Why is murder wrong?

[Gesundheit]

@28 cm unbuffed No, that's not what I meant. Wrong and right, just like bad and good, are concepts of your own creation. You kill millions of bacteria every time you wash your hands, yet you don't think about karma or view hygiene as stupid. Bias is inherent in life. If you stopped being biased you'd die. Having morality serves you because it creates a relatively safer, or better put a more stable environment than the original 'survival for the fittest' environment. Your survival is enhanced by morality, so it's not a bug but a feature. That's not to make morality a limitation for your potential, you can definitely break it whenever you want. Just understand what morality is. Have a direct consciousness of what it actually is, and you'll understand.

Edited July 13, 2020 by Gesundheit

[28 cm unbuffed]

@Gesundheit Sounds pretty fucking interesting, could you please briefly explain it using murder example?

[Gesundheit]

@28 cm unbuffed What are your thoughts on self-defence? Would you murder an attacker or not?

[28 cm unbuffed]

@Gesundheit I get it, if it was for my survival, then my logic is that it was the right thing to do. Right?

[Gesundheit]

@28 cm unbuffed I don't know what your logic is. Maybe you would let the attacker go, or call the police, or maybe you'd let him kill you. I don't know. You determine what's right and what's wrong.

[Boethius]

@Vagos In killing this person your friend would become a murderer. It's one thing to engage in abstract, intellectual thought experiments on these sorts of topics, but watch some videos made by former US soldiers who took lives in Iraq or Afghanistan to see what murder does to a person.

Edited July 13, 2020 by Boethius

[Opo]

How many times can i press it before inflation kicks in? 

Edit: fck money this is impossible. 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Opo

[Apparition of Jack]

@Opo 14

[Carl-Richard]

Murder can be wrong relative to a set of beliefs/constraints, but it's not wrong in an absolute sense. Here she has chosen the belief that needless suffering is wrong, which constrains whether or not she thinks it's ok to murder someone, and it's all relative. Needless suffering is not wrong in an absolute sense. You can keep adding different constraints ad nauseum to justify your actions, but the absolute cannot be constrained. An additional common belief that is relevant in this case is the idea that someone's potential future positive experiences have some value, and to kill them would be to rob them from those experiences. Granted, they won't necessarily experience the suffering associated with acknowledging that fact, but it's still a valid point nonetheless.

Edited July 13, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Nak Khid]

On 7/13/2020 at 3:19 AM, Vagos said:

 

Her: So why wouldn't that apply in the future event of them painlessly killing a homeless person with no human connections? Basically isn't that as well an act of Love from their perspective? Why would that be a scenario to be avoided? Isn't destroying the whole Earth really an act of unconditional Love as much as it is to save it? 

At this point I had to admit that she was right since I did not see a mistake in her thought process but for some reason I'm still not convinced that this is the case.

Would love to hear @Leo Gura 's opinion on this. Thanks!

Suppose there was a belligerent homeless person who slept in your yard.  You kick them out but they keep returning night after night,
They smell and the go to the bathroom on your lawn and leave garbage there
And the police are not doing anything about it, or maybe there are just no police around at all. 
The homeless person has told you they have no relatives that care about them. 
So she saying murdering them would be justified and philanthropic 

 

[Display_Name]

32 minutes ago, Myioko said:

No. What’s the difference between killing someone directly, and killing someone on purpose indirectly? 

Maybe I just lack a sense of humour but I always answer seriously to these types of questions. I remember when I was in 2nd grade we all asked each other ‘would you rather cut off a limb, or never use the computer again?’ and everyone besides me chose cut off a limb. I was like, seriously you guys?! 

Maybe killing someone without connections isn’t inherently bad, but I feel like it goes against all that is beautiful in the world, like knocking down an ancient historical building. It’s very destructive and chaotic.

So what about all the people dying that you could have saved with 100 million?

Was that one life worth more to you?

Do you think there is an effective difference in your responsibility?

[Moon]

26 minutes ago, Display_Name said:

So what about all the people dying that you could have saved with 100 million?

there's a difference between ACTIVELY killing someone (murder) rather than passively knowing people are dying (not murder) 

But I guess in the absolute sense, it's all "love" 

[Moon]

17 minutes ago, Myioko said:

Sometimes I get bothered by the thought that others and myself don’t do more with their time, choices, and money to help people and animals who are passively dying, by our indirect actions.

Anyone have thoughts on this?

Better yourself to better society  

Only getting bothered by the thought but not bettering yourself isn't gonna make a difference, right?

There's also a big issue with people throwing money at charities that don't solve such issues from the root cause too 

[Nak Khid]

2 hours ago, Moon said:

there's a difference between ACTIVELY killing someone (murder) rather than passively knowing people are dying (not murder) 

But I guess in the absolute sense, it's all "love" 

So is murder love ?

Not "love" . love without the quotes

Edited July 17, 2020 by Nak Khid

[Moon]

1 hour ago, Nak Khid said:

So is murder love ?

No

[Nak Khid]

Definition of wrong

 wrong

1a: an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause

[Roy]

Murder is great if you're the murderer and you benefit from killing someone!

Murder sucks quite a bit if you're the one getting killed.

It's relative! Right and wrong are simply from whatever perspective you currently occupy.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Roy

[Nak Khid]

 

 

On 7/13/2020 at 3:19 AM, Vagos said:

 

 

Her: Since death seen from a non-dual perspective can not be regarded as something wrong or bad and that since for something to be wrong or bad it has to produce and be connected with suffering and pain, usual death is only bad for the people left behind that lose their loved one and not for the victim itself. Therefore in the hypothetical scenario that the individual does not have any friends/family left behind there is nothing wrong with killing them.

 

It is also wrong to kill somebody and deprive them from living the rest of their life,
even if you kill them by a painless method 
the obvious answer to this 

Edited July 17, 2020 by Nak Khid

[Display_Name]

3 hours ago, Moon said:

there's a difference between ACTIVELY killing someone (murder) rather than passively knowing people are dying (not murder) 

But I guess in the absolute sense, it's all "love" 

Of course that’s our automatic response to absolve responsibility and retain self image. But I wouldn’t be quite so sure about it. In both cases you have power of someone’s continued life or death. 

In the end, life is a game of sacrifice. Other things die for us to live, whether we’re conscious of it or not.

[seriousman24]

Let me start of by mentioning that I'm a lower form of life aka stage orange so I can't be responsible for what I'm typing

You can just ignore all concepts and all patterns of physical reality and replace them with the inner abstraction of pleasure and pain; just make being murdered pleasurable in all it's complex dimensional detail(physical/mental/emotional) and murdering pleasurable.

I will leave the feasibility/stability/logic of it for you to figure out, one of the questions I always asked myself was if it was possible for sentience to act the exact same way if all pain was replaced with different shades of pleasure since it sounds like a nice design but yeah I guess it really is all a spiral, it's scary how it goes on for infinity anything can be broken at any level

Murder and being murdered should be fun but I guess it isn't because there really are reasons if you wanna call it that; it might not be possible to have this much diversity of "others" if it was majorly just shades of pleasure driving our actions instead of pain which seems more "defined";

what would sentience be like in a dimension with only pleasure versus one with only pain is that even possible; it seems like a sentience submerged in a pleasure realm might instantly lose consciousness and therefore be forced to awake in a less pleasurable one while the pain one wouldn't be even able to exist physically for a single moment; anyway I'm really sorry for the disjointed thoughts I'll stop here