Talking to a killer

[ken]

You are the one who is suggesting murder is wrong and killing is not wrong.

How do you differiante between murder and killing?

One is against the Law the other isn't and we have trials to decide it.

So do laws, by themselevs, make what is right and wrong in Life?

[Arising_uk]

So do laws, by themselevs, make what is right and wrong in Life?

What do you mean by 'Life'?

[ken]

So do laws, by themselevs, make what is right and wrong in Life?

What do you mean by 'Life'?

We can remove the word 'Life'. My mistake, it is only confusing the issue.

So do laws, by themselves, make what is right and wrong?

[TSBU]

No, Life does not 'have' right nor wrong. But 'in' Life human beings choose what behaviors are seen as being right and wrong.

Then go and eat a chair, I judge it's wrong.

Why do you want Me to go and do something, which you judge is wrong?

Sometimes I wish I were as stupid as guys like you, stupid enough to feel that way.
Evidently, I'm saying that there are wrong and right things, like eating chairs, which is wrong, so it is an example of where is the mistake (why you are wrong) in your head...

[ken]

Then go and eat a chair, I judge it's wrong.

Why do you want Me to go and do something, which you judge is wrong?

Sometimes I wish I were as stupid as guys like you, stupid enough to feel that way.
Evidently, I'm saying that there are wrong and right things, like eating chairs, which is wrong, so it is an example of where is the mistake (why you are wrong) in your head...

I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.

[TSBU]

Why do you want Me to go and do something, which you judge is wrong?

Sometimes I wish I were as stupid as guys like you, stupid enough to feel that way.
Evidently, I'm saying that there are wrong and right things, like eating chairs, which is wrong, so it is an example of where is the mistake (why you are wrong) in your head...

I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.

At least you are honest with that XD

[Arising_uk]

So do laws, by themselves, make what is right and wrong?

That and human decisions. Unless of course you believe there is a big lawgiver in the sky somewhere.

[TSBU]

So do laws, by themselves, make what is right and wrong?

That and human decisions. Unless of course you believe there is a big lawgiver in the sky somewhere.

Eating a chair made of wood is a bad idea, is that in the first group or the second one?

[Arising_uk]

Eating a chair made of wood is a bad idea, is that in the first group or the second one?

Well it's a bad idea but is it wrong in a moral sense?

[TSBU]

Eating a chair made of wood is a bad idea, is that in the first group or the second one?

Well it's a bad idea but is it wrong in a moral sense?

What is a moral sense? It's a bad idea, kill people without thinking is like eating chairs.

[Arising_uk]

What is a moral sense? It's a bad idea, kill people without thinking is like eating chairs.

Do chairs have a sense of affront?

Will a chair be morally outraged at being eaten?

Murder is by and large defined as a pre-meditated killing and as such thinking appears to be involved.

[TSBU]

What is a moral sense? It's a bad idea, kill people without thinking is like eating chairs.

Do chairs have a sense of affront?

Will a chair be morally outraged at being eaten?

Murder is by and large defined as a pre-meditated killing and as such thinking appears to be involved.

Well, as long as you keep ehical (dealing with intelligence) problems inside the bigger group, problems involving reality, it's ok for me. It's bad to eat a chair, and it's bad to kill people guided by luck when you kill them, you "decided" to see both things as bad... because they are bad. You can't choose to see red what is blue.
If that's what you are saying, then it's ok. But if you say that, with the chair you are dealing with reality, but with the person you are not doing so, if you say that ethics and morality aren't right or wrong and you can choose any ethic because they are all equal, and judge some ethics as good and others as bad is "wrong", that's wrong.

[ken]

So do laws, by themselves, make what is right and wrong?

That and human decisions. Unless of course you believe there is a big lawgiver in the sky somewhere.

Obviously laws are decided by humans, but the issue of believing laws, solely, make up what is right and wrong is the fact that there are so many different cultures all with their own set of laws, which furrhermore are always changing, so which one is actually right and when, and which one is right and when?

Also, I think you will not have much luck in attempting to not be punished by a judicial system by saying, "I just killed the person, I did not murder them."

So, I do not know about you but, I still find it very hypocritical and extremely hilarious that some people still find it perfectly acceptable and even normal to (want to) kill another human being for the very reason that that human being killed another human being.

The actual stupidity of this is uncovered in the discovery of WHY the original human being killed and wanted to kill?

What makes the killing of (and the wanting to kill of) the original killer so absurd and so very hilarious is the fact that that human being is the key to stopping ALL future killings. That human being holds the "secret" knowledge of how to prevent ALL killings from ever happening again.

[TSBU]

the "secret" knowledge of how to prevent ALL killings from ever happening again.

Kill everybody

[Arising_uk]

Obviously laws are decided by humans, but the issue of believing laws, solely, make up what is right and wrong is the fact that there are so many different cultures all with their own set of laws, which furrhermore are always changing, so which one is actually right and when, and which one is right and when?

Wouldn't that point to it being the case that there is no right one, just whatever the culture decides is the case at the present time. Can there be competing ethical and moral systems? I think so and this is why they can change over time. Is there universal consensus across cultures? I think there is some fairly common consensus and murder appears to be one.

Also, I think you will not have much luck in attempting to not be punished by a judicial system by saying, "I just killed the person, I did not murder them."

"I killed the person but they stepped out right in front of my car.", "I killed the person in self-defense", "I killed the person accidentally."

So, I do not know about you but, I still find it very hypocritical and extremely hilarious that some people still find it perfectly acceptable and even normal to (want to) kill another human being for the very reason that that human being killed another human being.

How about the eye-for-an-eye position?

The actual stupidity of this is uncovered in the discovery of WHY the original human being killed and wanted to kill?

What makes the killing of (and the wanting to kill of) the original killer so absurd and so very hilarious is the fact that that human being is the key to stopping ALL future killings. That human being holds the "secret" knowledge of how to prevent ALL killings from ever happening again.

I'm all ears?