Help with argumentation about murder being immoral

[Ruppert9]

I had a long debate with a statist and one of the aguments came down to this:

If someone murders his wife, he sees at as moral for him to kill the murderer. Therefore murder can be both moral and immoral in his view, so this proves there cannot be any universal moral principals. It all "depends on the context". Morals change with society and time.

What would be the best way to go about succintly rebutting this? Thanks for any suggestions.

 

 

[Andrew79]

He's said if someone sees something as being moral, then it is.

He doesn't want to see himself condoning immoral actions so he's redefined the term. Putting morality at the same level as good intentions: a justification for actions, rather than a framework to decide if actions are good or bad.

Morality doesn't change with society and time, what's normal and accepted will change, but that's not morality. Otherwise he's saying that slavery only become immoral when the state stopped supporting it. That what's good and bad is at the whims of our masters.

I think that's close to delibrately blinding yourself from the truth because you don't like what it says, so instead you fall back into the comforting stories of the ruling elite.

That was a bit of a ramble, don't know if it'll help you or not.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

His justification is that it's moral for him to murder his wife's murderer because it sees it that way. That means if someone sees something as moral then it is. So logically he must accept that it's moral for HIM to be murdered if someone sees it that way. His wife's murderer would also have be justified in killing her if he saw it that way. These scenarios omit necessary information (is the nurderer remorseful and willing to make restitution or glad and certain to murder again?) and use the emotional weight of extreme events to bypass reason. Whe one brings up murder or terrifying situations the mind's rational capacity gets lowered and nonsense can get slipped by.

This person supports that state right? So that's probably why he's trying to destroy universal moral principles because he knows the state can't survive them. Well just apply his argument to theft. If it's moral to murder you wife's murderer then it should be moral to steal from those who steal from you. That means it's moral to steal back tax revenue. That means everyone can morally stop paying taxes or take back what's been stolen.

[Ruppert9]

Thanks guys!

That means if someone sees something as moral then it is. So logically
he must accept that it's moral for HIM to be murdered if someone sees it
that way. His wife's murderer would also have be justified in killing
her if he saw it that way.

I think ProTeaBag had a good stab at it here.

He might retort by qualifying further : that murder is only moral when someone has killed your relative unprovoked. Then say that is a universal principle. Therefore murder can be moral and immoral at the same time.

I would could then say. If we take this as a principal then it would be immoral for the murderer to resist being murdered - because it is moral that he be murdered too. So it is impossible for everyone to behave morally with this principal, as the murderer needs to act immorally by resisting murder for his moral murder to take place.

In practice too, one single unprovoked murder would have the potential of justifying the massacre of the entire family trees. If he killed his wife's murderer, the murderer's family would be morally justified in killing him. That family could then be murdered by the other family's relatives. and so on..

 

[Dave Bockman]

The action of killing someone cannot ever be universally defined as moral or immoral, since as is described in this thread exigent circumstances change how we perceive what is being done-- is a guy being killed by being stabbed in the throat, or is someone performing an emergency tracheotomy?

However, that has nothing to do with morality/UPB which only validates or invalidates moral theories (not actions). 'It is moral to murder' fails that test.

I also would encourage you to give a listen to this particular podcast-- I think Stef is dead on when, right at the beginning he freely admits that this is fiendishly hard to grasp:

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_872_Debating_and_UPB.mp3

"You cannot debate without UPB"

[Ruppert9]

Thanks. I'm listening to the podcast seeing if I can extract more counter-arguments.

[TDB]

 

aguments came down to this:

If someone murders his wife, he sees at as moral for him to kill the murderer. Therefore murder can be both moral and immoral.

 

If all "murder can be both moral and immoral" means is "some killings are justified, some are not" that doesn't seem like a problem. Stef certainly has admitted that killing in self defense can be justified, at least in principle.

But from the context, it seems like they mean that the same killing is both moral and immoral, depending on who's perspective you take. If retaliation as a motive justifies killing (I don't think so), then killing the murderer is moral, but it is not murder. If not, it's murder and immoral. Point of view is irrelevant. 

[Ruppert9]

 

If retaliation as a motive justifies killing (I don't think so), then killing the murderer is moral, but it is not murder. If not, it's murder and immoral.

 

So if he thinks killing the murderer is justified, he can claim it is moral to kill him?

It might not be considered murder, but to you and me it is the same. Is there no universal criteria to determine if retaliation is justified? If not, then you could go about killing everyone and stating it is not murder, but justified retaliatory killing... In that case doesn't the point of view prevail?

(I'm playing devil's advocate here)

[TDB]

 

 

If retaliation as a motive justifies killing (I don't think so), then killing the murderer is moral, but it is not murder. If not, it's murder and immoral.

 

So if he thinks killing the murderer is justified, he can claim it is moral to kill him?

It might not be considered murder, but to you and me it is the same. Is there no universal criteria to determine if retaliation is justified? If not, then you could go about killing everyone and stating it is not murder, but justified retaliatory killing... In that case doesn't the point of view prevail?

(I'm playing devil's advocate here)

 

To me, "justified" and "moral" mean the same thing. The thought and the claim are identical, and either both are wrong (as I believe) or both are correct. 

I'm not clear where you are trying to go with this. Would Stef's UPB qualify as "universal criteria"? I don't follow how point of view is relevant. There are two issues, retaliation and universality, I am getting them mixed up.

Say A attacks B, and B kills A in self defense.  B is justified.  If C comes along and kills B, claiming it is retaliation for the death of A, would anyone believe C is justified? It's hard to think even C would really believe this.

Now D, a friend of B, hunts down C. In front of witnesses, C, unarmed, surrenders to D. D kills C and claims to be justified by retaliation. Will anyone be convinced?

Am I addressing your point? If so, I will be pleasantly surprised.           

[Ruppert9]

 

Now D, a friend of B, hunts down C. In front of witnesses, C, unarmed, surrenders to D. D kills C and claims to be justified by retaliation. Will anyone be convinced?

Am I addressing your point? If so, I will be pleasantly surprised.           

 

I'm not sure :-) But I appreciate the response.

Here is what the friend replied:

You're simply asserting a tautology, you effectively saying below that moral murder is not murder, but you defined it before as killing someone who doesn't want to be killed. And we didn't say morality is about 7 generations down the line, is the person who invented gun responsible for all gun crime? The whole point is that morality is not universal and even now there are societies where blood fueds are accepted. The thing is I wouldn't want to live in such a society, but that doesn't make me arbiter of all morality. Fundamentally morality is a human concept, and as such not universal.

It seems like after all my efforts, he is just talking right past me. Moral murder?? Not sure what he is saying there. No idea about the gun crime thing either.

Here are some of my possible responses:

The whole point is that morality is not universal and even now there are societies where blood fueds are accepted.  It is not because some societies behave immorally that a universal moral criteria does not exist. Slavery's existance does not mean it is moral to have slaves.

The thing is I wouldn't want to live in such a society, but that doesn't make me arbiter of all morality.    You are not the arbiter of all morality, reason/logical/consistancy are.

Fundamentally morality is a human concept, and as such not universal.  Then by implication no human concept can be universal. Then mathematics, a human concept, in a society could state 1+1=3 and it would be correct if they said that was so. A banana could be an animal and fruit depending on what society you live in.

Any thoughts?

 

[TDB]

I'm not sure :-) But I appreciate the response.Here is what the friend replied:You're simply asserting a tautology, you effectively saying below that moral murder is not murder, but you defined it before as killing someone who doesn't want to be killed. And we didn't say morality is about 7 generations down the line, is the person who invented gun responsible for all gun crime? The whole point is that morality is not universal and even now there are societies where blood fueds are accepted. The thing is I wouldn't want to live in such a society, but that doesn't make me arbiter of all morality. Fundamentally morality is a human concept, and as such not universal.It seems like after all my efforts, he is just talking right past me. Moral murder?? Not sure what he is saying there. No idea about the gun crime thing either.Here are some of my possible responses:The whole point is that morality is not universal and even now there are societies where blood fueds are accepted.  It is not because some societies behave immorally that a universal moral criteria does not exist. Slavery's existance does not mean it is moral to have slaves.The thing is I wouldn't want to live in such a society, but that doesn't make me arbiter of all morality.    You are not the arbiter of all morality, reason/logical/consistancy are.Fundamentally morality is a human concept, and as such not universal.  Then by implication no human concept can be universal. Then mathematics, a human concept, in a society could state 1+1=3 and it would be correct if they said that was so. A banana could be an animal and fruit depending on what society you live in.Any thoughts?

Did you really define murder the way he describes? It's a bit strange trying to give you pointers without hearing the entire argument. The last quote sounds like he is changing the subject.

[Pepin]

You're simply asserting a tautology, you effectively saying below that moral murder is not murder, but you defined it before as killing someone who doesn't want to be killed. 

It sounds like either you aren't doing a very good job of presenting your arguments, or that this person is not understanding your arguments.

Murder is initiating force against someone with result of death. If initiating force is immoral, then the phrase "moral murder" is equivalent to "military intelligence".

 

And we didn't say morality is about 7 generations down the line, is the person who invented gun responsible for all gun crime? 

Though the argument they are putting forward is nonsensical, whatever they are responding likely isn't within the context of the debate. I can guess the sort of argument you were going for, and though I might be wrong with my guess, it doesn't really make sense to bring up given the opponent's position.

 

The whole point is that morality is not universal and even now there are societies where blood fueds are accepted.

The claim is essentially a description of ethics in the present and in the past, and it sidesteps any sort of rational discussion.

 

The thing is I wouldn't want to live in such a society, but that doesn't make me arbiter of all morality.

I don't really understand the line of thought on this. Feels like a terrible straw man, the phrase "arbiter of all morality" used to characterize your argument, and to insult you.

 

Fundamentally morality is a human concept, and as such not universal. 

Human concepts cannot be universalized? This is likely a good point to focus on if you think this discussion has the capability of going anywhere. This is a chance to just ask questions and to have them back up their claim. Be curious.