Bank to be targeted in next WikiLeaks report

myp · Dec 6, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
ok. doesn't make the risks associated with considering it a human construct any less true

What do you mean by risks?

obtuseobserver said:
? Which ones don't?

Who holds these dissenting opinions?

Murder is wrong is not an opinion it is a moral absolute.

You gave an example yourself of the old Hindu ritual of burning one's wife. Another that comes to mind is Aztec sacrifices.

obtuseobserver said:
No. Here's why I said the explanation was simplistic. Neither of those are acts of murder. the DP is punishment for murder. Even in war it is possible to murder. However, troops killing troops is not murder. There are very old rules of war etc that govern this.

And the "rules of war" are no doubt a human construct. You can't exactly use that as a defense. But I see what you are saying with capital punishment, etc.

obtuseobserver said:
He's wrong.

Lol, arguable but since I agree with you, we can just drop it.

obtuseobserver said:
some may think the DP is immoral

none will disagree that murder is immoral

part of the problem, again, is that some regard the DP as murder. It isn't.

in our society murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

execution is not only legal it lacks malice (the process from arrest through trial through appeal and execution demonstrate objectivity - not subjectivity which would be malicious)

In today's world murder is almost universally seen as wrong- sure. But that doesn't mean it's not a human construct. Others might see capital punishment (if we aren't considering that murder) as immoral too- others won't. That makes it questionable and makes those morals opinions. Just because everyone has 1 opinion doesn't mean it isn't a human construct.

And I think it is important to note that if something as serious as this is in fact a human construct, that does not make it any less worthy or important.

obtuseobserver · Dec 6, 2010

myp said:
What do you mean by risks?

I've noted it several times. If morality is a tool of man and is flexible what is moral is what those who get to make such decisions decide is moral.

Take for instance The Lord of the Flies or Animal Farm. High minded principles quickly become perverted to serve the needs of those in charge - not "the people."

With the belief that morality was given by God and considering it's been written down for several thousand years without similar corruption the risk isn't there.

Anticipating your reply about nasty people of faith (who we must all recognize): They are acting immorally rather than believing that their immoral act is justified. We cannot eliminate the fact that there will always be bad actors. What this religion based morality would do is deny attempts to regard these bad acts as morally acceptable.

myp said:
You gave an example yourself of the old Hindu ritual of burning one's wife. Another that comes to mind is Aztec sacrifices.

In both cases... Those dissenting opinions are wrong.. both are murder and immoral even if the Hindus and Aztecs didn't view them as such. Frankly, many in their cultures saw clearly how evil these practices were. Napier took his stand at the request of Hindus not sua sponte.

Morality is fixed, not relative. Murder is wrong. If it is not fixed then the Aztec and Hindu practices should not trouble you. If they do, you are recognizing the moral absolute that murder is wrong.

myp said:
And the "rules of war" are no doubt a human construct.

No. Even human rules are based on our understanding of morality as given by God.

Murder in war is still murder and murder is prohibitted by the decalogue.

myp said:
You can't exactly use that as a defense. But I see what you are saying with capital punishment, etc.

Not sure what you think I'm using improperly as a defense

myp said:
In today's world murder is almost universally seen as wrong- sure.

where isn't it?

myp said:
But that doesn't mean it's not a human construct.

This is a level one point. Either one views morality as a human construct or one does not. We do not get to pick and choose.

Morality in basic terms is laid down. Our application may take other shapes but at heart our laws go precisely to the decalogue... don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat, don't murder etc. Our criminal code can be reduced to those principles at heart.

myp said:
Others might see capital punishment (if we aren't considering that murder) as immoral too- others won't.

True. But you are applying a relative analysis. You are saying that both opinions are equally valid. That is not true.

Execution is not murder. If one opines that it is; ok. Give me the definition of murder such that we can discuss the issue with the same understanding.

Murder = the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought.

If one changes defintions to suit one's argument one is demonstrating the very essence of moral relativity. What is moral is what they decide is moral. Which, is likely no problem because they are not in a position to enforce that personal definition but it illustrates the risk I am talking about.

myp said:
That makes it questionable and makes those morals opinions. Just because everyone has 1 opinion doesn't mean it isn't a human construct.

Again, one either believes morality is a human construct or one does not.

myp said:
And I think it is important to note that if something as serious as this is in fact a human construct, that does not make it any less worthy or important.

A point not in dispute. This is, imo, one of the single most important issues facing society.

Dirk · Dec 15, 2010

As far as i'm concerned, killing is wrong.

Only the most extreme statists would ever justify the state having the power to kill its own citizens.

I completely disagree with war as well.

Obviously murder in society is reprehensible.

Killing another human being is a disgusting way to behave in a so-called civilised society. Then again, that presumes we want to be civilised and will not blindly follow the path to ignorance, tyranny, intolerance, hatred, war, authoritarianism, oppression and tribalism.

obtuseobserver · Dec 15, 2010

Dirk said:
As far as i'm concerned, killing is wrong.

killing is a pretty broad term....

murder isn't

Dirk said:
Only the most extreme statists would ever justify the state having the power to kill its own citizens.

I never much cared about executing murderers I just didn't like the state having that authoity. Then I worked in DAs office on homocide prosecutions. There are some people who need killing.

Dirk said:
I completely disagree with war as well.

That's easy enough to say without tanks running through your living room. One side usually doesn't have much of a choice in the matter. Once it begins your belief does really much matter.

Dirk said:
Killing another human being is a disgusting way to behave in a so-called civilised society. Then again, that presumes we want to be civilised and will not blindly follow the path to ignorance, tyranny, intolerance, hatred, war, authoritarianism, oppression and tribalism.

No, it presumes that execution is inappropriate. Most civilizations ever to exist used it. To call it uncivilized is a characterization not a fact.

Dirk · Dec 16, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
killing is a pretty broad term....

murder isn't

Murder is just killing that the state doesn't endorse.

I never much cared about executing murderers I just didn't like the state having that authoity. Then I worked in DAs office on homocide prosecutions. There are some people who need killing.

The state shouldn't have that authority, exactly. On some level, I could't care less about the lives of some people. But the issue i always come back to is that they're still human beings.

That's easy enough to say without tanks running through your living room. One side usually doesn't have much of a choice in the matter. Once it begins your belief does really much matter.

I can understand self-defence. That's not to say i'd fight in the event of invasion, just that it's understandable.

No, it presumes that execution is inappropriate. Most civilizations ever to exist used it. To call it uncivilized is a characterization not a fact.

That's not a very good excuse. By that account, all of the following may be considered civilised:

Quartering - being torn apart by four horses (Imperial China)
Being mauled/consumed by dogs/wolves (Ancient Rome)
Death by boiling (Henry VIII, England)
Decapitation (Revolutionary France)
Shot by cannon (Colonial India)

Incidentally, Draco wrote the law for a part of the history of Ancient Greece. This is where the term "Draconian" comes from in reference to law. And that made extremely liberal use of the death penalty for very minor offences.

In modern society, none of these things would be considered civilised. Your point of technicality is irrelevant.

obtuseobserver · Dec 16, 2010

Dirk said:
Murder is just killing that the state doesn't endorse.

You're making the criome a matter of politics?

There are universally accepted moral standards. I am a Christian. I believe they are a gift of God. This universal law in the west is referred to as Natural Law. References to natural law are found all over the place in America's founding documents and the writings of the framers. What that means has largely been lost by the greater part of Anglo-American culture. Natural Law is the law of nature (duh huh?) which means it is universal and unwavering. Murder is wrong... everywhere. Always. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought.

Dirk said:
The state shouldn't have that authority, exactly.

Then who should? Some people need to be killed. Our legal system has set up an extensive system to safeguard the rights of the accused. There is no one else that can do it. Some people need killing.

Dirk said:
On some level, I could't care less about the lives of some people. But the issue i always come back to is that they're still human beings.

Would that you'd have the same concern for the people they killed; or their families. Those are the people I saw all time. You should spend some time closer to your subject to understand it better.

Dirk said:
I can understand self-defence. That's not to say i'd fight in the event of invasion, just that it's understandable.

So it is ok for your neighbor to fight for you but not for you to fight for your neighbor?

Dirk said:
That's not a very good excuse. By that account, all of the following may be considered civilised:

Quartering - being torn apart by four horses (Imperial China)
Being mauled/consumed by dogs/wolves (Ancient Rome)
Death by boiling (Henry VIII, England)
Decapitation (Revolutionary France)
Shot by cannon (Colonial India)

well, here in the US we have the eighth amendment so none of those much matter... incidentally it was in direct response to things as thjose you listed. Genghis Khan boiled a whole captured army in oil once upon a time.

Dirk said:
Incidentally, Draco wrote the law for a part of the history of Ancient Greece. This is where the term "Draconian" comes from in reference to law. And that made extremely liberal use of the death penalty for very minor offences.

Consider your audience. Do you think I don't know who Draco was? Draco converted the Greeks from an oral code to a written code. The legend is that he believed pretty much every crime deserved the death penalty but becuase he couldn't punish some one any greater than killing him he had to scale his penalties back a bit.

Dirk said:
In modern society, none of these things would be considered civilised. Your point of technicality is irrelevant.

No it really isn't. As above, these forms of execution by torture are not permissible in my country. The method matters, if it didn't you wouldn';t have brought up those alternatives and the framers wouldn't have written the 8th amendment (prohibits cruel & unusual punishment)

Dirk · Dec 17, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
You're making the criome a matter of politics?

Crime is a matter of politics.

There are universally accepted moral standards.

No there aren't. Moral standards depend on the moral zeitgeist. That can differ between regions, countries, continents, cultures, etc.

I am a Christian.

And I'm a Jew. So what?

I believe they are a gift of God. This universal law in the west is referred to as Natural Law. References to natural law are found all over the place in America's founding documents and the writings of the framers. What that means has largely been lost by the greater part of Anglo-American culture. Natural Law is the law of nature (duh huh?) which means it is universal and unwavering.

Natural law, natural rights, etc, I don't believe in that stuff. I believe in rights, and think they're important, I just don't think it was ordained by God, or anything.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human

Exactly.

Then who should? Some people need to be killed. Our legal system has set up an extensive system to safeguard the rights of the accused. There is no one else that can do it. Some people need killing.

Nobody should. That some people "need killing" is an opinion you hold and I do not share.

Would that you'd have the same concern for the people they killed; or their families. Those are the people I saw all time. You should spend some time closer to your subject to understand it better.

I have a concern for the families of the people they killed, of course I do. That doesn't mean that society or the state should lower itself to petty vengeance.

So it is ok for your neighbor to fight for you but not for you to fight for your neighbor?

It's their choice. I won't fight for anyone. Not physically.

well, here in the US we have the eighth amendment so none of those much matter... incidentally it was in direct response to things as thjose you listed. Genghis Khan boiled a whole captured army in oil once upon a time.

My point being that "civilised" was an opinion of mine, not a historical precedent.

No it really isn't. As above, these forms of execution by torture are not permissible in my country. The method matters, if it didn't you wouldn';t have brought up those alternatives and the framers wouldn't have written the 8th amendment (prohibits cruel & unusual punishment)

I was not suggesting you use it (although if I recall Texas still has hanging), I was drawing a comparison to what we would now consider "uncivilised".

obtuseobserver · Dec 17, 2010

Dirk said:
Crime is a matter of politics.

No it isn't. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought. That definition doesn't change with regard to political affiliation.

Prosecutors will not refuse to prosecute murderers because they (the prosecutors or the killers) belong to this or that political affiliation.

Law enforcement and prosecution does have political aspects but the goes to the issue of resource allocation.. not the definitions of crimes.

Dirk said:
No there aren't. Moral standards depend on the moral zeitgeist. That can differ between regions, countries, continents, cultures, etc.

Where is murder acceptable? How about rape? Theft? Battery?

These are bad acts... wrongs... universally. Where societies do not regard murder as wrong they are legitimizing evil.

Dirk said:
And I'm a Jew. So what?

I made note to explain the "where" question. Other than that there is not "what." I was saying that others will have different "where's" with which I have no quarrel.

Dirk said:
Natural law, natural rights, etc, I don't believe in that stuff.

So it is a matter of faith for you too. And Aristotle was a fool?

Dirk said:
I believe in rights, and think they're important, I just don't think it was ordained by God, or anything.

Ok. Who did then?

Dirk said:
Nobody should. That some people "need killing" is an opinion you hold and I do not share.

That's true. Its my opinion that some murderers should be executed after conviction. Just curious, and I think you already answered this so please bear with me if you covered this point; is the opposition to the state having the authority or is it the risk of being wrong or is it both?

Dirk said:
I have a concern for the families of the people they killed, of course I do. That doesn't mean that society or the state should lower itself to petty vengeance.

Executing a person is hardly petty and it is not vengeful. The state has no personal interest in the killer and the family he harmed has no authority to demand or prevent that execution.

Dirk said:
It's their choice. I won't fight for anyone. Not physically.

Your daughter is being raped in front of you and I hand you a loaded gun. Do you shoot the rapist?

Dirk said:
My point being that "civilised" was an opinion of mine, not a historical precedent.

My point was that execution as a punishment is only recently regarded as uncivilized and only by some.... mostly old europe and their former colonies not in Africa or Asia.

Dirk said:
I was not suggesting you use it (although if I recall Texas still has hanging), I was drawing a comparison to what we would now consider "uncivilised".

See previous comment. I live in Texas. Hanging was abolished in 1924.

I once had a discussion with a woman from Sweden who, like you, honestly believed an silly notion like the one you offered. She asked why in Texas we only execute black people. So much disinformation out there Dirk. Electrocution ended in 64. There was a spell where the DP was illegal and since 1982.. injection only. Did I mention that I used to work on homocide prosecutions?

Dirk · Dec 18, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
No it isn't. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought. That definition doesn't change with regard to political affiliation.

Prosecutors will not refuse to prosecute murderers because they (the prosecutors or the killers) belong to this or that political affiliation.

Law enforcement and prosecution does have political aspects but the goes to the issue of resource allocation.. not the definitions of crimes.

Have another think about what I may have meant. Who made the laws?

Where is murder acceptable? How about rape? Theft? Battery?

Murder and theft are terms relative to politics. The question is invalid.

These are bad acts... wrongs... universally. Where societies do not regard murder as wrong they are legitimizing evil.

Evil? If you believe in that sort of thing.

So it is a matter of faith for you too. And Aristotle was a fool?

Aristotle was, from what I gather, a really annoying person, but not a fool.

Ok. Who did then?

We did. People did.

Just curious, and I think you already answered this so please bear with me if you covered this point; is the opposition to the state having the authority or is it the risk of being wrong or is it both?

An element of both. I object generally to killing.

Executing a person is hardly petty and it is not vengeful. The state has no personal interest in the killer and the family he harmed has no authority to demand or prevent that execution.

Do you believe in liberal democracy?

Your daughter is being raped in front of you and I hand you a loaded gun. Do you shoot the rapist?

These scenarios always come up. How sick. Since i've never been in that situation, I have no idea how I would react. I expect I would stop it without killing anyone. Or try my damnedest. If the last possible act was to shoot anybody, I might shoot to scare or shoot in a non-lethal place. I mean, these things are incredibly unlikely. I'm not going to be put in such a position.

My point was that execution as a punishment is only recently regarded as uncivilized and only by some.... mostly old europe and their former colonies not in Africa or Asia.

A changing moral zeitgeist, yes.

See previous comment. I live in Texas. Hanging was abolished in 1924.

I see.

obtuseobserver · Dec 18, 2010

Dirk said:
Have another think about what I may have meant. Who made the laws?

Have another think what said. I said murder is wrong. I said the definition of murder is the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought. I said politcal affialiation doesn't alter the definition. It is completely irrelevant which party did or did not pass a statute. What's more, in the Anglo-American legal tradition we have something called the common law. That did not rely on statute (still doesn't) so how would that fit into your scheme?

Dirk said:
Murder and theft are terms relative to politics. The question is invalid.

lol - ok. Provide evidence of where murder, rape, theft is legal and relative to the political ideals of this or that authority. I've offered why it isn't in previous response.

You won't be able to. Why? Crimes as these are moral absolutes. It is wrong to murder, rape and steal without regard to a persons politics or to any statute. For your comments to hold one would need to ascribe to a given politcal ideology to understand that murder is wrong. It implies that without being told so no one knows murder is wrong. That's shakey territory.

Dirk said:
Evil? If you believe in that sort of thing.

You don't?

Dirk said:
Aristotle was, from what I gather, a really annoying person, but not a fool.

Well, the annoying person did go on and on about the notion of natural law.

Dirk said:
Do you believe in liberal democracy?

Yup. And the laws of society generally reflect the views of that society. Seems a bit of a non sequitur though?

Dirk said:
These scenarios always come up. How sick. Since i've never been in that situation, I have no idea how I would react. I expect I would stop it without killing anyone. Or try my damnedest. If the last possible act was to shoot anybody, I might shoot to scare or shoot in a non-lethal place. I mean, these things are incredibly unlikely. I'm not going to be put in such a position.

Have children? If/when you do that answer takes three letters.

Dirk said:
A changing moral zeitgeist, yes.

Not so much. The moral liberalism of old europe that followed in the vacuum formed in the post WWII departure of Christianity in many societies is not advancing. Nor can old europe and those other european states facing startling demographic cratering offer up much in the way of guidance for the future. "The West" in a sense peaked a hundred years ago in the UK. That cultural center of gravity shifted the UK in the 40s to the US. The Anglo-sphere will continue to shape much of world societal norms in the years ahead. The UK will either foild into the new Eurozone and motly evaprorate or it will bandwagon the us and other Anglo-sphere states. That's not to say that europe's influence won't be felt. American leftist thinkers do adore the euros and do exert political and social influence here. We will live in some very interesting times that I think will be hard to predict (though I do see and American - Indian alliance becoming extremely important).

Dirk said:
I see.

lol - yes.

myp · Jan 5, 2011

Well you guys really continued the discussion to another level

I just wanted to clarify that while I believe that morals are a human construct, I don't see that as a bad thing. In fact, I see it as the opposite- that our species is at a level where we can come up with certain beliefs that almost everyone can agree with and that almost everyone agrees betters our own species and for that reason we keep believing and following them. It is a reflection of our will to survive as a species and to an extent how much we all really still have in common when it comes to the bigger issues.

obtuseobserver · Jan 5, 2011

myp said:
Well you guys really continued the discussion to another level I just wanted to clarify that while I believe that morals are a human construct, I don't see that as a bad thing. In fact, I see it as the opposite- that our species is at a level where we can come up with certain beliefs that almost everyone can agree with and that almost everyone agrees betters our own species and for that reason we keep believing and following them. It is a reflection of our will to survive as a species and to an extent how much we all really still have in common when it comes to the bigger issues.

If it is man made then morals are whatever we make them to be. They are not fixed, they are relative. If they are relative why would it not be moral to simply execute every prisoner who is in for life? All they are doing is absorbing resources that could be put to better use elsewhere? In fact, why not simply make them incarcerated organ donors? At least then they'd provide some good to society. Is that wrong? If yes, why? If not, why?

See previous comment about "who makes the laws." If we need lawmakers to tell us what is right and wrong then, yes, morality is a human construct. Do you need lawmakers to educate you about right and wrong?

For my part, law makers didn't have to get together to debate whether murder was right or wrong and then let the hitherto confused people know where they came down on the issue.

Natural law acknowledges that morality exists independent of us and we merely recognize it.

Bank to be targeted in next WikiLeaks report

Similar threads