What is the most fundamental of humanity?

[Vagrant0]

 

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?

 

I think we need to take a step back here. There is no such thing as that vacuum. Killing of animals, if one is to consider that murder, is usually done for either food or self defense, atleast from an evolutionary standpoint. Killing of other members of the same species also stems from this standpoint (defense of self or kin, or protection of those things related to survival). Except in cases of disease (physical or mental) or abuse, animals or even people do not kill just for the sake of killing, for entertainment, or without any underlying purpose or motive. Reason being that if there was no benefit, trying to kill something has some level of risk of injury, loss of resources, or energy spent, so is contrary to survival impulses. As it is contrary to survival impulses, it is contrary to procreation, evolution, and if it has some intrinsic or genetic cause, quickly removes itself from the genepool of any species. Even ritual murder or genocide has some motive to it.

 

The cost to self is another matter, and is arguably one of those things that is there, but that usually isn't admitted, or is hidden behind lies or justification. Any "normal" person who has killed another person, be it friend or foe, will remember the act for the rest of their days. We can get bogged down with philosophic arguments till the end of time, but the fact of the matter is that nobody comes into this world as a murderer. When someone kills, there is usually some sort of shock to their system as their brain tries to process the experience... Just like when doing anything else for the first time. Similarly, it causes people to dwell on it until their mind can come to terms with it, or to try and do it more and more to either prolong that feeling or to try and work through that feeling of shock by repetition.

 

"normal" being anyone who isn't Psychotic, brainwashed, or otherwise cognitively removed from their own actions.

[JimboUK]

Empathy is what sets us apart and it's those lacking it who are responsible for a lot of suffering in the world.

[WarRatsG]

The vacuum idea sounds pretty nihilistic. And a nihilist interpretation of murder would be, as with everything else, that it's not right or wrong. Illogical maybe, but still is only the movement of molecules.

 

I'm not a nihilist. There's more to life than a cluster of organic molecules. And because of that, murder is more than a structural/chemical alteration. Murder transcends science.

[HeyYou]

Actually, there ARE people out there that kill for entertainment...... I will grant, they aren't considered 'normal' by any means.. but, they ARE out there.

 

Murder is still fairly well accepted today in many societies. Honor killings, etc. Just depends on where ya live.

[screendrop]

I suppose scientifically, I do to some extent concurr with Vagrant0, there is no protoevolutionary purpose behind arbitrary killings, I feel that in essence, it has some inherent "survivalistic" aspects are contained within murder, but yes, in a temporal way, I do agree.

I sense i'm moving away from the question I originally posed, however. It was not simply about murder, I suppose, when scaled about, it was about reality itself. To reiterate myself in a different direction, I suppose the question is truly, what sort of knowledge do you believe in?

Solipsism? Fundamentalism? Subjectivism? Is it possible to know a particular act is good, based purely, and only purely, on the isolated knowledge of ones existence. Also, without any pragmatic application, is anything, based on one's knowledge of things, knowable and tangible and therefore reactable or able to be reacted to.

 

How many of you know of the "event horizon theory". The concept it based on the scientific maxim that any 3D image can be projected on a 2D plane. Furthermore, it relies on the relative conceptualisation of "event-horizons" which are the theoretical upper bound within a black hole where no theoretical mass may escape due to gravity. Therefore, any information about said black hole is stored within the event horizon as all other matter and its accompanying information pertaining to the mass is annihilated. Thus, all information about the black hole is broadcasted within extrinsically from the EH. Stephen Hawking hypothesised, to some credibility as being discovered, that the universe presides within a black hole and we exist at the outer reaches of it, being broad casted with in. This would go to some way to explaining the perpetually expanding nature of the universe as it expands from the initial "bang" in a black hole way. It also accommodates for some modicum of a "big crunch".

This theory can be proven on a subatomic level by measuring the transpondency levels of oscillating light between two very close very small spaces and measuring it against any linear inconsistencies.

So, a bit off track, but, I highlighted this particular theory to illustrate something.

IF indeed this hypothesis is true, can we to a certain extent of accuracy, be sure any thing happened at all? Can you be sure that something exists when not seen or presides is not immediately acted upon?

The question is, what is the most fundamental, intractable, inescapable fact of humanity, if not that we cannot be, with ANY degree of any accuracy, that anything exists in any other way in any capacity, perhaps even our own existential consciousness?

[bben46]

Before you can really debate this, you need a universally accepted definition of murder. It means very different things to different cultures. The simplest example is a tribal culture where killing someone who is not an accepted member of that tribe is not murder. - based on whatever criteria they use for membership (and that can vary quite a bit) It may not even be considered homicide. And could be an accepted practice. To them murder might be defined only as killing someone who is a member of that group without an accepted reason. And that accepted reason may be something as simple as eating from the common pot with the wrong hand.

 

Are there cases of homicide that are not murder?

Is executing a criminal murder? or something else?

Is suicide murder? (it is killing someone)

Is it murder to assist someone in killing themselves?

It it murder when you could have saved someone with no danger to yourself, but did not act?

Is it self defense when there may have possibly been another alternative? or could that be considered murder? or Homicide? or no problem at all?

How about when a cop kills a suspect running away from a serious crime - after ordering them to stop multiple times?

A military sentry who shoots a trespasser in a secured area?

I'm sure you can find lots of other examples.

[screendrop]

Before you can really debate this, you need a universally accepted definition of murder. It means very different things to different cultures. The simplest example is a tribal culture where killing someone who is not an accepted member of that tribe is not murder. - based on whatever criteria they use for membership (and that can vary quite a bit) It may not even be considered homicide. And could be an accepted practice. To them murder might be defined only as killing someone who is a member of that group without an accepted reason. And that accepted reason may be something as simple as eating from the common pot with the wrong hand.

 

Are there cases of homicide that are not murder?

Is executing a criminal murder? or something else?

Is suicide murder? (it is killing someone)

Is it murder to assist someone in killing themselves?

It it murder when you could have saved someone with no danger to yourself, but did not act?

Is it self defense when there may have possibly been another alternative? or could that be considered murder? or Homicide? or no problem at all?

How about when a cop kills a suspect running away from a serious crime - after ordering them to stop multiple times?

A military sentry who shoots a trespasser in a secured area?

I'm sure you can find lots of other examples.

From a legal perspective, murder is the conscious, premeditated (mens reus) and guilt execution (actus reus) of killing, the act itself rather than any other derived form. I suppose, yes murder encompasses a rather broad spectrum of vaguely prescribed terms, but generally, murder encompasses the act of killing another being who is sentinently aware of the concept of murder. Murder within society presides as an unnatural act of killing, not to amend or resolve, but an act of entropy for ignoble purposes.

Legally, there is accomodation for concepts such as "justifiable homicide" and manslaughter. I suppose these are also simply derived forms of "murder", albeit to a lesser extent of severity as murder implies and is especially dependent of the "pre meditated" compartment.

[bben46]

@Screendrop - yes, in the culture that we live in - but this is not the only culture. So do you want to limit this to this culture that we live in only? And just what culture is that? Based on your original statement, you left 'humanity' open ended. If you want a meaningful debate never leave the premise open to interpretation, the opposition will find a way to misinterpret it in a way you don't expect. One of my favorite debate tricks is to attempt to get the opposition to debate something they never saw coming. :tongue: I could take your original question and run in a dozen different directions.

 

Now that you have posted your definition of what you mean by murder that limits what I could do quite a bit - as long as I accept your definition. If not, I could debate your definition. But I will not as I will accept it as a part of your original premise. And have no reason to draw this any further off topic than I already have. :thumbsup:

[kvnchrist]

From the definition I have the most Fundamental of humanity I find is Survival. From that we can extend our ethics and morals to one another. Humans are a social animal who needs in interaction from others of their species to continue.

 

Murder is one way of not realizing that, but if our own survival is threatened or that which we think might ultimately result in a catastrophic loss for us, either personal or otherwise, we alter our priorities to lessen the chance of that loss.

 

Ethics and morals are fine in a society where such things are nourished, encouraged and the benefits and penlites for adhering or discarding them are well known. The issue comes to mind is that do we keep these standards of living beyond the confines of that society or do we just create a facade to placate those around us when we are in their company?

 

Did our ancestors follow these guidelines when we ran as hunter gathers across the wide expanses of open tundra?

 

Did we keep these same urges when swords swang and arrows flew in open hostility?

 

Is humanity a standard or and ideal we defend while setting comfortably miles from each other behind computers or something that we would taut if none of these comforts were around us and we were fighting teeth and nail for the last morsel of food we knew of?

[screendrop]

@bben46; THanks for those hints, ill try to keep them in mind, I suppose I really wanted to have a philosophical discussion about why man acts the way it does and perceives both itself and its surroundings in such an acute and defined manner, my only point of debate here is that man is little more than a developed organism and that moral values are both incidental, and meretricious

 

@kvnchrist; I don't think its that ethics and morals are fine in "developed societies", rather that developed societies strive with more endeavour to and have the resources to subjugate its inhabitants to a greater and much greater degree. Take for example Africa and its comparatively high crime rate and low resources with Sweden which has the exact converse. The terrible vitality of the human spirit is ever present, however, as resource levels drop, the relationship between said resources and the crime rate is actually recursive, that is, it decreases, which is not to be confused with the concept that it is not there at all. Furthermore, if you consider that the act of murder itself poses inherent danger to obviously the victim, but to also the murderer and also accepting that murder is NOT in self-defence and that justifiable homicide does not fall under any known definition of murder, then it can only be deduced that murder is of a person generally innocent in a contextual manner (two people who do not know each other may murder each other but are not necessarily deserving of it prior to the murder), the murder itself, especially in developed countries, further increases the intrinsic entropy of the murderer and also increases the overhead likeliness of incurred damages to the murderer and thus, is against one's evolutionary instincts.