Post AbaDOwNYeaIaxocJPM by manlycoffee@techhub.social
(DIR) More posts by manlycoffee@techhub.social
(DIR) Post #AbaCDPzAeQVXMG9TaS by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T02:36:57Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
What makes murdering morally wrong?
(DIR) Post #AbaCQ7Fhc2Lx1QwI7M by doomsdayrs@mastodon.ml
2023-11-08T02:39:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemoThe reason capitol punishment of death is done is because its convenient for the ruling class or powers there be to remove an individual then reform them.Punitive punishment doesn't "work", its cheaper.Reformative punishment always fosters better futures.Ala "An eye for an eye leaves all without sight".
(DIR) Post #AbaCUkISO85RH5R2ky by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T02:40:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@doomsdayrs I appreciate that nonsequiter, but this post is not related to capital punishment. In fact what sparked this poll is a discussion about abortion.
(DIR) Post #AbaCbhAuOR8pcUDbKS by doomsdayrs@mastodon.ml
2023-11-08T02:41:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo alright so, super funny causeI originally intended to comment on your og post, but you deleted it.Then had to find your new post.Then I only copied a portion.
(DIR) Post #AbaCgDTMFmGown0HxY by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T02:42:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@doomsdayrs you mean the pole? I had to delete it to add an option that my friend requested.
(DIR) Post #AbaCiv671lUypLQ63E by doomsdayrs@mastodon.ml
2023-11-08T02:42:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo yep, I did multiple edits cause phone copy paste shenanigans
(DIR) Post #AbaCmSl8KZRC5zIRtY by wjmaggos@liberal.city
2023-11-08T02:43:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo 2 and 3 basically. empathy. if we wouldn't want it done to us, we shouldn't do it to others.
(DIR) Post #AbaCrTDu26eAyz8nmC by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T02:44:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wjmaggos I am ok with anything but #4 myself, that one makes no sense to me.
(DIR) Post #AbaCyaC2W8Bucuf2bA by robertnorlyn@mstdn.social
2023-11-08T02:45:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo It is a violation of the social contract that is made between the self and the other. Most people are taught this in one way or another. Obviously, some never agree to the terms written for them.
(DIR) Post #AbaCzZ5m62QPV9COno by manlycoffee@techhub.social
2023-11-08T02:45:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Cynical remark: murder is only a crime, because members of society mostly (likely unanimously) agree that having oneself killed is undesirable.Want to not get killed? Go live in a society where murder is a crime with hefty penalty imposed if convicted of it.
(DIR) Post #AbaD2Xxgkuserdq3No by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T02:46:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@robertnorlyn So if i am ok with people trying to kill me, is it ok for me to kill others? I mean, contracts need to be entered into as you say.
(DIR) Post #AbaD4oEXEFXduQnU4u by robertnorlyn@mstdn.social
2023-11-08T02:46:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @doomsdayrs Abortion, of course, is about personhood. Obviously, opinions vary.
(DIR) Post #AbaD6rPaNoqILTwbR2 by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T02:46:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@manlycoffee Im less concerned with if its a crime, and more concerned with whena nd why it is ethically wrong (if it is)
(DIR) Post #AbaDAnCDzx8SQhZNU8 by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T02:47:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@robertnorlyn While ultimately it may define personhood, thats a legal term, and isnt really whats being asked.. im asking when/why its wrong, not when someone has a particular legal status.@doomsdayrs
(DIR) Post #AbaDG75ZSttRZczivg by robertnorlyn@mstdn.social
2023-11-08T02:48:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo No, not that simplistic. The contract doesn’t mean “mirrored.” It just means what is the agreement for a specific scenario.
(DIR) Post #AbaDNSgrY94mb2wQj2 by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T02:49:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@robertnorlyn that just sounds like a round about way of refering to law, or at least our cultural assumptions.. namely that society deems it so. But thats not what is being asked. I am not asking what society allows, or the law. I am asking why it is **morally** wrong **to you** (if it is).
(DIR) Post #AbaDOwNYeaIaxocJPM by manlycoffee@techhub.social
2023-11-08T02:50:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo ok, with that context, I went with "The suffering it will cause"
(DIR) Post #AbaDXo30zyfPjNEfkO by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T02:51:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@manlycoffee Fair.Me and @realcaseyrollins basically were debating. I thought most people would see murder as wrong because of one of the reasons listed 1 - 3 that deal with thought (things that require a brain in some sense)... he seemed to think it would be #4, thats its just wrong cause its a human (and thus fetuses <10 weeks old and brain dead humans would still be wrong to kill).
(DIR) Post #AbaDe3VQRELDPYVKG8 by robertnorlyn@mstdn.social
2023-11-08T02:52:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @doomsdayrs You will get many answers for that question also. My answer is that it is a circumstantial question. Many agree that taking a viable life is wrong. But, it is important to ask yourself if there is a point where that doesn’t matter.I imagine that is why the “human” entry is in the poll?
(DIR) Post #AbaDt2gBnDwlBxgXVw by robertnorlyn@mstdn.social
2023-11-08T02:55:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo I’m actually not talking about law at all. There’s morality, which is a personally developed matter. There’s ethics, which are frameworks intended to explain morality. And laws are informed by ethics. But I am talking philosophy here. Maybe, I’m being too jargony.
(DIR) Post #AbaDtq5k50VARP18e8 by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T02:55:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@robertnorlyn I do expect a good deal of variation in nuance int he answers...My supposition was that most people will answer with 1 - 3, basically that the immorality of murder has some link to the human mind, it is the extinguishing of the mind that is immoral, if there is no mind there is no immorality to it.If a human had its head cut off but somehow was kept alive on life support I cant see any immorality on any level in killing it.however @realcaseyrollins seemed to think people would likely answer "because its human" which seems to suggest a more metaphysical answer. But I doubted that would be most non-religious peoples reasoning.@doomsdayrs
(DIR) Post #AbaDzrLELVWM3S8H4a by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T02:56:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@robertnorlyn No jargon is fine, sometimes its needed. So we are talking ethics and morality here specifically, not philosophy except so far as it involves those two points.
(DIR) Post #AbaEV9OVHAqx1OaHVw by robertnorlyn@mstdn.social
2023-11-08T03:02:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean. Those are the points I am addressing. Morality isn’t philosophy, yes. There are no good answers for morality. From my ethical perspective it’s your contract with the subject. This is typically guided by your morality.Based upon one’s understanding they may change their perspective. Like, plants feel pain may shift a moral perspective on a matter. Or the viable life versus an existing one. Save the mother before a “possibility.”
(DIR) Post #AbaEjR2UT9grnh6DD7 by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T03:05:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@robertnorlyn Ok the contract is "we agree not to kill eachother".. pressuming we are talking about someone that is completely incapable of posing any risk to you, what would be your reason to agreeing to enter into such a contract? Would it be wrong for me to reject such a contract? Why am I obligated to agree to such a contract at all?
(DIR) Post #AbaGVDbZotlJzPrKoC by robertnorlyn@mstdn.social
2023-11-08T03:24:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Talking about a risk assessment between yourself and some harmless other is meaningless.If harm is presented to others from them then you may be compelled to mitigate said harm.You are only obligated to agree on the basis of your morality. Anyone is also entitled to disagree with your decision.
(DIR) Post #AbaGdkjKXtHr2eYUq0 by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T03:26:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@robertnorlyn So you are saying the only reason you should do it is risk assement? Ok so if no one is obligated to agree, and there is no risk, then is it morally ok?
(DIR) Post #AbaGkOHEQNc7QoZsEy by robertnorlyn@mstdn.social
2023-11-08T03:27:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Also, my real answer to your poll is a combination of all of the first three options. The last one is not a good answer.
(DIR) Post #AbaGpWHE6mYlgt1MNk by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T03:28:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@robertnorlyn So that was basically my assumption that any of 1-3 is valid, #4 isnt
(DIR) Post #AbaGpfnogyybEZL0vg by freepeoplesfreepress@qoto.org
2023-11-08T03:28:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @manlycoffee @realcaseyrollins Dear Dr. Freemo: I say: "1. Sentient thought is wrong to kill." Sincerely, Monica Andrews, Editor-in-chief, #FreePeoplesFreePress News
(DIR) Post #AbaHAwnOhtMs1EHnto by robertnorlyn@mstdn.social
2023-11-08T03:32:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo #Yes, I agree.
(DIR) Post #AbaHDUJl2nXWZ3dMdU by robertnorlyn@mstdn.social
2023-11-08T03:32:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo No, making decisions without basis is kind of moot.I don’t have good answers for morality. Some people claim it’s a rational being’s trait. Others claim it’s a natural instinct created by hedonism. I kind of like the complexity of the greater social organism.
(DIR) Post #AbaIHdXimqS4HwhvGK by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T03:44:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@robertnorlyn For me morality/ethics are simple in principle, complex in application.In principle that which is moral is that which minimizes net suffering and maximizes net happiness (net being the total effect in the world).Simple to define, and even objective (as happiness and suffering is, in theory, measurable in ones brain).In practice though actually figuring what will or will not have that result isnt always easy :)
(DIR) Post #AbaRtgFk3h5HHjVsNU by AncientGood@qoto.org
2023-11-08T05:32:42Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@freemo interesting way to put it, #1 also seems to cover a lot of animals too, surprised that it is not in the leadgood poll! I put way more time thinking of it than just click and scroll :D
(DIR) Post #AbaS2ghhkd0PI2t5Qu by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T05:34:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@AncientGood Thanks. It was really a bit of a test to see if people picked 1-3 vs 4, though seeing the 1-3 breakdown is also interesting.
(DIR) Post #AbaU5Bao4uf3Zqyp3w by lonelyowl@freespeechextremist.com
2023-11-08T05:57:12.923531Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @AncientGood Fourth is human supremacist, second is i think a subset of first, and third makes "morally wrong" only murders that causes suffering, murders causing no suffering are allowed :thonk:
(DIR) Post #AbajQV9C4Ie5cPgbmC by dashrandom@kopiti.am
2023-11-08T08:49:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo violation of social contract theory where one's freedom to kill infringes upon another's freedom to live.
(DIR) Post #AbbFLttXpKzFSPDU6i by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-11-08T14:46:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo I would add a fifth option: "because it's ugly". Meaning that to live in a reality where the willfull killing of thinking beings is justifiable is simply much less beautiful than the reality where we consider life to be sacred.
(DIR) Post #AbbIcC4WJS0GKOoLTs by fuat2mb@theres.life
2023-11-08T15:23:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo what happened to 🎵"because the Bible tells me so" 🎵
(DIR) Post #AbbOVn139mYubcW8XY by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T16:29:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Clementulus So if I happened to find murder more beautiful, would that be ok too.. beauty, being subjective, is it a useful motive?
(DIR) Post #AbbP7uN4G7EAQBzaQS by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T16:36:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dashrandom So what exactly is that "social contract"... Do I have to sign the contract or is it automatic? Which contracts am I automatically enrolled in and what qualifies them as such?
(DIR) Post #AbbazaSpaVgpoXUEwS by customdesigned@qoto.org
2023-11-08T18:49:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo 1. "sentient" means "feeling", this would include mammals, which feel like us, and even plants, which undergo hormonal responses analogous to mammalian emotions. 2. "intelligent" means "choosing between". This is presumably what is meant by "will". Intelligence (free will) is incompatible with a materialist universe - where every event stems from a chain of causation.3. "suffering" - this is the primary means of human and animal learning. Parents, government, dog trainers, all inflict measured suffering ("chastisement") to attempt to curb destructive behaviours.4. This is a nice objective criterion - but not exactly a moral argument. It does imply a moral argument from authority. In Genesis 1, God puts mankind in authority over the rest of creation. Even while tending your garden, you end some plant life to enhance other plant life. In Genesis 9, this authority is extended to include ending an animal's life for food, and ending a human life for murder ("whoso sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed").
(DIR) Post #AbbfQZiEtDET7QomS8 by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-11-08T19:39:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo all motives are based on subjective criteria. Justification for any action is ultimately a statement about what sort of reality you believe we should live in. Sartre writes about freedom causing anguish for this very reason. Killers always justify their actions in terms of "doing what is right or necessary" and real world conflicts are usually spoken about as good vs evil, light vs dark, true-human vs. Sub-human. Ultimately it is all statements about Beauty; the beautifull reality is one where light triumphs over the dark, where good has overcome evil, where the less-than-humans (read: terrorists) are erradicated and only the pure (read: us and ours) are all that remain. If you were to think that way you would be joining probably the majority of people as they currently view the world (at least consciously). I do think, however, that with a little serious reflection, most people would realize that the reality where life is sacred is far more beautiful, but to sustain that belief in a conflict ridden world is another matter altogether.
(DIR) Post #AbbgcKlCPJnSAsNDSS by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T19:52:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Clementulus > all motives are based on subjective criteria. Justification for any action is ultimately a statement about what sort of reality you believe we should live in.I am asking what is morally just, not what motivates you. I am also not asking what reality you want to live in, I am asking what is morally right. A person may want to live in an immoral society, that doesnt make it moral.> Killers always justify their actions in terms of "doing what is right or necessary" and real world conflicts are usually spoken about as good vs evil, light vs dark, true-human vs. Sub-human. Ultimately it is all statements about Beauty;I cant agree with that. I can think of plenty of ugly things which are objectively morally right and beatuiful things that are objectively morally wrong. Even though the beauty itself is subjective.
(DIR) Post #AbbzkjatrEqAdoH8Ay by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-11-08T23:26:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo I am also talking about morals. We always choose what our morals are. For instance, at one time, most people in our society found it morally wrong to have sex outside of wedlock but many nowadays no longer see this as immoral; following that thread though, many people even back then would *say* that they believed that extra-marital sex was immoral so that they would be seen as a moral person by the rest of their society; but they would still practice it in secret. Of those that did it in secret, some would repent their actions, believing they had made a mistake and therefore still believe it immoral even though they did it; but others simply did not think it wrong at all and so to them it was clearly not immoral. Same can be applied to any moral question: different people will see different things as moral / immoral and they will not necessarily be forthright about their beliefs, depending on prevailing social attitudes.Nothing humans can come up with can be considered "objectively moral" since no one is an objective observer of the universe. The closest we could come would be something like "divinely moral" by believing that the universe has a divine purpose which would necessitate certain behaviors to fulfil that purpose. How to discover that purpose would be a spiritual question.
(DIR) Post #Abc0HTttEADlWYlxbs by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-08T23:32:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Clementulus While we can choose our morals, the morals we choose are not nessecarly ethical (what I mean when I say moral, not our **choice** of morals, but whether a particular more is ethical or not).My guess is you are of the opinion (which i find incorrect, but it is common) that morals are objective. Your choice of them may be subjective, but what is or is not moral/ethical/right is objective.The measure is quite simple, and similarly objective. That which is ethical is that which reduces net suffering (or to put it another way increases net happiness). While it may not be easy to determine before hand if a particular adoption of a moral rule will fit that, in the end it is objectively measurable as either ethical or not based on its results.With the correct technology all it would require would be an mri to objectively measure how happy people are and one could, in theory, objectively measure the net result.
(DIR) Post #Abc2ErBoNmmQnG21mC by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-11-08T23:54:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo its true that your choice of morals will depend on your ethical framework and how you interpret it, but that itself is a choice. you reference utilitarianism as what you would choose but even within that ethic there is huge margin for interpretation. How do you measure relative happiness / suffering? There are many things that would make me happy that other people dont care about while many things I can easily tolerate other people find insufferable; not to mention state of mind: should we brave-new-world ourselves into chemical bliss so that we can all be maximally happy? Also are we considering only currently living persons or do we consider future generations as well? If so, how many? Do we include only our own species, all species or only some arbitrary number of them? I dont expect you to answer all those questions, I was just demonstrating that even a single ethical standpoint could yeild wildly different morals, none of which are "objective" as you correctly point out. Which comes back to why I mention Beauty, because the experience of beauty, while subjective, provides the best overall guiding principle for determinig ethical frameworks and their moral outcomes; I do find that when you seriously discuss with people what is beautiful, humans seem to have rather similar experiences of it which is why when someone exemplifies a beautifully lived life, other people are more likely to change their outlook to match that one rather than another.
(DIR) Post #Abc3OYbiQRds0nKym0 by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-09T00:07:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Clementulus For starters its important to note moral intent (the intention to create net-happiness) is distinct from moral action (the results of our actions). Below we discuss mostly moral actions, not intent.> How do you measure relative happiness / suffering?Well we dont have the technology to do so, but to objectively measure it is possible in theory if we had an MRI with high enough resolution and a computer with sufficient computing power to analyze it and quantify it. Just because we dont have the ability to measure a quantity objectively yet doesnt make it any less objective.> There are many things that would make me happy that other people dont care about while many things I can easily tolerate other people find insufferable;That doesnt make the measure any less objective, it only makes the actions which are moral rely on the context. A particular action may make some people happy and others suffer, but so long as the net result is more happiness than suffering then the act is moral.> Also are we considering only currently living persons or do we consider future generations as well?We are considering all of the future. An action may be moral in the short term but turn out to me immoral in the long term. And while it would be impractical to measure it doesnt make it any less objective as it is, measurable in theory.> If so, how many?Infinite, the morality of an action will forever be in flux, but objectively measurable at any moment.> should we brave-new-world ourselves into chemical bliss so that we can all be maximally happy?I would posit that using drugs to make everyone happy would be unsuccessful and would instead result in a net loss long term by not being able to reach the same levels of happiness we could without drugs, and in fact with most modern drugs would long term result in suffering.> Do we include only our own species, all species or only some arbitrary number of them?All species, all of time, and all of space (should we ever interact beyond our planet).> I dont expect you to answer all those questions, I was just demonstrating that even a single ethical standpoint could yeild wildly different morals, none of which are "objective" as you correctly point out. They were all quite trivial to answer and were consider in my original statement, so no worries. And as I pointed out all of them were answered objectively.
(DIR) Post #Abc3PqK62n5DFJi2Pw by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-09T00:07:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ClementulusFor starters its important to note moral intent (the intention to create net-happiness) is distinct from moral action (the results of our actions). Below we discuss mostly moral actions, not intent. How do you measure relative happiness / suffering?Well we dont have the technology to do so, but to objectively measure it is possible in theory if we had an MRI with high enough resolution and a computer with sufficient computing power to analyze it and quantify it.Just because we dont have the ability to measure a quantity objectively yet doesnt make it any less objective. There are many things that would make me happy that other people dont care about while many things I can easily tolerate other people find insufferable;That doesnt make the measure any less objective, it only makes the actions which are moral rely on the context. A particular action may make some people happy and others suffer, but so long as the net result is more happiness than suffering then the act is moral. Also are we considering only currently living persons or do we consider future generations as well?We are considering all of the future. An action may be moral in the short term but turn out to me immoral in the long term. And while it would be impractical to measure it doesnt make it any less objective as it is, measurable in theory. If so, how many?Infinite, the morality of an action will forever be in flux, but objectively measurable at any moment. should we brave-new-world ourselves into chemical bliss so that we can all be maximally happy?I would posit that using drugs to make everyone happy would be unsuccessful and would instead result in a net loss long term by not being able to reach the same levels of happiness we could without drugs, and in fact with most modern drugs would long term result in suffering. Do we include only our own species, all species or only some arbitrary number of them?All species, all of time, and all of space (should we ever interact beyond our planet). I dont expect you to answer all those questions, I was just demonstrating that even a single ethical standpoint could yeild wildly different morals, none of which are “objective” as you correctly point out.They were all quite trivial to answer and were consider in my original statement, so no worries. And as I pointed out all of them were answered objectively.
(DIR) Post #Abc4sgapOou1Q8qvPk by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-11-09T00:24:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo But you do see that that framework for an ethic is itself a subjective choice? Because the weight you give to those various factors changes the morals drastically. If Thanos appeared tomorrow and said that the most intelligent supercomputer in the galaxy predicted that humanity would be extinguished in 1000 years but if he instanly vaporizes all but 1000 select individuals that we would regain our population and humanity would then go on to thrive for 100 000 years, he could claim the moral right to do so using a utilitarian ethic by citing all the immense happiness that the unborn trillions would be denied if he allowed the current billions to keep on living. Also, it is actually not entirely logical to posit that happiness could be proven to be objective if a hypothetical machine existed to measure it properly (you can't prove something based on a hypothetical).
(DIR) Post #Abc5g6fNFR78TWXotE by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-09T00:33:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Clementulus But you do see that that framework for an ethic is itself a subjective choice?Choosing to adopt the perspective the earth is flat is subjective. If the earth is flat or not is objective.Same for moral frameworks, your choice of one is subjective. If it it correctly represents good and evil is objective. Because the weight you give to those various factors changes the morals drastically.What factors, there was only one factor, all the other questions you listed werent factors, they were attempts at narrowing the scope, there is no narrowing it, it is absolute. If Thanos appeared tomorrow and said that the most intelligent supercomputer in the galaxy predicted that humanity would be extinguished in 1000 years but if he instanly vaporizes all but 1000 select individuals that we would regain our population and humanity would then go on to thrive for 100 000 years, he could claim the moral right to do so using a utilitarian ethic by citing all the immense happiness that the unborn trillions would be denied if he allowed the current billions to keep on living.As long as that computer is guaranteed to be correct, then yes thanos would be doing the moral thing. However if there is any possibility such a system could be wrong then thanos would be exercising moral intent, not moral action. Also, it is actually not entirely logical to posit that happiness could be proven to be objective if a hypothetical machine existed to measure it properly (you can’t prove something based on a hypothetical).Yes it is a hypothesis till proven, and must be true for my stance to work. I think for most who understand the brain know these things are quantifiable by the chemical state of the system. But until it is demonstrated it is certainly free to be debated.
(DIR) Post #Abc6523vVDlXR4uk9w by Bradley_JF@mastodon.online
2023-11-09T00:37:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo by murdering, you mean as opposed to killing?
(DIR) Post #Abc6vROqXlzz4ogpLE by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-09T00:47:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Bradley_JF I am using killing and murder interchangeably here.
(DIR) Post #AbcEgfpNPzFX76ZIy8 by Bradley_JF@mastodon.online
2023-11-09T02:14:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo but they're not interchangeable. They're very different concepts.
(DIR) Post #AbcGy8r4wpBZyJp0qG by admitsWrongIfProven@qoto.org
2023-11-09T02:39:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Hmm, i just saw the notification "What makes murdering morally wrong?". (the poll). And i just pointed you towards the BOFH. What have i done? Well, probably the right thing.
(DIR) Post #AbcH27dpP0LjMkWPyq by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-09T02:40:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@admitsWrongIfProven no errors were dewtected!
(DIR) Post #AbcHMoKiNwOfZ0RloW by admitsWrongIfProven@qoto.org
2023-11-09T02:44:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo "having attended a course in communication"... BOFH is a nice escape from pretending to be well adjusted, is it not?
(DIR) Post #AbcHR0B8HnDfSZxmyW by admitsWrongIfProven@qoto.org
2023-11-09T02:44:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Love people, but patterns people follow, no reason to love those.
(DIR) Post #AbcHUBNL732P3UBoqu by admitsWrongIfProven@qoto.org
2023-11-09T02:45:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Good night, skeletor will be back with more inane shit! :-)
(DIR) Post #AbcIbF75iIKWd5WJ16 by mjambon@qoto.org
2023-11-09T02:57:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo I could list other reasons:- because it's a net loss for society (it's destructive: there's very little gain for the murderer compared to the cost of making another human being)- because it makes all of us feel threatened (and we care about not dying)- cannibalism is frowned upon so what's the point of murder?
(DIR) Post #AbcJt4mKyavrk9scts by ech@qoto.org
2023-11-09T03:12:23Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@lonelyowl @AncientGood @freemo good analysis.(I picked 4 because I'm a "human supremacist".)
(DIR) Post #AbcLUE63OY8xJNNfY8 by lonelyowl@freespeechextremist.com
2023-11-09T03:30:19.097061Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ech @AncientGood @freemo I picked first because i'm a bird and interested in bird's rights in the first place 🙂
(DIR) Post #Abd2y89ANPrTZiLI5A by dashrandom@kopiti.am
2023-11-09T11:37:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo it's a long explanation (considering the course at university was 4 months long) but basically it's an assumed contract that all humans agree to. It's what our definitions of right and wrong is based on. You are unknowingly taught it through the education system, through morals and customs.The basic premise is that the freedom of one's right to choice is only valid so long as it does not infringe upon another's right to choice.If you want the full unabridged version though...
(DIR) Post #AbdSrcPs2E9KEdi9jc by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-11-09T16:27:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo who decided what "objective good and evil" are and why should we listen to them? What is the source of their authority?
(DIR) Post #AbdSxqFxUTZitg2gsK by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-09T16:28:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Clementulus > who decided what "objective good and evil" are and why should we listen to them? What is the source of their authority?Nature did, their source of authority is by creating us and instilling happiness and suffering as our fundamental motivators.
(DIR) Post #Abf9abDxhihannERhg by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-11-10T12:01:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Nature created animals that fulfil their needs by killing each other, sometimes their own young. They are driven to do so by their instincts. Humans are not without instinicts and desires that would cause harm to others if acted upon. Nature clearly demonstrates that it cares not for happiness only survival of the fittest. If nature came up with the idea of maximizing happiness across all species, why would it make violent creatures (including humans)
(DIR) Post #AbfQzvdEfGQIYViWe0 by freemo@qoto.org
2023-11-10T15:16:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Clementulus I never claimed instincts are moral.. I said we have an awareness of happiness and suffering specifically.