcha, so if a guy came here on orders and killed your parents...you don't want him charged with murder, you want him sent back home and or exchanged for prisoners?

And it's necessary that people know who owns what and that they're prevented from just taking what doesn't belong to them. That would be wrong and immoral.

Property is a varying concept from state to state, I'll agree it's important to define it for the state to function...not so much for morality. There are, and have been, many functioning societies with rules regarding property that you'd probably find immoral.

"Society" meaning a group of them living together? I'd think a lot of them do.

I'd say that a society is a bit more complicated than that. A family is a group of people living together...but I wouldn't say you quite have a society yet.

Maybe that's subjective but nobody except a psycho's going to say anyone can do it "for no good reason".

That's a bit dismissive...I think it happens a lot for no good reason.

A suicide can make a choice, a baby in the womb can't. (Although they tell me I came out of the womb with the umbilical cord wrapped around my neck. Maybe I was trying to off myself?)

It was your hypothetical question about being able to communicate with the unborn that brought up my point.

 

[quatona]

Labeling it a preference makes no difference. Everyone prefers right to wrong.

Ofr course, in things that a person considers a matter of right/wrong, they prefer right to wrong.

Are you part of a peculiar minority,

I think there are quite a few people besides me who think that not every aspect of life is a matter of right/wrong. I have no statistics though, and I am not a great fan of arguments ad populum, anyway.

or do you think everyone is the same as you,

No, you are obviously different than me, in these regards.

but just deluded in thinking their preferences can actually be right or wrong?

I´d say the prefer this notion.

If an idea can't be right or wrong,

Ideas can be right/wrong - when it´s about factual questions.
I don´t think the issues I asked about in the OP are factual questions whereas you do.
That´s the reason why we don´t get anywhere in discussing the details as though we had the common ground required for that.

What's the difference?

Between what and what? Between feeling entitled and not feeling entitled?

If they don't acknowledge it expressly, I think most acknowledge it in their thoughts. That's why they expressly attempt to make excuses and rationalize what they did.

So your and my opinion differ here.

Mostly they're the same overlapping objectives.

Legislation doesn´t require an appeal to an external, objective right/wrong, good/bad.

Why not?

For the same reason that I don´t base it on Nazi
Germany´s, North Korea´s or Iceland´s or any other country´s approach.

What do you base it on?

On my own observations, experiences and interpretation, along with (if available) scientific findings and such.

Okay, well "idiot" is pretty general and is not really a moral evaluation.

That´s pretty irrelevant to my point. Which was: When emotionally outraged we don´t tend to choose our words carefully - we tend to misspeak and be unprecise. Their exceptional emotional state is not the time to discern the rationality of a person.

I'd like to hear more about it.

Which part of it don´t you understand?

I don't understand it. Can you explain?

I am afraid I can only repeat myself: My hypothesis is that emotions aren´t representing rationality.

The short simple answer might be cause and effect. If a cause has the effect of making you feel bad, the cause is bad. If it makes you feel good, the cause is good.

I can easily agree with this definition of "good/bad" that renders it not only a matter of entirely human criteria, but also a matter of individual subjectivity.

Have I not asked you to help me understand your ideas?

Yes. I don´t see a point in doing that ad nauseum, because you keep superimposing your basic assumptions on my statements, in response. So what can be stated is that our basic assumptions differ, and that there is no common ground required for having a more detailed discussion.

I'd be happy to just remain silent and let you talk.

For someone who is happy to remain silent you talk a lot. But I guess that´s relative.

Females seem to prefer it when I do that.

The gender thing seems to be some sort of issue for you. Do you want to talk about it?

That's a little strange. I only find things sad when they are "bad" or "wrong".

Yeah, maybe at some point you may want to consider the possibility that not everyone feels like you do.

 

[Chesterton]

Last time I checked, Webster's had something close to a dozen definitions of "right"...and you seem to be confusing the concept of "factually right" with "morally right" but I'm open to any clarification you'd like to make.

No I'm not confusing those. So what does morally right mean to you? Is it just whatever government says?

Gotcha, so if a guy came here on orders and killed your parents...you don't want him charged with murder, you want him sent back home and or exchanged for prisoners?

That's a weird hypothetical. Is this during wartime? Are my parents soldiers, or civilians, resistance fighters, or what?

Property is a varying concept from state to state, I'll agree it's important to define it for the state to function...not so much for morality. There are, and have been, many functioning societies with rules regarding property that you'd probably find immoral.

I think you have it backwards. Morality isn't enforced "for the state to function". It's the function of the state to protect us from being immoral to each other.

That's a bit dismissive...I think it happens a lot for no good reason.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying it's wrong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No I'm not confusing those. So what does morally right mean to you? Is it just whatever government says?

What is or isn't morally right would change depending upon the circumstances. It's nearly impossible for me to describe "what it means to me" outside of that context. Government has nothing to do with it...I'm not sure why you think it would.

That's a weird hypothetical. Is this during wartime? Are my parents soldiers, or civilians, resistance fighters, or what?

Does it matter? Surely you're aware that all walks of people die from those waging war...

You clearly stated that if a nation declares orders someone to kill for their nation...it isn't murder.

I think you have it backwards. Morality isn't enforced "for the state to function".

I never said it was...laws are enforced for the state to function.

It's the function of the state to protect us from being immoral to each other.

It's almost hilarious to imagine you believe that...

There's practically countless examples that would seem to refute that idea.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying it's wrong.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Chesterton]

What is or isn't morally right would change depending upon the circumstances. It's nearly impossible for me to describe "what it means to me" outside of that context. Government has nothing to do with it...I'm not sure why you think it would.

Can you give me an example of under what circumstances it would be right, and not wrong, to play the "knockout game" you mentioned?

Does it matter? Surely you're aware that all walks of people die from those waging war...

You clearly stated that if a nation declares orders someone to kill for their nation...it isn't murder.

Yes it matters if it's during wartime. And the status of my parents matters.

I never said it was...laws are enforced for the state to function.

Did you learn civics as a kid in America? You sound like a no good commie.

It's almost hilarious to imagine you believe that...

There's practically countless examples that would seem to refute that idea.

Yes there's a lot of bad governments, past and present.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Can you give me an example of under what circumstances it would be right, and not wrong, to play the "knockout game" you mentioned?

I suppose any given situation in which I believed the "victim" deserved it.

Yes it matters if it's during wartime. And the status of my parents matters.

Your parents were mistaken for enemy combatants...and yes, the nation or affiliation of the perpetrator declared war on the U.S.

Take your time.

Did you learn civics as a kid in America? You sound like a no good commie.

I did learn civics...and interestingly, we never had a lesson on government morality enforcement.

Yes there's a lot of bad governments, past and present.

Lol indeed...and many not only merely existed, but thrived in spite of enforcing laws you'd probably find highly immoral. It's almost as if morality has nothing to do with the functioning of a state!

 

[Chesterton]

I suppose any given situation in which I believed the "victim" deserved it.

Good answer. Shows you believe in the moral idea of justice same as everyone.

Your parents were mistaken for enemy combatants...and yes, the nation or affiliation of the perpetrator declared war on the U.S.

Take your time.

That's certainly not murder. Unless a government decides to somehow claim it is. You know what they say, you can indict a ham sandwich if you want to bad enough.

I did learn civics...and interestingly, we never had a lesson on government morality enforcement.

Well that's one of the things it does. Why do you think we have a Bill of Rights for example? Why do you think we have due process? The government would be a lot more efficient if it could just pluck criminals off the street and lock them up without treating them fairly, like giving them the right to a trial.

Lol indeed...and many not only merely existed, but thrived in spite of enforcing laws you'd probably find highly immoral. It's almost as if morality has nothing to do with the functioning of a state!

Governments thrived? What does that even mean? Seems like you think that governments exist for the sake of existing, rather than for the good of the people.

You seem to deny that anything has a moral component. I'm not even sure what the word moral means to you. I'm curious - can you give me an example of anything you would consider to be a moral issue?