Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 12:15 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:03 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:03 am Thanks for explaining your idea, once again. Perhaps I can summarise it.

1 We must adopt a code of absolute moral rules, but only as an ideal guide, and never to be imposed on anyone.
2 Those rules must be based on evidence and reached through critical thinking - not authority, least of all a supposed divine authority.
3 Individuals must adapt the rules flexibly to cope with specific moral dilemmas, such as the need to kill in extreme self-defence.

Is that about right? Would you want to change any of it, or add anything?

Yes, the above is about right.
One more critical point,

4. While individuals has to adapt and be flexible due to their human_ness, they must nevertheless be mindful of the absolute moral rules at all times and strive to improve themselves [from within] on a continual basis to be as close as possible to the impossible ideals.
There is no stress and pressure to achieve the impossible ideals but what is expected is a trend of increasing moral competency towards the impossible ideals [as in 1].

The more complex issue is how to achieve point 4 progressively.

How about this for point 3? -

3 While individuals must always strive to follow the moral rules - to get closer to the ideal - they can adapt them flexibly to cope with specific moral dilemmas, such as the need to kill in extreme self-defence.

Does that cover your critical point? If not,please re-word it.

And one question for now. Why do you say the moral rules represent an impossible goal? That seems to me an unnecessarily pessimistic caveat. Does being human mean we can never achieve the moral ideal? The rules have to be evidence-based and rational, so there's no reason why impossibility has to be built-in.

I agree with Point 3 in general.
Individuals must strive towards the absolute moral laws at all costs. At the same time individuals must also strive to develop the competency to have the ability to adhere to the absolute moral laws.

But because the inherent human nature of individuals at present are vulnerable to weakness, they are not expected to achieve what is expected from the absolute moral laws.
As such individuals must be mindful of the requirement of the absolute moral laws and very mindful of the necessary actions they are about to take that is deviating from the ideal.

Therefore if they have to kill another human, they will have to think 100 times before they do it and should be mindful they are deviating from the ideal with exceptions where instant reaction is needed.
After the deed, the individual must reflect to determine what sort of corrective actions can be taken to avoid the repeat of such a deviation from the ideal.

Most Absolute moral rules are ideal in theory but not in practice.
Examples of absolute moral rules are applied to killing, torture, raping, murder, corruption, lying, genocides, stealing, and the whole range of evil acts.
Certain targets may be achieved within specific period and circumstances but not possible in the absolute time sense.

Note the "Normal Distribution" principles, with human nature of 7 billion + there are always some minute percentile of deviants. At present, it is stated, generally 1% of humans are psychopaths [most prone to evil acts]. i.e. that 70 million!

The human brain has 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 synapse connectors, you can imaging the number of combination and permutations of their connections. As such, this complexity is vulnerable to defective connections that enable certain evil prone people.

Its the complexity of human nature that to achieve the ideal of 'good' human behavior is an impossible goal at all times.

However the ideal target is necessary to act as fixed goal to manage the variance efficiently between the ideal and actual in seeking continuous improvement towards the impossible-to-achieve-ideal.

Another point is once we can establish and justify the absolute moral law [fact] from empirical evidence and with the highest reason, then, like a scientific fact, it is objective and independent of the individuals' opinion.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:18 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 12:15 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:03 am
Yes, the above is about right.
One more critical point,

4. While individuals has to adapt and be flexible due to their human_ness, they must nevertheless be mindful of the absolute moral rules at all times and strive to improve themselves [from within] on a continual basis to be as close as possible to the impossible ideals.
There is no stress and pressure to achieve the impossible ideals but what is expected is a trend of increasing moral competency towards the impossible ideals [as in 1].

The more complex issue is how to achieve point 4 progressively.

How about this for point 3? -

3 While individuals must always strive to follow the moral rules - to get closer to the ideal - they can adapt them flexibly to cope with specific moral dilemmas, such as the need to kill in extreme self-defence.

Does that cover your critical point? If not,please re-word it.

And one question for now. Why do you say the moral rules represent an impossible goal? That seems to me an unnecessarily pessimistic caveat. Does being human mean we can never achieve the moral ideal? The rules have to be evidence-based and rational, so there's no reason why impossibility has to be built-in.

I agree with Point 3 in general.
Individuals must strive towards the absolute moral laws at all costs. At the same time individuals must also strive to develop the competency to have the ability to adhere to the absolute moral laws.

But because the inherent human nature of individuals at present are vulnerable to weakness, they are not expected to achieve what is expected from the absolute moral laws.
As such individuals must be mindful of the requirement of the absolute moral laws and very mindful of the necessary actions they are about to take that is deviating from the ideal.

Therefore if they have to kill another human, they will have to think 100 times before they do it and should be mindful they are deviating from the ideal with exceptions where instant reaction is needed.
After the deed, the individual must reflect to determine what sort of corrective actions can be taken to avoid the repeat of such a deviation from the ideal.

Most Absolute moral rules are ideal in theory but not in practice.
Examples of absolute moral rules are applied to killing, torture, raping, murder, corruption, lying, genocides, stealing, and the whole range of evil acts.
Certain targets may be achieved within specific period and circumstances but not possible in the absolute time sense.

Note the "Normal Distribution" principles, with human nature of 7 billion + there are always some minute percentile of deviants. At present, it is stated, generally 1% of humans are psychopaths [most prone to evil acts]. i.e. that 70 million!

The human brain has 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 synapse connectors, you can imaging the number of combination and permutations of their connections. As such, this complexity is vulnerable to defective connections that enable certain evil prone people.

Its the complexity of human nature that to achieve the ideal of 'good' human behavior is an impossible goal at all times.

However the ideal target is necessary to act as fixed goal to manage the variance efficiently between the ideal and actual in seeking continuous improvement towards the impossible-to-achieve-ideal.

Another point is once we can establish and justify the absolute moral law [fact] from empirical evidence and with the highest reason, then, like a scientific fact, it is objective and independent of the individuals' opinion.

Okay. As I've explained, the word 'absolute' is incorrect here; these can only be moral rules, and deleting the word 'absolute' doesn't change anything. It's the very rationality of a secular morality that means moral debate and what we call progress can occur. It's religions that demand unchanging rules - an absolute moral code - which is why overthrowing some religious doctrines and institutional power has meant moral improvement, for example in the treatment of women and homosexuals.

And that a moral code exists can be a fact - a feature of reality. But to say the moral rules it contains are facts is just a mistake - the category error at the heart of moral objectivism. Adopting and developing a moral code - which is what all human communities have done - is a matter of collective decision, and is therefore - therefore - subjective. The question is always: who decides what our moral rules should be? And claiming any moral rules are facts is what tyrants and tyrannical regimes have always done - and it's always been oppressive.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:28 am Okay. As I've explained, the word 'absolute' is incorrect here; these can only be moral rules, and deleting the word 'absolute' doesn't change anything.

The word 'absolute' changes everything! Murder is absolutely wrong.

To insist that this is not absolutely the case, is to take up the burden of proof and offer counter-examples.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:28 am It's the very rationality of a secular morality that means moral debate and what we call progress can occur. It's religions that demand unchanging rules - an absolute moral code - which is why overthrowing some religious doctrines and institutional power has meant moral improvement

If you ever find rational/secular moral debate resulting in the absolute moral wrongness of murder being changed or challenged, then you are not morally progressing. You are morally regressing.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:28 am Adopting and developing a moral code - which is what all human communities have done - is a matter of collective decision, and is therefore - therefore - subjective.

Collective consensus is the definition of objectivity in scientific communities. That is how all facts are manufactured - social consensus. If the very notion of objectivity is social construct, then you really need to revisit your question...

I think the very definitions of 'murder ' result from ideologies such as post-Axial Age religions , or from dictatorial regimes. Think of how the Nazis did not define the Holocaust as murder and how we do so.

Is there any evidence killing another human being is basically repugnant? I believe there is circumstantial evidence that this is so. The developing child when exposed to a culture where others' feelings and rights are important will understand others' feelings and rights, unless the child is brain damaged typically in the fore brain area.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:44 pm I think the very definitions of 'murder ' result from ideologies such as post-Axial Age religions , or from dictatorial regimes. Think of how the Nazis did not define the Holocaust as murder and how we do so.

Is there any evidence killing another human being is basically repugnant? I believe there is circumstantial evidence that this is so. The developing child when exposed to a culture where others' feelings and rights are important will understand others' feelings and rights, unless the child is brain damaged typically in the fore brain area.

I think you're right that social moral codes developed from repugnance and approval.

But the distinction between in-group and out-group moral acceptability has been critical. For most of human history, there seems to have been little or no repugnance with regard to killing humans outside the group. If anything, it was considered admirable and completely justified - glorified even.

And even within the group, killing in some situations has been acceptable, such as propitiatory human sacrifice, burying babies in post holes, and so on. And some people still think capital punishment is morally justifiable. The universalising moral claims we sometimes make are recent developments.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:28 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:18 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 12:15 pm
How about this for point 3? -

3 While individuals must always strive to follow the moral rules - to get closer to the ideal - they can adapt them flexibly to cope with specific moral dilemmas, such as the need to kill in extreme self-defence.

Does that cover your critical point? If not,please re-word it.

And one question for now. Why do you say the moral rules represent an impossible goal? That seems to me an unnecessarily pessimistic caveat. Does being human mean we can never achieve the moral ideal? The rules have to be evidence-based and rational, so there's no reason why impossibility has to be built-in.

I agree with Point 3 in general.
Individuals must strive towards the absolute moral laws at all costs. At the same time individuals must also strive to develop the competency to have the ability to adhere to the absolute moral laws.

But because the inherent human nature of individuals at present are vulnerable to weakness, they are not expected to achieve what is expected from the absolute moral laws.
As such individuals must be mindful of the requirement of the absolute moral laws and very mindful of the necessary actions they are about to take that is deviating from the ideal.

Therefore if they have to kill another human, they will have to think 100 times before they do it and should be mindful they are deviating from the ideal with exceptions where instant reaction is needed.
After the deed, the individual must reflect to determine what sort of corrective actions can be taken to avoid the repeat of such a deviation from the ideal.

Most Absolute moral rules are ideal in theory but not in practice.
Examples of absolute moral rules are applied to killing, torture, raping, murder, corruption, lying, genocides, stealing, and the whole range of evil acts.
Certain targets may be achieved within specific period and circumstances but not possible in the absolute time sense.

Note the "Normal Distribution" principles, with human nature of 7 billion + there are always some minute percentile of deviants. At present, it is stated, generally 1% of humans are psychopaths [most prone to evil acts]. i.e. that 70 million!

The human brain has 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 synapse connectors, you can imaging the number of combination and permutations of their connections. As such, this complexity is vulnerable to defective connections that enable certain evil prone people.

Its the complexity of human nature that to achieve the ideal of 'good' human behavior is an impossible goal at all times.

However the ideal target is necessary to act as fixed goal to manage the variance efficiently between the ideal and actual in seeking continuous improvement towards the impossible-to-achieve-ideal.

Another point is once we can establish and justify the absolute moral law [fact] from empirical evidence and with the highest reason, then, like a scientific fact, it is objective and independent of the individuals' opinion.

Okay. As I've explained, the word 'absolute' is incorrect here; these can only be moral rules, and deleting the word 'absolute' doesn't change anything. It's the very rationality of a secular morality that means moral debate and what we call progress can occur.
It's religions that demand unchanging rules - an absolute moral code - which is why overthrowing some religious doctrines and institutional power has meant moral improvement, for example in the treatment of women and homosexuals.

You are always catching up and has a lot to catch up.

Note there are two meanings to 'absolute', i.e.

• 1. Absolute re God - totally unconditional of any human elements.
  
  2. Absolute - objective but not independent of human elements.

Whatever absolute moral laws from an absolute God is absolutely-absolute. Absolute moral laws from an absolute God are not empirically justified but merely thrown and forced in based on faith. These absolute moral laws are enforced with a threat of hell by the absolute God.

You should not conflate absolute moral laws from a God with secular absolute moral laws that are moral facts which are justified by empirical evidence and the highest reason.

Whatever absolute moral laws from the consensus of human collective is relatively absolute. They are empirically and philosophically justified, thus objective.
Note absolute temperature, absolute monarch, absolute-whatever to represent the ultimate limit of the specific term.
In the case of secular absolute moral laws - they must be empirically and philosophically justified which cannot be disputed by any means based on reason.

Why do you keep bringing in theistic religions when I have not accepted them at all? I believe you are very bias and fearful merely because you have a personal issue with them.

And that a moral code exists can be a fact - a feature of reality. But to say the moral rules it contains are facts is just a mistake - the category error at the heart of moral objectivism.
Adopting and developing a moral code - which is what all human communities have done - is a matter of collective decision, and is therefore - therefore - subjective.

The question is always: who decides what our moral rules should be? And claiming any moral rules are facts is what tyrants and tyrannical regimes have always done - and it's always been oppressive.

I don't get what you mean by moral rules contain facts.
I did not imply 'contain' per se.

What I have proposed is absolute moral laws are justified and inferred from empirical facts or evidences. They have to be.

As I had stated, you are always catching up.
Scientific facts which are objective are based on the collective decision of a specific group of scientist peers [which may be limited to 100++] with the authority to do so after being justified within the Scientific Method.

I stated this in the last para of my last post, but you seem to be oblivious to the point re scientific facts as objective which are based on intersubjective consensus of merely a group of scientist peers;

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:18 amAnother point is once we can establish and justify the absolute moral law [fact] from empirical evidence and with the highest reason, then, like a scientific fact, it is objective and independent of the individuals' opinion.

It is not the question of who decides what are the absolute moral laws.
What is to be the absolute moral laws are justified from empirical evidence based on the highest philosophical reason which no human can deny with logic and reason.
In principle, the secular absolute moral laws are to be accepted by 100% of normal human beings, because there is no rational basis for them to reject it.
There are not many rules that can qualify as absolute moral laws within the above qualifications and conditions.
Note, these absolute moral laws are not be be enforced but merely act as a guide. So there is nothing to lose on it but everything to gain from it [as tested].

Your point re tyrants and tyrant regimes is a straw man.
Whatever rules dictated by the dictators had never been justified justified from empirical evidence based on the highest philosophical reason which no human can deny with logic and reason.
Most of the time, these dictators merely enact by on their personal feelings of what they personally [or the top elite] deemed is right.

Btw, what are secular absolute moral laws which are objective are not merely based on the justifications but they have to be tested at least in a 'wind tunnel' or thought experiment model to be fool proof.
Obviously we cannot get to this stage since you cannot even agree on the foundational issues where you are dogmatic and fearful of theistic elements creeping in.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:44 pm I think the very definitions of 'murder ' result from ideologies such as post-Axial Age religions , or from dictatorial regimes. Think of how the Nazis did not define the Holocaust as murder and how we do so.

Is there any evidence killing another human being is basically repugnant? I believe there is circumstantial evidence that this is so. The developing child when exposed to a culture where others' feelings and rights are important will understand others' feelings and rights, unless the child is brain damaged typically in the fore brain area.

Your point is veering off topic from objective absolute moral rules.

The relevant objective moral rule in this case is;
"No human shall kill another human" period, i.e. absolutely!

Thus no human should be killed by any means and for whatever the reasons [murder, ethanasia, genocide, and the likes] whether justified or not.
But note this objective moral rule, law or maxim, is to be used as a GUIDE only and should be enforced by any means.

In practice, at least up to this stage of human evolution, humans will kill one another for various reasons.

What is critical and useful with the secular objective absolute moral law when used as a guide [only] is, at least that [moral gap] will trigger humanity to have a second look whether whatever killings that has been done [even was justified] can be further prevented or not.
Even if passion killing is acceptable at present, perhaps we should review the root causes of how passion killing arise and take preventive steps to stop such passion killing from being initiated by dealing with the passions and emotions involved.

Without a ceiling yardstick of a secular objective absolute moral law on killing as a guide to generate variances between actual and the ideal, then killings which are presumed justifiable will be accepted as 'business and usual" or the norm, and no one will give it a second look to take preventive actions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:45 am The relevant objective moral rule in this case is;
"No human shall kill another human" period, i.e. absolutely!

No, dumbo. No human shall murder another human.

Murder is absolutely wrong. Killing is not.

Killing is amoral.
Murder is immoral.
Self-defence is moral.

Objectively, intent matters.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:45 am Thus no human should be killed by any means and for whatever the reasons [murder, ethanasia, genocide, and the likes] whether justified or not.
But note this objective moral rule, law or maxim, is to be used as a GUIDE only and should be enforced by any means.

This doesn't work because it's ambiguous and open to interpretation. The justification matters in practice.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:45 am In practice, at least up to this stage of human evolution, humans will kill one another for various reasons.

Some of the reasons for which a human may kill another human are MORAL REASONS.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:45 am Without a ceiling yardstick of a secular objective absolute moral law on killing as a guide to generate variances between actual and the ideal, then killings which are presumed justifiable will be accepted as 'business and usual" or the norm, and no one will give it a second look to take preventive actions

Killing in self-defence IS a preventive action!!! Hence self-defence is a MORAL REASON to kill another human.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:45 am The relevant objective moral rule in this case is;
"No human shall kill another human" period, i.e. absolutely!

No, dumbo. No human shall murder another human.

Murder is absolutely wrong. Killing is not.

Killing is amoral.
Murder is immoral.
Self-defence is moral.

Objectively, intent matters.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:45 am Thus no human should be killed by any means and for whatever the reasons [murder, ethanasia, genocide, and the likes] whether justified or not.
But note this objective moral rule, law or maxim, is to be used as a GUIDE only and should be enforced by any means.

This doesn't work because it's ambiguous and open to interpretation. The justification matters in practice.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:45 am In practice, at least up to this stage of human evolution, humans will kill one another for various reasons.

Some of the reasons for which a human may kill another human are MORAL REASONS.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:45 am Without a ceiling yardstick of a secular objective absolute moral law on killing as a guide to generate variances between actual and the ideal, then killings which are presumed justifiable will be accepted as 'business and usual" or the norm, and no one will give it a second look to take preventive actions

Self-defence is a MORAL REASON to kill another human. Killing in self-defence IS a preventive action!!!

You are the dumb and stupid one.

The objective secular Absolute Moral Law is;
"No human shall kill another human" period, i.e. absolutely!

This is to be used as a guide only and not to be enforced.

Morality is the meta with Morality and Ethics.
Note the difference between Morality [Pure, theories and principles] and Ethics [Applied] which is common with Mathematics, Physics and various fields of knowledge.

Self-defense is an Ethical Reason [the Applied perspective] for killing another human.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:52 am You are the dumb and stupid one.

The objective secular Absolute Moral Law is;
"No human shall kill another human" period, i.e. absolutely!

You can capitalize it all you want, but you are equivocating.

An inconsequential (e.g unenforced) law is not a law, it's just verbalism.

verbalism noun concentration on forms of expression rather than content.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:52 am This is to be used as a guide only and not to be enforced.

Then it's not a law - it's a verbalism.

Imagine if gravity was a "guide only and not to be enforced".

The "absoluteness" of unenforced gravity would be as meaningless as the "absoluteness" of unenforced "moral law".

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:52 am Morality is the meta with Morality and Ethics.
Note the difference between Morality [Pure, theories and principles] and Ethics [Applied] which is common with Mathematics, Physics and various fields of knowledge.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. Where theory fails - judgment takes over.

That's why theoreticians get their asses handed to them by practitioners.

The only Purity to be found in theories and principles is Pure idiocy. Logocentrism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:52 am Self-defense is an Ethical Reason [the Applied perspective] for killing another human.

Precisely! Self-defence is killing and it is absolutely moral!

And just like that your "absolute moral law" explodes. Theory fails in practice.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:17 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:52 am You are the dumb and stupid one.

The objective secular Absolute Moral Law is;
"No human shall kill another human" period, i.e. absolutely!

You can capitalize it all you want, but you are equivocating.

An inconsequential (e.g unenforced) law is not a law, it's just verbalism.

verbalism noun concentration on forms of expression rather than content.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:52 am This is to be used as a guide only and not to be enforced.

Then it's not a law - it's a verbalism.

Imagine if gravity was a "guide only and not to be enforced".

The "absoluteness" of unenforced gravity would be as meaningless as the "absoluteness" of unenforced "moral law".

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:52 am Morality is the meta with Morality and Ethics.
Note the difference between Morality [Pure, theories and principles] and Ethics [Applied] which is common with Mathematics, Physics and various fields of knowledge.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. Where theory fails - judgment takes over.

That's why theoreticians get their asses handed to them by practitioners.

The only Purity to be found in theories and principles is Pure idiocy. Logocentrism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:52 am Self-defense is an Ethical Reason [the Applied perspective] for killing another human.

Precisely! Self-defence is killing and it is absolutely moral!

And just like that your "absolute moral law" explodes. Theory fails in practice.

Self-defence is killing and it is absolutely moral!
WTF is that?
Everyone who killed will claim it is self-defense and in the present judiciary, jury and judges around the world can be bought.
The Iranians and N. Koreans when they nuked and killed millions or billions, they can easily it is self-defense.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:17 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:52 am You are the dumb and stupid one.

The objective secular Absolute Moral Law is;
"No human shall kill another human" period, i.e. absolutely!

You can capitalize it all you want, but you are equivocating.

An inconsequential (e.g unenforced) law is not a law, it's just verbalism.

verbalism noun concentration on forms of expression rather than content.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:52 am This is to be used as a guide only and not to be enforced.

Then it's not a law - it's a verbalism.

Imagine if gravity was a "guide only and not to be enforced".

The "absoluteness" of unenforced gravity would be as meaningless as the "absoluteness" of unenforced "moral law".

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:52 am Morality is the meta with Morality and Ethics.
Note the difference between Morality [Pure, theories and principles] and Ethics [Applied] which is common with Mathematics, Physics and various fields of knowledge.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. Where theory fails - judgment takes over.

That's why theoreticians get their asses handed to them by practitioners.

The only Purity to be found in theories and principles is Pure idiocy. Logocentrism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:52 am Self-defense is an Ethical Reason [the Applied perspective] for killing another human.

Precisely! Self-defence is killing and it is absolutely moral!

And just like that your "absolute moral law" explodes. Theory fails in practice.

Self-defence is killing and it is absolutely moral!
WTF is that?
Everyone who killed will claim it is self-defense and in the present, judiciary, jury and judges around the world can be bought easily.
The Iranians and N. Koreans when they nuked and killed millions or billions, they can easily claim it is in self-defense.

However, when we have the absolute moral law,
"killing another human by a human is morally wrong'
to act as a guide and yardstick,
this guide will enable investigation into all sort of killings [justified or not] and thus the opportunity to reduce the number of human killed for whatever the reasons.

Psychopaths do not understand the above leanings, that is why your response as such.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:27 am Self-defence is killing and it is absolutely moral!
WTF is that?

It means that if I am trying to murder you, and you kill me in self-defence, then your actions are Good, Moral and Just!

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:27 am Everyone who killed will claim it is self-defense and in the present judiciary, jury and judges around the world can be bought.
The Iranians and N. Koreans when they nuked and killed millions or billions, they can easily it is self-defense.

LOOK! You are bringing practical considerations to your own "PURELY THEORETICAL" table!!!
Can you even maintain a perspective for longer than 3 seconds?

People keep telling you and you keep refusing to listen. You cannot legislate morality.

What we have invented (as humans) is a LEGAL system, it's not a JUSTICE system.

Justice is the unattainable ideal.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:30 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:27 am Self-defence is killing and it is absolutely moral!
WTF is that?

It means that if I am trying to murder you, and you kill me in self-defence, then your actions are Good, Moral and Just!

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:27 am Everyone who killed will claim it is self-defense and in the present judiciary, jury and judges around the world can be bought.
The Iranians and N. Koreans when they nuked and killed millions or billions, they can easily it is self-defense.

Yeah! People keep telling you and you keep refusing to listen. You cannot legislate morality.

What we have invented (as humans) is a LEGAL system, it's not a JUSTICE system.

Justice is the unattainable ideal.

Note I edited my previous post to add:
Psychopaths do not understand the above leanings, that is why your response as such.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:33 am Note I edited my previous post to add:
Psychopaths do not understand the above leanings, that is why your response as such.

You edited your post to include an ad-hominem, and thereby opening the door to justify your No True Scotsman fallacy?

OBViOUSLY! That's how all exclusion works in practice. You have to label me a psychopath so you can protect your idiotic moral law from exploding.

Ergo: you care more about verbalism than you care about practical outcomes.

Dumb philosopher.