Why shouldn't I kill you? (Alternate topic to "Why be moral?")

[Des]

Why shouldn't I kill you?

 

[i think this question will help clarify moral reasoning. Please throw in an answer, and let us all take it from there]

[A4E]

You don't want anyone to harm you or steal from you, which means you want a peaceful society around you.

 

And the person you are targeting also wants a peaceful society. Therefore you are violating an implicit agreement if you kill the person.

 

If you kill the person, everyone else in the society will see that you have violated the implicit agreement, and must ensure that you see the consequences of your actions in order to honor the implicit agreement.

 

If a person says that it is ok to kill him, then he is either lying, or he is mentally disturbed, or brainwashed.

 

 

I believe this kind of implicit agreement is evolutionary necessary for many species, and so is innate in humans and most if not all animals and insects where even the minimal amount of cooperation is beneficial to the species. That means that it is not something we build up in our culture, but more deeply rooted, ie in our instincts.

[Anuojat]

Do you want to be moral person? Do you care about morality at all?

 

If yes then you shouldnt. Because otherwise you are in error.

 

If you dont care abour being moral or morality then... hey ill take some steps the FUCK back away.

[dsayers]

Why shouldn't I kill you?

Not enough information. There's a difference between kill and murder. The answer to the question "Why shouldn't I murder you?" is an easy one. The murderer is using their life to deprive another of their life. It is an internally inconsistent proposition.

[Boss]

Why shouldn't I kill you?

Because "I dont have any money" said the poor old lady   

 

[neeeel]

You don't want anyone to harm you or steal from you, which means you want a peaceful society around you.

 

And the person you are targeting also wants a peaceful society. Therefore you are violating an implicit agreement if you kill the person.

 

If you kill the person, everyone else in the society will see that you have violated the implicit agreement, and must ensure that you see the consequences of your actions in order to honor the implicit agreement.

 

If a person says that it is ok to kill him, then he is either lying, or he is mentally disturbed, or brainwashed.

 

 

I believe this kind of implicit agreement is evolutionary necessary for many species, and so is innate in humans and most if not all animals and insects where even the minimal amount of cooperation is beneficial to the species. That means that it is not something we build up in our culture, but more deeply rooted, ie in our instincts.

 

Not sure I believe in implicit agreements, or that using them to argue for morality is a good idea

 

There is no logical contradiction in holding the following 2 statements to be true at the same time

 

1) I don't want anyone to harm me or steal from me

2) I want to harm someone else or steal from someone else

[A4E]

 

There is no logical contradiction in holding the following 2 statements to be true at the same time

 

1) I don't want anyone to harm me or steal from me

2) I want to harm someone else or steal from someone else

That is true sure. But a person saying or acting on that has double standards.

 

He wants to steal from someone else, whilst wanting to keep what he had stolen, as in not wanting anyone else to steal it from him.

 

He wants to kill someone else while wanting everyone else to not kill him, and also if someone else killed him before he killed someone, he would typically not be able to complete his desire.

 

In my experience, people generally do not accept individuals who are known to have double standards. But I guess that would be a circular argument. (And I'm getting very sleepy.)

 

 

Not sure I believe in implicit agreements, or that using them to argue for morality is a good idea

 

Do you want a peaceful society around you?  I assume your answer is yes.

 

Do I want a peaceful society around me?  Yes.

 

So do we not implicitly agree on the same thing?...

 

Thanks for feedback. I thought my original argumentation was watertight, but I recognize that I could be wrong of course, and you made me think. This is just what I see as the best argumentation for morality as of right now. I've seen other good ones, but I feel that this one covers it more, and also it is important for my perspective that it does not rely on superpowers.

[Torero]

Why shouldn't I kill you?

 

[i think this question will help clarify moral reasoning. Please throw in an answer, and let us all take it from there]

 

Because by doing so you take ownership of someone else (in the most dramatic sense; his life/existence). If you think you have that right, then you cannot protest to others doing the same to you; they have the same right then.

 

If you're a nihilist who does not care about morality and consistency of arguments, you are perfectly ok with someone else killing you (or one of your loved ones, if you have them as that fictitious nihilist).

 

The nihilists in the chatbox have thrown in "self-preservation" against that point, but when that is introduced that "self-preservation" also holds for the person you kill by which you have universalised "self-preservation" and lost the nihilism.

[Des]

You don't want anyone to harm you or steal from you, which means you want a peaceful society around you.

 

And the person you are targeting also wants a peaceful society. Therefore you are violating an implicit agreement if you kill the person.

 

If you kill the person, everyone else in the society will see that you have violated the implicit agreement, and must ensure that you see the consequences of your actions in order to honor the implicit agreement.

 

If a person says that it is ok to kill him, then he is either lying, or he is mentally disturbed, or brainwashed.

 

 

I believe this kind of implicit agreement is evolutionary necessary for many species, and so is innate in humans and most if not all animals and insects where even the minimal amount of cooperation is beneficial to the species. That means that it is not something we build up in our culture, but more deeply rooted, ie in our instincts.

Would "because I will reciprocate your not attempting to kill me, by not attempting to kill you" be a correct paraphrase of your motivational statement to me, as to why I should comply with a standard that at least says I should not come looking for you to end your life?

[Des]

Do you want to be moral person? Do you care about morality at all?

 

If yes then you shouldnt. Because otherwise you are in error.

 

If you dont care abour being moral or morality then... hey ill take some steps the FUCK back away.

I care about being alive (because I am enjoying being alive). My interest in morality is to the extent that it preserves my life. If we were alone on an island and you suspected I might kill you the first time you sleep, would you take that risk (leave me alive) to be moral, or be immoral (kill me pre-emptively) to maximise your odds of preserving your life?

 

Is it good advice to someone you love, advising them to be moral at any cost (refer to above example), or is it good advice to advise them to get agreement for reciprocal non-aggression from trustworthy people, and stick to that non-aggression pact with those trustworthy people, in order to remain trustworthy (and have improved odds of survival).

 

Is it not the main wish you have, for those you love, that they survive (as long as possible, as long as they can enjoy life)? Does it help to view it from the perspective of an advisor to a loved one?

Not sure I believe in implicit agreements, or that using them to argue for morality is a good idea

 

There is no logical contradiction in holding the following 2 statements to be true at the same time

 

1) I don't want anyone to harm me or steal from me

2) I want to harm someone else or steal from someone else

My intention for my topic is to reveal the motivation for moral conduct. If i could reliably motivate you to be non-aggressive toward me, without offering to also be non-aggressive toward you, that would meet my need for maximising my odds of survival.

 

However, I estimate that I can't. Neither religion nor statism can be relied on, so I must abandon them and attempt to trade with you, non-aggression for non-aggression.

[pretzelogik]

I care about being alive (because I am enjoying being alive). My interest in morality is to the extent that it preserves my life. If we were alone on an island and you suspected I might kill you the first time you sleep, would you take that risk (leave me alive) to be moral, or be immoral (kill me pre-emptively) to maximise your odds of preserving your life?

 

Is it good advice to someone you love, advising them to be moral at any cost (refer to above example), or is it good advice to advise them to get agreement for reciprocal non-aggression from trustworthy people, and stick to that non-aggression pact with those trustworthy people, in order to remain trustworthy (and have improved odds of survival).

 

Is it not the main wish you have, for those you love, that they survive (as long as possible, as long as they can enjoy life)? Does it help to view it from the perspective of an advisor to a loved one?

My intention for my topic is to reveal the motivation for moral conduct. If i could reliably motivate you to be non-aggressive toward me, without offering to also be non-aggressive toward you, that would meet my need for maximising my odds of survival.

 

However, I estimate that I can't. Neither religion nor statism can be relied on, so I must abandon them and attempt to trade with you, non-aggression for non-aggression.

 

An argument against preemptively killing someone in their sleep could be about unintended consequences.  Preemptively killing someone in the deserted island scenario will prevent that person from killing them, sure, but they may end up dying anyway from a situation that two people could have defended against, an accident or a herd of wild animals, etc.  Historically, humans benefit the most through trading with one another.  Cold calling is generally recognized as a more promising business strategy than cold killing.

 

Morality is a tool used by those who make up the rules to exploit those who follow those rules.  Stef has done a great job with UPB of defining morality in terms of consistency.  Perhaps the term "morality" should be abandoned all together as it only muddies the water.  It's easy to demonstrate whether an action can be universalized and consistently applied, much more difficult with morality.

 

Which, I think is a way of restating what was said above while eliminating the idea of "morality".  I think I have heard Stef say that everyone wants to be "good", that gaining control of morality can be a tremendous tool for advancement of the species.  I am not so sure everyone wants to be "good", even those we suspect of abiding by noble lies.  I can easily imagine people devoid of empathy who have no concern whatsoever about being good and use pragmatism as a guide to their interactions with others.  Perhaps they just play the odds:  most people shrink from violence, violence can be used to frighten and intimidate, as a strategy it cannot be universalized, but in their hands it can benefit them in transactions 85 out of 100 times.  No morality, no consistency, but good enough odds to make it worthwhile.  I am sure the owners of this plantation have pretty good data on how this works.

 

I have been thinking lately about Varys' (Game of Thrones character) riddle about power.  That's the ticket...

[Des]

An argument against preemptively killing someone in their sleep could be about unintended consequences.  Preemptively killing someone in the deserted island scenario will prevent that person from killing them, sure, but they may end up dying anyway from a situation that two people could have defended against, an accident or a herd of wild animals, etc.  Historically, humans benefit the most through trading with one another.  Cold calling is generally recognized as a more promising business strategy than cold killing.

 

Morality is a tool used by those who make up the rules to exploit those who follow those rules.  Stef has done a great job with UPB of defining morality in terms of consistency.  Perhaps the term "morality" should be abandoned all together as it only muddies the water.  It's easy to demonstrate whether an action can be universalized and consistently applied, much more difficult with morality.

 

Which, I think is a way of restating what was said above while eliminating the idea of "morality".  I think I have heard Stef say that everyone wants to be "good", that gaining control of morality can be a tremendous tool for advancement of the species.  I am not so sure everyone wants to be "good", even those we suspect of abiding by noble lies.  I can easily imagine people devoid of empathy who have no concern whatsoever about being good and use pragmatism as a guide to their interactions with others.  Perhaps they just play the odds:  most people shrink from violence, violence can be used to frighten and intimidate, as a strategy it cannot be universalized, but in their hands it can benefit them in transactions 85 out of 100 times.  No morality, no consistency, but good enough odds to make it worthwhile.  I am sure the owners of this plantation have pretty good data on how this works.

 

I have been thinking lately about Varys' (Game of Thrones character) riddle about power.  That's the ticket...

So, if you and I are alone on an island, I'm going to ask you if you have my back. If you have a desire to live, you will answer yes. So then, I will ask myself if I trust you to be (at minimum) non-aggressive towards me.  That's how I'll decide if you live long enough to see me lie down to sleep.

 

What I arrive at here, is your motivation for being moral, is that you want to live, and I won't buy any deal for your life, that does not include non-aggression towards me (at minimum).

 

Bump it up to 5 people on an island: 4 rational people and one crazy guy who murders one of those 4 in front of the other 3. The 3 kill the murderer, because they haven't the resources to deal effectively with the threat in any other practical way. If "crazy guy" had instead been a rational person with a preference for being alive, he would not have murdered. So, we come to a rational, self-interested motivation for non-aggression (or minimum basic morality), which is distorted in larger groups of people that include irrational believers in undetectable entities.

 

The answer to "Why be moral?" (at least at the minimum standard of no aggression or fraud), is that the deity and democracy religions are about to fail as an alternative (or cheat) for being moral (the cat is out of the bag), there is no other cheat for morality, so: all we have left is honest trade of non-aggression for non-aggression, or, taking our chances by using aggression without religious cover, and thereby risking death.

[pretzelogik]

So, if you and I are alone on an island, I'm going to ask you if you have my back. If you have a desire to live, you will answer yes. So then, I will ask myself if I trust you to be (at minimum) non-aggressive towards me.  That's how I'll decide if you live long enough to see me lie down to sleep.

 

What I arrive at here, is your motivation for being moral, is that you want to live, and I won't buy any deal for your life, that does not include non-aggression towards me (at minimum).

 

Bump it up to 5 people on an island: 4 rational people and one crazy guy who murders one of those 4 in front of the other 3. The 3 kill the murderer, because they haven't the resources to deal effectively with the threat in any other practical way. If "crazy guy" had instead been a rational person with a preference for being alive, he would not have murdered. So, we come to a rational, self-interested motivation for non-aggression (or minimum basic morality), which is distorted in larger groups of people that include irrational believers in undetectable entities.

 

The answer to "Why be moral?" (at least at the minimum standard of no aggression or fraud), is that the deity and democracy religions are about to fail as an alternative (or cheat) for being moral (the cat is out of the bag), there is no other cheat for morality, so: all we have left is honest trade of non-aggression for non-aggression, or, taking our chances by using aggression without religious cover, and thereby risking death.

 

I don't know that religion has ever succeeded as providing examples for morality other than to create a system of oppression that maximizes returns for the priest class (productivity stalls when violence is rampant, orderly transfer of capital to successive generations is compromised when parties are adulterous, etc.).  I think government and science (or scientism) are doing a far more effective job of maximizing resources for the controllers of late.

 

In the scenario that was detailed above the best case would be to determine who the murderer is before hand and take steps to prevent it, which is and always has been the problem.  I think most people have an innate aversion to harming others and as a result have difficulty recognizing when that aversion is absent.  The problem is compounded when there are massive institutions in place that are tasked with obscuring the fact that the controllers are devoid of empathy.

 

As far as death goes, we all die at some point, life is not risk free.  Until we have a sure fire method of identifying psychopaths, the first trade will always be a risk with each subsequent trade being less risky as trust develops based on experience.  None of these ideas require an appeal to morality.

[Des]

I don't know that religion has ever succeeded as providing examples for morality other than to create a system of oppression that maximizes returns for the priest class (productivity stalls when violence is rampant, orderly transfer of capital to successive generations is compromised when parties are adulterous, etc.).  I think government and science (or scientism) are doing a far more effective job of maximizing resources for the controllers of late.

 

In the scenario that was detailed above the best case would be to determine who the murderer is before hand and take steps to prevent it, which is and always has been the problem.  I think most people have an innate aversion to harming others and as a result have difficulty recognizing when that aversion is absent.  The problem is compounded when there are massive institutions in place that are tasked with obscuring the fact that the controllers are devoid of empathy.

 

As far as death goes, we all die at some point, life is not risk free.  Until we have a sure fire method of identifying psychopaths, the first trade will always be a risk with each subsequent trade being less risky as trust develops based on experience.  None of these ideas require an appeal to morality.

I am with you on your comments about religion. I was suggesting that it is like using cheat codes when playing the game of life.

 

I am proposing the view that the "moral rules" are in fact the rules you require me to agree to, and must trust me to adhere to, for you to be better off allowing me to live. What has to be in that set of rules? Do no aggression, do no fraud, and that's it.

[Des]

Not enough information. There's a difference between kill and murder. The answer to the question "Why shouldn't I murder you?" is an easy one. The murderer is using their life to deprive another of their life. It is an internally inconsistent proposition.

Can I restate that as the answer "Because I'm not attacking or defrauding you (and I will not), and am therefore no threat, whilst I may be of value to you in future" ?

 

In other words, your moral abstinence from aggression could be viewed as motivated by a desire to not be killed off as a threat.

Thus answering what I understood by the question "Why be moral?".

I understood it as referring to human motivation.

[Anuojat]

I care about being alive (because I am enjoying being alive). My interest in morality is to the extent that it preserves my life. If we were alone on an island and you suspected I might kill you the first time you sleep, would you take that risk (leave me alive) to be moral, or be immoral (kill me pre-emptively) to maximise your odds of preserving your life?

 

Is it good advice to someone you love, advising them to be moral at any cost (refer to above example), or is it good advice to advise them to get agreement for reciprocal non-aggression from trustworthy people, and stick to that non-aggression pact with those trustworthy people, in order to remain trustworthy (and have improved odds of survival).

 

Is it not the main wish you have, for those you love, that they survive (as long as possible, as long as they can enjoy life)? Does it help to view it from the perspective of an advisor to a loved one?

 

I care about being alive too but often i care more about what i true and logically correct and consistent.

 

I wouldnt kill you but if i suspected you were an evil person (or crazy) then id most likely just try some other way or guarding myself. However i dont see where the moral issues comes up here.

 

I cannot JUSTIFY killing you pre-emptively. Its not upb. I can choose to kill you pre-emptively but i cant say it was in self-defence or that it was morally justified. Infact it was by all intents and purposes immoral, however ofcourse if you have given me clear indication that youre evil and desire to take my life and threaten me in some fashion i can tie you up or kill you in self defence. And the indication must be very clear.

 

I deal with moral theories and theyre UPB;ness or correctness but i also deal with induvidual motivations and wants/ifs.

 

Whther this would be "good advice" i dont know, it depends on many factors in the situation. I would certainly advice peopel to NOT jump to conclusions without evidence but also to guard oneself. I dont see how this is directly has moral connotations though. NAP is logically valid and so is UPB and thus moral theories can be tested thereupon same reason and evidence and logic as they are founded on.

 

Yeah i wish that ones i love survive. Does it help though? Maybe... but that doesnt determine the mroality of the situation or action since my preferance that i survive and people i love survive does not make action moral or immoral (UPD or not UPB). I accept the advice maybe sound based on waht i and other loved one wants, but the morality of things is slightly seperate thing.

[Worlok]

Repercussions. You will measure things in an economic manner and what you get from committing the murder will be compared with what you lose, or what the repercussions for your actions are. You will then determine the odds of getting away with it if it is a crime and at that point you will decide if the action is worth it or not. You won't murder me if the repercussions outweigh the benefits of the action. Unless you are an idiot, then you reap what you sow.

 

As Louis C.K. put it, if murder was legal and you never murdered anybody before, people would think, "what the hell is wrong with this guy? What a creep." and they wouldn't trust you. However, most people are not cool with murder and would not trust murderers. Hence you face no less of a repercussion than everybody not trusting you. Angry mobs have been known to hunt down and kill criminals when there wasn't a greater force of law at work.

[Des]

Repercussions. You will measure things in an economic manner and what you get from committing the murder will be compared with what you lose, or what the repercussions for your actions are. You will then determine the odds of getting away with it if it is a crime and at that point you will decide if the action is worth it or not. You won't murder me if the repercussions outweigh the benefits of the action. Unless you are an idiot, then you reap what you sow.

 

As Louis C.K. put it, if murder was legal and you never murdered anybody before, people would think, "what the hell is wrong with this guy? What a creep." and they wouldn't trust you. However, most people are not cool with murder and would not trust murderers. Hence you face no less of a repercussion than everybody not trusting you. Angry mobs have been known to hunt down and kill criminals when there wasn't a greater force of law at work.

Quite. Mobs hunt murderers because murderers are a threat. Those who assault or steal or defraud are also a threat to those who are willing to (generally) avoid aggression.

 

Why people should be moral (as distinct, for example, from being democracy-preferring), is repercussions. Democracy as a method of cheating by obfuscation of theft, assault, kidnapping and enslavement, cannot be sustained, because there is now clarity, where there was fog. Sooner or later, those who prefer democracy (for example) to morality, will face repercussions.

 

That is the self-interested motivation for people to care what morality is, and to adjust their behaviour to align with what morality is.