Why is murder considered immoral?

[mordred]

If there's no true moral center how can anything be moral or immoral? If there's no God, anything goes. Right? You can hate me and punish me because I do things that you disagree with, but I'm no more wrong than you are right. That said, how has humanity lasted as long as it has? Truly a mystery to me.

[JamesBannon]

Use your own belief (application of GR) to analyse it. Seems simple enough.

[ZikZak]

If there's no God, anything goes. Right?

You seem to have it backwards. I think that what you meant to say was that if there is the Christian God, then anything goes. After all, the Christian God doesn't judge based on actions, but on beliefs. So murder away to your heart's content, just as long as you believe in Jesus in the end. Right?

[Unbeatable]

Murder is considered immoral because that's the point of the word "murder". You're thinking about things in reverse. Look at the broader category of killing. Most people approve of some kinds of killing more than others. Killing people on a battlefield during war; executing criminals; killing people in self defense-- most of us don't call the people who do these sorts of things murderers. Whenever someone does call one of them a murderer, it is specifically because they for some reason don't approve of what that person is doing. There are some types of killing that people like and some types of killing that people don't like. "Murder" is the label that we put on the types of killing that we don't like.

If there's no true moral center how can anything be moral or immoral?

It can't be. And there can't be a true moral center. Even if there was a god who said that X was moral and Y was immoral, there would still be no true moral center. There would just be some god and its opinions. It could force its opinions on the whole planet. It could punish people for disobeying them. But that doesn't make those people wrong and it doesn't make the opinions of that god right.

If there's no God, anything goes. Right?

I don't know what "anything goes" means.

You can hate me and punish me because I do things that you disagree with, but I'm no more wrong than you are right.

Correct.

That said, how has humanity lasted as long as it has?

How do you think other social species have lasted as long as they have? How have other primates survived?

[Kosh3]

If there's no true moral center how can anything be moral or immoral? If there's no God, anything goes. Right? You can hate me and punish me because I do things that you disagree with, but I'm no more wrong than you are right. That said, how has humanity lasted as long as it has? Truly a mystery to me.

Indeed.

In a moral universe devoid of god and any elements of moral objectivity, from where do moral claims derrive their normative power? Frankly, they don't.

Of course, morality can be objective, or more precisely, have an objective element to it (in the sense of there being a narrow range of moral values conducive to the greatest happiness of people universally (where happiness is axiomatically taken as the sole end of morality)), and at the same there being no god to create or enforce it - but moral objectivity is regularly denied along with god.

It does seem for the atheistic relativists there is no good reason to make moral claims at all, or feel particularly morally upset about anything. Indeed, if they do get upset, it would seem they have not fully understood what it is they claim to actually believe.

[Unbeatable]

It does seem for the atheistic relativists there is no good reason to make moral claims at all,

Seems to me that propaganda is a good enough incentive. Moral claims which influence the behavior of others in the desired manner are serving their purpose, even though they are false.

[Joe Bloe]

If there's no true moral center how can anything be moral or immoral? If there's no God, anything goes.
Sure, if there is no moral center then anything goes. But God and his groundless, arbitrary whims aren't the only candidate for a moral center. There's also the fact that some things/actions/situations are beneficial and others are harmful to people.

After all, how do you suppose God goes about figuring out what moral commands to give? Are they indeed just his groundless, arbitrary whims, or does he have reasons for the commands he gives? If he has reasons, what are they, and why can't we just bypass God and appeal directly to those reasons ourselves to establish moral rules and principles? And why wouldn't the reasons still exist even if there isn't a god? On the other hand, if God has no reasons for his commands, if they really are his groundless, arbitrary whims, if it's just a case of "might makes right," then, well, anything goes, even slaughtering infants to punish their long dead ancestors for something that occurred centuries earlier (as with the case of the ancient Hebrew tribal war-god Yahweh).

[Necroflange]

People never seem to mention what I think is always the crux of this 'why behave morally if there is no God' question:
We are animals.
In terms of the millions of years of survival before now, before the idea of a moralising God was even commonly discussed, it must have made sense for us to develop a sense of morality. Humans live in groups and are social animals (think of chimpanzees in the wild)- they could no manage this if they were entirely selfish and amoral.
So the reason we feel it is wrong to murder is not because God got someone to etch it into a tablet of stone, but because human society could not work if no-one had a problem with murdering.
It's all about practicality- not existential reason.

[Ender_Wiggin]

P
So the reason we feel it is wrong to murder is not because God got someone to etch it into a tablet of stone, but because human society could not work if no-one had a problem with murdering.
It's all about practicality- not existential reason.

If there is no God and moral center then there is no moral value in practicality or society working.

[engly-saxo]

Oh God, not THIS argument again. :rolleyes:

1 - Morality is a social construct, not "God-given". It's something we evolved out of necessity.

2 - Without "God", we still have humanity, empathy, etc. to base our morals on. These traits are part of the human condition and exist independent of any "God".

[Yggdrasill]

If there is no God and moral center then there is no moral value in practicality or society working.No, but there is a practical value, i.e. happiness. People like being happy, and people are happy if society works/people are moral.

[Ender_Wiggin]

Oh God, not THIS crappy argument again. :rolleyes:

1 - Morality is a social construct, and not "God-given". It's something we evolved out of necessity. All social animals have "rules" in their societies, from gorillas to ants to whales and dolphins.

2 - Without "God", we still have humanity, empathy, etc. to base our morals on. These traits are part of the human condition and exist independent of any "God".

If morality is an evolved concept, which would make sense in a no god universe it still carries no weight, you are left with struggle between your concept and mine. I only said what I said because the post held up practicality as a standard. There either is one or their isn't. Anything you come up with does not bind me other than your ability to inflict it upon me.

why is the evolution of morality necessary? Couldn't we survive as a species anyway? I would say it might be necessary for the development of society advance because it does practically set up a system of rules for us to operate under, but I am not certain that moral rules are necessary for pure survival.

[Necroflange]

... and many moral philosophers have argued that an act is good in as much as it promotes happiness.

[Ender_Wiggin]

how can happiness be a standard for morality when makes me happy might make you miserable?

[Scifinerdgrl]

If there's no true moral center how can anything be moral or immoral? If there's no God, anything goes. Right? You can hate me and punish me because I do things that you disagree with, but I'm no more wrong than you are right. That said, how has humanity lasted as long as it has? Truly a mystery to me.

This is a standard bogeyman of fundamentalist preachers. If you don't believe you'll go to Hell, why behave morally? All non-Christian societies have all had moral standards as did pre-Christian societies. Why? Because we're social animals who depend on our society as a whole functioning to preserve both the social group and the individual. Other social animals have rules too.

And at the same time, preachers say you'll be sent to heaven if you embrace Christ. Period. There's nothing in the neo-fundamentalist theology to encourage people to behave in a moral way. So go ahead! Pay a hooker to dance naked in your hotel room. Have meth-fueled gay sex with male prostitutes. Bilk your followers of millions of dollars. All will be forgiven if you cry a few crocodile tears and ask your patsies erm... followers, for forgiveness. Jesus loves a sinner!

[JamesBannon]

@Ender_Wiggin: How can god be a standard for morality when he makes everyone miserable?

[Streamwinner]

Oh God, not THIS argument again. :rolleyes:


Cosign.


1 - Morality is a social construct, not "God-given". It's something we evolved out of necessity.

2 - Without "God", we still have humanity, empathy, etc. to base our morals on. These traits are part of the human condition and exist independent of any "God".

Social construct, yes. To be more precise, morality is defined by agreement. The only reason murder is "immoral" in many societies is because many people have agreed that they don't want it around.

[Necroflange]

Happiness can be a standard for morality by looking at an overall picture.
For example: capital punishment-
It is a murder when a killing is done without (what I suppose you could call a) democratic sanction (i.e. the state has not agreed to it);
It is called justice when someone on death row is executed, because it has the tacit agreement of the populace.
Therefore: the first case promoted less happiness, whilst the second is considered moral [to some] as the intention is to promote more overall happiness.

There is no concrete foundation to morality- just what is best for creating the maximum of happiness.

Try google-ing for Utilitarianism.

[Scifinerdgrl]

The only reason murder is "immoral" in many societies is because many people have agreed that they don't want it around.

I think it's also immoral amongst elephants, fish that live in schools, ant colonies, and coral reefs.

Chimpanzees are murderers, though.

The reason we have rules against murder is because we want to do it so badly! But if we all murdered people who stepped on our toes, tailgated us on the highway, believed in the "wrong" religion, or looked at us the wrong way, the population would disappear.

[nogods4me]

... and many moral philosophers have argued that an act is good in as much as it promotes happiness.


or perhaps lessens suffering...

[Unbeatable]

how can happiness be a standard for morality when makes me happy might make you miserable?

In reality it's likely that what makes you happy doesn't make them miserable. Or to be more precise, it's likely that you're willing to settle for some sub-optimal degree of happiness that would not require others to be intolerably miserable. Therefore it is possible for you and others to reach an agreement, a compromise, which takes into account what everyone wants and delivers an outcome which is good enough for most people that they're willing to accept that rather than "every man for himself". In fact, you already have agreed to such a compromise. It's called society.

[mordred]

Atheists are a funny lot. We embrace truth to a point. We don't believe in God because the facts don't support his existence, but we won't take truth much further than that. When it comes to our own survival, we're as full of crap as everyone else. That speech in reloaded by the Merovingian was dead on. Underneath the neat surface, we're just wild animals like the rest of them. We can go but so far down the path of the question Why, before the feeling takes hold of us and turns us around.

[Unbeatable]

Underneath the neat surface, we're just wild animals like the rest of them.

Absolutely.

This is precisely why I ask you again how do you think other social species have managed to last as long as they have?

[mordred]

Other species have survived by making survival their number one priority. No laws or rules. No society. No honor. No integrity. No manners. Eat or be eaten. KILL OR BE KILLED. We want to be better than them, but at the same time, we want to survive. We talk out of both sides of our mouths.

[Joe Bloe]

Atheists are a funny lot. We embrace truth to a point. We don't believe in God because the facts don't support his existence, but we won't take truth much further than that. When it comes to our own survival, we're as full of crap as everyone else. That speech in reloaded by the Merovingian was dead on. Underneath the neat surface, we're just wild animals like the rest of them. We can go but so far down the path of the question Why, before the feeling takes hold of us and turns us around.
Huh? How is caring about our survival crap? Why can't we be wild animals who have the capability of constructing rules and principles that will likely enhance our well-being?

Are you expecting morality to be like gravity, that it is the same everywhere and for everything? Why can't it be like nutrition, very real but relative to different species and (to a lesser extent) individuals within a species? The fact that what's good for the shark is bad for the swimmer doesn't make it any less good for the shark or any less bad for the swimmer. Must morality be like mathematics and have definitive proofs, or can it be like science and have constructed theories that can be tested and supported by experience and reason but not definitively absolutely proven? The fact that we can't absolutely deduce moral principles (or scientific truths) from definitively certain axioms doesn't mean that we can't have good reasons for, or can't reasonably critique, the moral principles (or scientific theories) we come up with. How is that a refusal to embrace truth? What do you mean by 'truth'?

[Joe Bloe]

Other species have survived by making survival their number one priority. No laws or rules. No society. No honor. No integrity. No manners. Eat or be eaten. KILL OR BE KILLED. We want to be better than them, but at the same time, we want to survive. We talk out of both sides of our mouths.
You don't really think that our social laws and rules (and notions of honor, integrity, and manners) do nothing to enhance our survival, do you? You don't really think that which laws, rules, etc we have makes no difference to our ability to survive and to thrive, do you? How is that talking out of both sides of our mouths?

[engly-saxo]

If morality is an evolved concept, which would make sense in a no god universe it still carries no weight, you are left with struggle between your concept and mine. I only said what I said because the post held up practicality as a standard. There either is one or their isn't. Anything you come up with does not bind me other than your ability to inflict it upon me.

why is the evolution of morality necessary? Couldn't we survive as a species anyway? I would say it might be necessary for the development of society advance because it does practically set up a system of rules for us to operate under, but I am not certain that moral rules are necessary for pure survival.

We would have chaos otherwise.

All social species have some kind of rules, which aid in cohesion. Chimpanzees all submit to the alpha male of the troop, for example. Rules in society don't just pertain to morals.

Other species have survived by making survival their number one priority. No laws or rules. No society. No honor. No integrity. No manners. Eat or be eaten. KILL OR BE KILLED. We want to be better than them, but at the same time, we want to survive. We talk out of both sides of our mouths.

Which species? And don't animal species have an instinct for survival too?

[JamesBannon]

Other species have survived by making survival their number one priority. No laws or rules. No society. No honor. No integrity. No manners. Eat or be eaten. KILL OR BE KILLED. We want to be better than them, but at the same time, we want to survive. We talk out of both sides of our mouths.
This is just a misrepresentation of "survival of the fittest" and a particularly crude one at that.

[Streamwinner]

We would have chaos otherwise.


What's wrong with chaos? Why do we have this innate gravitation towards order and stability? Does this tie into anxiety being conditioned as an aversive stimulus? Thus, anyting that is antithetical to the survival instinct invokes anxiety?

I guess this is kinda like asking why green is green. I just find it astonishing that the one knowable constant among all species is that we pursue life and avoid death, which gets translated into things such as pursuing happiness/joy and avoiding sadness/fear.

[engly-saxo]

What's wrong with chaos?

Maybe because people gain security in order. Most animal species desire security of some sort.

[Godless Dave]

Other species have survived by making survival their number one priority. No laws or rules. No society. No honor. No integrity. No manners. Eat or be eaten. KILL OR BE KILLED.

You obviously don't know much about other social animals. Dolphins, wolves, chimpanzees, and elephants are just a few examples of animals that have rules, society, and manners.

[Unbeatable]

Other species have survived by making survival their number one priority. No laws or rules. No society.

Hold on there. My question was


how do you think other social species have managed to last as long as they have?(emphasis added)

[Ender_Wiggin]

In terms of the millions of years of survival before now, before the idea of a moralising God was even commonly discussed, it must have made sense for us to develop a sense of morality.


I would say that the "innate" sense of morality that has developed is because it is hardwired by divine design.

If I began to list atrocities I would eventually hit one that you would say is wrong/evil, but if there is no moral objective standard, then none are evil.

[Ender_Wiggin]

Happiness can be a standard for morality by looking at an overall picture.

There is no concrete foundation to morality- just what is best for creating the maximum of happiness.
.

This is a self contradicting statement.

[Ender_Wiggin]

Atheists are a funny lot. We embrace truth to a point. We don't believe in God because the facts don't support his existence, but we won't take truth much further than that. When it comes to our own survival, we're as full of crap as everyone else. That speech in reloaded by the Merovingian was dead on. Underneath the neat surface, we're just wild animals like the rest of them. We can go but so far down the path of the question Why, before the feeling takes hold of us and turns us around.


This is the essence of what I am saying. Almost everyone who has said there is no moral standard has turned around and said there is one. "happiness" "organized society" which has presuppositions about what organized means, "lessening suffering". Whatever your definition of these are they are standards for right or wrong.

[Ender_Wiggin]

I have a question, how is making someone miserable necessarily evil? Parents make children miserable for their own good all the time.

[Nexus]

Almost everyone who has said there is no moral standard has turned around and said there is one. "happiness" "organized society" which has presuppositions about what organized means, "lessening suffering". Whatever your definition of these are they are standards for right or wrong.People are saying there is no absolute objective moral standard. That's different from saying there is no standard.

[Unbeatable]

I would say that the "innate" sense of morality that has developed is because it is hardwired by divine design.

As long as you're admitting that the sense is something wired into humans, what need is there to look for a supernatural cause?

If I began to list atrocities I would eventually hit one that you would say is wrong/evil,

Care to test that hypothesis on me, or does it only go for him? You should be warned, atrocities which have already failed on me include raping babies for fun, dragging someone to death behind a pickup truck, cannibalism, and genocide.

[FatherMithras]

Morality is totally subjective. However, instincts that allow animals to survive via cooperation aren't. Thus many of our instincts allowed us to be able to work together, and our advanced cognition allowed us to further them intellectually. But, there's many different kinds of soieties, with different kinds of moralities that all work. How can anyone claim there's an absolute objective morality, when people don't feel guilty about the same things in all societies? The big ones, like murder, rape, theft, are generally all seen as bad (but not always...The Spartans taught their children to steal, and numerous tribes have no problem with murder for honor reasons, etc) because they almost never can aid in the survival of human beings.

Claiming a divinity causes morality thus is simply not intellectually sound. If morality were instilled by a god, you'd expect people to have the same morals.

[LoungeHead]

I see a lot of argument for moral relativism, but the thing is there are universal ethics or morality, even in moral relativism. Cultures and morality often seem relative or subject to cultural frameworks, but when you examine them more closely what seems morally opposing in one context, on a different level finds moral agreement. For example, an Islamic religious person might be considered as "oppressing" women by demanding specifics dress codes and therefore immoral, while a Westerner who believes in freedom of expression through apparelis consider moral for not restricting personal expression. However, on another level both ultimately believe it is moral to protect the diginity of women, even though the frameworks in which operate are morally opposing.

All cultures ultimately agree certain acts are immoral, such as rape, murder, suicide, torture... etc. Where the difference or appearance of acceptance in violation of these basic morals is how each culture defines a human being. The criteria for human being usually requires that the person behave in line with a certain rational construct or meet cultural definitions of equality. For example, a gangsta may have no compulsion in killing some guy for his shoes, because the dead guy was one of "them", and not one of his "us", which would be a person of equal definition. A terrorist has no problem killing infidels, because a human being is someone who believes in his religious or ideological dogma. In rape cases the perpetrator may simply see his victim as a sex object, rather than a person such as themself due to difference in gender definitions as equality.

I am using very broad and crude examples, and discussing cultural moral frameworks, rather than psychological frameworks, but I hope you see the point I am making: If you're only perceived as sub-human in terms of how an individual understands their own humanity as fully human, then ill-treatment can usually be justified because you do not meet their human criteria.

[engly-saxo]

I would say that the "innate" sense of morality that has developed is because it is hardwired by divine design.

Why divine? And how is morality innate?

If I began to list atrocities I would eventually hit one that you would say is wrong/evil, but if there is no moral objective standard, then none are evil.

So?

suicide,

The Japanese didn't.

[engly-saxo]

I have a question, how is making someone miserable necessarily evil? Parents make children miserable for their own good all the time.

People, in general, have an aversion to pain. Is that disputable?

[Joe Bloe]

I have a question, how is making someone miserable necessarily evil? Parents make children miserable for their own good all the time.
Even after their children are adults?

At the risk of wandering off topic: I wonder why so many religious adults tend to think of adults as children, and seem themselves to prefer being children and to want to return to childhood. In Matthew 18, Jesus said "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." What is appealing about that? Why would an adult want that?