It wasn't before. Prior to the "stand your ground" laws it was not self defense.
You claim that morality is universal, and yet we are fighting wars over differences in morality. Kind of defeats your whole argument.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is still self defense.
Explain what point you are making here please.
Why do they consider it immoral?
All societies believe that the unjustifiable killing of someone is immoral.
It wasn't before. Prior to the "stand your ground" laws it was not self defense.
You claim that morality is universal, and yet we are fighting wars over differences in morality. Kind of defeats your whole argument.
Why would you have to ask if morality is universal and objective?
Yes, all societies have a view of what is immoral and what is moral. The whole point is that those views differ between societies. What is considered a justifiable killing in one society may not be considered justifiable in another.
I am asking to find out what you think.
It is in the justifying that makes it subjective but the objective principle is that no one should kill someone without justification.
But it doesn't change the morality of the issue.
That is my point. It is a justified killing.
Not at all. Why did we fight the war against Hitler?
The very fact that you have to ask another person for their subjective opinion says a lot.
The justification is subjective which makes the whole thing subjective.
Once wrote:
But by saying that, you directly contradicted your definition. Your definition said it was an "illegal" taking of a life.
Before the passage of stand your ground laws (SYG), it was illegal, and hence, by your defintion, murder.
after the passage of SYG laws, it was legal, and hence, by your definition, not murder.
The point is that by including "legal" in your definition, you gave up on the point that it is objective, because laws are different in different countries, states, cities, and from time to time.
This is what loudmouth was trying to point out by mentioning Islamic "honor killings".
Papias
It was always egal if it was a justifiable case of self
defense.
That being said, the issue is the same. Whether a murder is justified or not. IF not, it is murder. Everywhere in the world.
That's just the point. Before the SYG laws, IT WASN'T JUSTIFIED. What we consider justifiable killing CHANGES OVER TIME. This is because it is subjective.
All you are doing is repeating the definition of murder. We already know that the definition of murder is an unjustifiable homocide. The question is whether or not the justification is subjective.
The justification is subjective, however, the principle of unjustifiable killing is the objective morality.
What are these overarching principles used as a foundation and where do they come from? Situations are different with different outcomes reflected in them but there is still what we ought to do rather than we just do.
Right. Where does that over-riding principle come from?
Why in a naturalistic explanation do we care what has the greatest harm to a community and our fellow man if for example we die in the process or our families die in the process?
You are not telling me how that developed.
Once wrote:
Hey, that means we can make a simple, fully objective moral code:
Commandment #1: Don't do bad things.Easy - since "bad" is fully objective, not subjective.
Papias
I think these principles developed as we as a species developed. As said earlier, we developed brains that allowed us to contemplate the suffering of others. We have the ability to imagine ourselves in the same position. And we then combine this with our evolution as a social species....the knowledge that what is good for the 'tribe' is also good for the individual.
We certainly were able to work out for ourselves that it was harmful and wrong to kill and steal before Moses supposedly staggered down from Sinai with those tablets under his arm....
I have a hard time getting a grasp about evolution giving up survival of the fittest for morality. A system that is from the start taking advantage of culling the weak by killing them off sometimes outright murdering them if you want to equate such. It mainly seems to be only in humans that we see murdering or culling the weak as wrong in lower species it is not only accepted but embraced as a method to propel evolution forward.
I fail to see why the survival of the fittest has to be suspended at some point and fail to see that morality has a place inside of evolution. In evolution if the leader of a group of apes decided to go to war with another group of apes to wipe them out with no justification other than to murder their males and steal their females scientists think this is moral. When a human does this or even God commands a competing or warring faction to be wiped out suddenly it becomes immoral. Is evolution such that certain species are given a free pass to be "immoral" compared to other species?
I don't buy it myself. Scientists make a rule and then change it when it makes evolution look evil. At what point does a species hit a level in evolution where is must adhere to a different moral code?
How do you come to that conclusion?
I think these principles developed as we as a species developed. .....the knowledge that what is good for the 'tribe' is also good for the individual.
IF it is good for the tribe what constitutes the tribe?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?