What is the most fundamental of humanity?

[screendrop]

Without sounding insane, consider, if you will, murder. The word murder is both an eponym and also, a verb. It describes an illegal practice, considered fundamentally wrong and also, against the ingrained values humans consider worthy of pursuing. Consider it though, in its entirety. Remove social bias', convention, definition and you are left with an act.

A simple act.

Now, moving away from the psycho, on a broader level, consider society. WHat is it about humans that causes them to act in ways that are deemed acceptable to one another. Murder and other "wrongs" are abstracts of our animalistic, primordial nature. Take away what is human, what is "civilized" and what is one left with?

What part of humanity says murder is wrong? Rhetorically, it is empathy, morality, humanity. But moving again boarder, what aspects of humanity, of human existential purposes, are universal?

[KakeiTheWolf]

The problem with murder is that it's not pragmatic. It's a destructive act, not a constructive act. It can't create, it can only destroy. In that sense, it isn't useful.

 

If any two things can define a human, they are love and hatred. From these, all emotional thought forms.

[screendrop]

A fair enough deduction, but creation is only positive is human context, progressive existentialism is only seen as progressive because as humans we are accustomed to the the edged linearity of time and dimensionality, what if one were to step outside of this? I suppose my question isn't "what does it mean to be human" but more that, why and what are the sources of our conventionalism?

[WarRatsG]

Suppose it comes down to survival, both individually and as a species, and how best to accomplish it. Humans, ironically, are not well adapted to violence towards other humans, because if we were then we would have killed off most of the communal group we depended upon as cavemen. I dont remember.the exact figure, but close to 90% of all people cannot look you in the eye when attacking. A similar number is nearly incapable (psychologically) of initiating combat. Violence itself can be categorized in 4 ways: Corrective, territorial, criminal and predatory.

Corrective and territorial are usually between people who know each other and overlap quite heavily. They are disputes, and generally result only in superficial injuries, because if we killed someone we argued with then there would be very little group cohesion. We inflict violence but not so much that they can no longer contribute to the group. I suppose this kind of violence is oriented for the survival of a species.

The other 2 are concerned with individual gain. Such violence is based on efficiency over limitation. This is why muggers generally operate in packs and carry weapons - both confer an immediate advantage.

[Deleted1205226User]

[...] what are the sources of our conventionalism?

Survival ?

[kvnchrist]

Did what Dr. Kevorkian did murder?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian

 

Some say yes and others say no?

 

Is collateral damage murder when there seems to be a attitude that some deaths are acceptable to rid u of enemies like the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

 

I don't think it really is a standard, but an attempt to claim one has a Superior moral ideal than others.

[Vagrant0]

Murder is wrong for the simple reason that humans care about eachother and tend to hold a lasting grudge against those who harm their family or clan. Outlawing murder, just like outlawing theft became necessary for any group of people to be able to live long enough together without those familial bonds. Afterall, death of a member of a group who others were dependent on, could have dire consequences and greatly weaken that group's chances of survival... Above and beyond the strife caused when those around that person come seeking vengeance. Finally, there is the cost to self, the act of taking a life has a profound effect on a person's psyche, either driving them to take more lives as a part of them gets caught in the feeling, or filling them with regret for the destruction they have wrought; ultimately limiting their ability to function within any society.

 

No death is ever a trivial matter.

[Tidus44]

Without sounding insane, consider, if you will, murder. The word murder is both an eponym and also, a verb. It describes an illegal practice, considered fundamentally wrong and also, against the ingrained values humans consider worthy of pursuing. Consider it though, in its entirety. Remove social bias', convention, definition and you are left with an act.

A simple act.

Now, moving away from the psycho, on a broader level, consider society. WHat is it about humans that causes them to act in ways that are deemed acceptable to one another. Murder and other "wrongs" are abstracts of our animalistic, primordial nature. Take away what is human, what is "civilized" and what is one left with?

What part of humanity says murder is wrong? Rhetorically, it is empathy, morality, humanity. But moving again boarder, what aspects of humanity, of human existential purposes, are universal?

 

Universal morality?

Not likely, pretty much any and every taboo held today has been an accepted practice somewhere at some time by some culture; and some are still practiced in some locations even now. With ever changing social mores, such activities may (or may not) become accepted practices again.

 

Murder has been an accepted practice for quite some time and by more than just a few cultures or societies. If not for some outside influence interfering or identifying such an activity is "wrong", the practice would likely still be going on today, and in fact it does in some places in the world.

 

While there are some points identifying the inhibitions of polite society, they are not the only reasoning or possible outcomes. Simply, life is pretty cheap in most parts of the world and even those societies we like to think are "civilized" aren't exactly the pinnacle of virtue or morality, including when it comes to murder.

[RGMage2]

Family. The bonds between family members are universal within our species, be it mother and child or father and son, where such bonds exist life has value. Acceptable behaviour of family members towards each other is the origin of ethics, morality and law. Our willingness to extend this behaviour beyond the family is what allows us to co-exist, to grow our civilization and to evolve.

[screendrop]

Murder is wrong for the simple reason that humans care about eachother and tend to hold a lasting grudge against those who harm their family or clan. Outlawing murder, just like outlawing theft became necessary for any group of people to be able to live long enough together without those familial bonds. Afterall, death of a member of a group who others were dependent on, could have dire consequences and greatly weaken that group's chances of survival... Above and beyond the strife caused when those around that person come seeking vengeance. Finally, there is the cost to self, the act of taking a life has a profound effect on a person's psyche, either driving them to take more lives as a part of them gets caught in the feeling, or filling them with regret for the destruction they have wrought; ultimately limiting their ability to function within any society.

 

No death is ever a trivial matter.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, is it that murder is fundamentally wrong, as expressed by the impact on one's psyche, or it is a self actualized "deviation" from that which we perceive to be wrong? I largely consider human convention as an expression of ones own existential identity, rather than it be an axiomatically accepted thing. Murder is not apodeitically wrong. Evolutionism says that murder/killing is almost critical to the continual survival of any given population group, unless a parasitic relationship is formed. Say murder is performed in a vacuum, no convention, no psyche, no extrinsic ties to any other given sentient being, is there, in that case, anything integrally wrong with said act?