I don't want to be murdered

[Age]

If I don't want to be murdered and you don't want to be murdered, is it possible for the two of us to agree that murder is wrong?

Does anyone here think that murder is OK?

What is 'all right behavior', or just what is Right, in Life, and what this 'not all right behavior', or just what is Wrong, in Life, is just 'that' what every one could agree on and accept. See, only 'that behavior', which all agree upon, and accept, is, literally, an 'all Right behavior'.

Now, how 'this' is found in relation to 'morality', is done by what 'it' is that every one could agree with, and accept, and with what is needed, in Life, and with if, 'you' were in 'their shoes', as some would say, then would you 'want it', "yourself"?

Now, to find out if 'murder' is all right, or what you call 'okay', or not, firstly, how the word, 'murder', is being defined, here, needs to be addressed, and agreed upon, and accepted.

[Age]

ask a soldier

-Imp

What should I "ask a soldier"? Should I ask a soldier if murder is wrong? What do you think a soldier would tell me? Since the definition of the word murder is "unjustified killing" then I would think the soldier would respond that murder is wrong, don't you?

Now that you have only 'now' provided 'your own definition' for the 'murder' word, here, then 'now' 'we' can see if 'murder' is, what you call, 'okay', or not.

Now, if the word is meaning and being defined as, 'unjustified killing', then would it not be absolutely clear and absolutely obvious that all 'murder' is ''not okay'.

How could absolutely any one 'justify' the 'unjustified killing' of some thing?

Obviously, no one could 'justify' the 'unjustified killing' of any thing.

Therefore, if the word, 'murder', is being defined as, 'the unjustified killing of some thing', then, by definition, 'murder' could never, ever, be 'okay'.

Full stop.

[Age]

justified by a superior officer?

-Imp

If it's "justified" then it's not "murder" the question for all of us to ask is whether the "superior officer's" command was a command to commit murder or not. If it was a command to commit murder then that makes the superior officer complicit, perhaps even wholly responsible. Do you disagree?

Why are you even asking, 'If murder can be, so-called, 'okay', if absolutely no one can 'justify' 'murder'?

Obviously, if no one can 'justify' some thing, then 'that thing' is, by definition, 'not okay'.

Unless, of course, you want to present your definition for the word, 'okay', which shows and proves how 'it is okay' to do some thing that 'can not be justified'.

[Age]

be sure you aren't mistaken for an enemy soldier...

-Imp

Ooh, another vague one liner. You're so much smarter than the rest of us, especially me.

Serious, please stop bothering people who have some intelligence with your numbskull one liners.

Better yet, why don't you answer my question. If a commander tells a soldier to kill someone unjustifiably, is the commander not complicit or even wholly responsible for the soldier's actions?

As an 'adult' absolutely no one/thing is 'responsible' for what 'you' do, besides 'you'.

[Age]

Gary, please restart. You unfortunately used "murder" and that term means more than just "killed". It's not even the same as "intentionally killed". It means WRONGFULLY intentionally killed. That's why our language includes other terms like "manslaughter".

In what 'cult/ure', and to what people, does the word, 'murder', mean, 'WRONGFULLY (in big letters) intentionally killed'?

'We' were just informed that the word, 'murder', means, 'unjustified killing'.

So, 'who' is Right, and who is Wrong, here, exactly?

It would be a separate discussion for us to debate when killing is murder.

[Fairy]

If I don't want to be murdered and you don't want to be murdered, is it possible for the two of us to agree that murder is wrong?

Does anyone here think that murder is OK?

The human self is unfortunate in that it is caught up and bound by it's own home grown made-up syntax.

There's no escape from this knowing you can die by any means dilemma, the genie is out of the bottle now, it can't get back in.

It's like spilt milk. Hopeless for the human. Best be careful, and treat others as you would like to be treated, always. But then, even that's no escape, you already know you are going to die, because that knowing is the human condition that can never be unconditioned. Where there's two, there's always going to be conflict or opposition, and no human being alive is absolutely selfless, every human being clings to a self for dear life. It's too selfish to be selfless.

[Age]

If I don't want to be murdered and you don't want to be murdered, is it possible for the two of us to agree that murder is wrong?
Does anyone here think that murder is OK?

It is more effective to say "I don't want to be killed".
Other than the mental cases, no normal humans want to be killed.
There is no evidences that ordinary human beings want to be killed. Are there?

The answer to 'this' is a resounding, 'Yes'.

And, the very fact that there are many examples just goes to prove this Fact.

Not only that,
all humans are programmed to survive at cost [thus do not want to be killed] till the inevitable.

What do the words, 'at cost', imply and mean, exactly?

Also, what happened to the thousands upon thousands of human beings who are, supposedly and allegedly, claimed to be 'programmed' to so-call, 'survive at cost'?

By the way, who and/or what, exactly, is doing 'the programming', here?

As such, it is logical and rational to state,
Killings of humans by humans is absolutely wrong.

If anyone does not accept the above, it meant they are willing to be killed.

Other than the mental cases, no normal humans want to be killed
Soldiers are tested to be normal
Therefore, no soldiers would want to be killed.[/quote]

Yet, they go to war to kill human beings.
This is, obviously, illogical, and irrational.
Therefore, they are not so-called 'normal'.

War itself is immoral and the killings that entail are immoral.
But given the current situation, war in inevitable and soldiers has the duty to kill.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'This', really was how stupid and illogical and irrational some human beings really were.

Some actually believed that it was inevitable that some kill some, and that they had 'the duty to kill'.

LOL 'this one' just said and wrote, 'it is logical and rational to state, killings of humans by humans is absolutely wrong', but then immediately goes on to 'try to' claim that humans killing humans is inevitable and that some have the actual 'duty' to kill.

How many more times will "veritas aequitas" absolutely contradict "it" 'self' in this forum, here?

However, the ultimate for humanity is to avoid all wars and killing,

LOL 'now' although it is 'inevitable', and 'a duty', for wars and to kill each other, the 'ultimate' is that they 'avoid' wars and killing each other.

Do you, really, not see just how hypocritical and contradictory you are in this forum "veritas aequitas"?

which is impossible in the current conditions,

What are the so-called 'current conditions', exactly?

but humanity must strive towards be as close as possible to the moral ideal in the future.

So, well according to "veritas aequitas" it is inevitable, and dutiful, for you human beings to go to war and kill each other you, laughably, also 'must' strive to not doing what is 'inevitable', and 'your duty'.

And, the insanity continues.

[Age]

If I don't want to be murdered and you don't want to be murdered, is it possible for the two of us to agree that murder is wrong?

Does anyone here think that murder is OK?

The human self is unfortunate in that it is caught up and bound by it's own home grown made-up syntax.

There's no escape from this knowing you can die by any means dilemma, the genie is out of the bottle now, it can't get back in.

The human being is made up two things, 'visible matter', and, 'the invisible'. And, both of 'these' do not actually 'die'.

And, as always, if absolutely any one would like the irrefutable proof for what 'I' just said and claimed, here, in this post, or in regards to absolutely anything else that 'I' have said and claimed throughout this forum, then, again, let 'us' have a Truly open and honest peaceful discussion.

'I' can, and will, back up and support absolutely every thing that 'I' say, and claim, here, and absolutely and irrefutably so. Will anyone else produce 'this claim'.

It's like spilt milk. Hopeless for the human. Best be careful, and treat others as you would like to be treated, always.

'This' is another suggestion, which has led you human beings completely astray.

Treat others as you would like to be treated, if 'you' were 'them', is what leads you people back to, and back along, the Right path, and Right T.R.A.C.K, in Life.

But then, even that's no escape, you already know you are going to die,

Once more, here, 'we' have more misinformation, which gets passed along, and passed down, which is what has led 'these people' completely astray from where they all have really wanted to end up.

because that knowing is the human condition that can never be unconditioned. Where there's two, there's always going to be conflict or opposition, and no human being alive is absolutely selfless, every human being clings to a self for dear life. It's too selfish to be selfless.

1. Just because there may well be 'two' never necessarily means that there is always going to be conflict, or opposition. In fact it is the very opposite that is actually True, and Right, in Life.

2. you human beings do not have to be, and never started out being, 'selfish'. Again, which is an actual Truth that helps 'you', people, to find the Right path, in Life, and which helps you to say on the Right T.R.A.C.K., in Life, as well.

[LuckyR]

Gary, please restart. You unfortunately used "murder" and that term means more than just "killed". It's not even the same as "intentionally killed". It means WRONGFULLY intentionally killed. That's why our language includes other terms like "manslaughter".

It would be a separate discussion for us to debate when killing is murder.

Murder is unjustified killing. Do you disagree?

My understanding is that "murder" is a legal term. I'm generally against it, so we're in general agreement.

[FlashDangerpants]

is it possible for the two of us to agree that murder is wrong?

As others have already pointed out, it is tautological to assert that wrongful killings are wrong, so a convention to agree it is wrong is something of a hat upon a hat. You could probably save effort by just switching to one of the other simple wrongs such as theft or breaking promises, I recommend the latter. Formulated as If two of us agree that all promises should be binding, is it possible to agree that breaking promises is always wrong? looks to me like it maintains your point without allowing an easy diversion into same-old-same-old territory.

It's a very democratic model of morality, if we adopt a policy that some sort of ethical smorgasbord is available then you could probably get 99% of people to agree provisionally that killing is wrong and should be avoided at all possible costs, and that promises must never be broken under any circumstance.

I don't see much by way of a dispute resolution, explanatory power, or persuasive power here though. If somebody opts out of all the specific clauses about promises and honesty necessary to let them marry and defraud 30 people to win a bet, is the thing that makes them a bad person to be found inside your treaty, or outside of it?

The root of morality would be found in whatever inspires the people to enter this social contract rather than springing from it I suspect.

[Walker]

Does anyone here think that murder is OK?

Do you think that murdering a defenseless, conceived human in the early stages of biological development, is okay?

How about defenseless, conceived humans in later states of biological degeneration, who can no longer say they don't want to be murdered? Do you think it's okay to murder them?

[MikeNovack]

Does anyone here think that murder is OK?

Do you think that murdering a defenseless, conceived human in the early stages of biological development, is okay?

How about defenseless, conceived humans in later states of biological degeneration, who can no longer say they don't want to be murdered? Do you think it's okay to murder them?

Please separate abortion as that introduces issues not normally present with "murder". Namely "obligation to keep alive". We don't usually associate "not supplying what another (innocent) requires to stay alive" or "withdrawing what another (innocent) requires to stay alive" with murder. Or at least some of us would not, and our division here not along the lines of our usual political division.

For example, Walker, if some innocent is starving and you do not share your food with them, have you "murdered " them? If we are going to discuss "abortion", considerations along THOSE lines are going to come into play

[Walker]

A woman does not go to an abortion clinic to starve her defenseless, developing baby to death ... MikeNovack.

*

Being alive does not obligate one to feed everyone, unless the whole world is under your care, and then you cannot meet that obligation.

However, purposely starving a defenseless one to death, who is special because they are under your care, when you have the means to feed them, could be punished by society as either:

- premeditated murder,
- manslaughter,
- willful disregard of human life due to stupidity.

*

Calling abortion healthcare, which is another Leftist misnomer, turns over to long-term, individual conscience, the punishment for the murder, or the manslaughter, or the willful disregard of human life.

[Walker]

Please separate abortion as that introduces issues not normally present with "murder".

Question to AI:
AI, is killing a pregnant woman a double homicide?

Answer:
Yes, in many jurisdictions in the United States, killing a pregnant woman is considered a double homicide, with separate charges for the death of both the woman and the unborn child.

Human Comment:
Killing a pregnant woman is not a double homicide if the killing is done in an abortion clinic as part of an outpatient, healthcare procedure.

*

There is legal homicide, and there is illegal homicide.
Abortion is legal homicide.
Murder is illegal homicide.

Societal punishment is based on legalities.
Conscience punishment is based on inherent knowledge of right and wrong.

[Walker]

Murder is unjustified killing. Do you disagree?

Murder is the illegal killing of a human. Illegal homicide.

Unjustified to whom? The murderer? The victim? Society?

You're pretty loose with the terms, fella.

*

Getting philosophically loosey goosey ...

A word-based world, especially one in which bodies are isolated from one another, begins to confuse the inner reality of thoughts manifesting as words, with the outer reality of apprehended phenomena, and in doing so, kills a portion of Clarity-Wealth.

Say what ???