Why is murder actually wrong.

Author: Checkmate

Posts

Total: 458
#151
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
I oppose both. But, like I said, I think that if both exist and someone is going to spend their life in solitary confinement, they should be able to choose to have the state kill them if that's possible. But given that the choices are both fucked, I think it should be up to the person who will experience one of the two choices rather than the state.
#152
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
Fine so even if you omit solitary, jail itself is generally viewed as such as well and that’s not a far fetched take.
#153
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
I mean, I don't agree, but I thought you were trying to detect inconsistencies in my positions. If we're not doing that we can argue about prison vs. death but I want to clarify that that is what we are doing first. 
#154
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
As long as the main question isn’t answered then yeah the position remains inconsistent.
#155
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
In that case I will quote myself from before: 

I don't think you can measure the value of life solely by how much utility it has. If we did that we could justify killing a lot more people than prisoners. Life has inherent value as possibly the only thing we have. Plenty of very important people had bad lives. And like I said, I think prisons need to be improved; I don't think that the current state of prisons is an inevitable reality. I also think that you're assuming unjustly that a prisoner's life is a fate worse than death, when I think that's an overgeneralization. You can still get an education, have friends, and, to a more limited extent, follow your talents in prison. It's just a much more difficult atmosphere.
Even if life is not good, it is still worth living; it may be the only thing of value that actually exists, and there is always time to be dead. It's also seemingly the only place where your potential as a person can be realized. 

#156
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
I should rephrase: imprisonment must punish crimes for a government to continue to function. The mass application of this principle will inevitably lead to some false convictions.
Judging by this response I assume you agree your question for sadolite (minus the death penalty) is also fitting for you, if you agree to that then you’re also agreeing to the inconsistency and we can move on, because the only reason I can think of to ask that is if your anti jail as well which apparently you’re not.
#157
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
I don't think you understand. My principle is not inconsistent, it is just not categorical. It does not apply in all cases because I have other principles. There is nothing wrong with that. 
#158
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
My principle is not inconsistent, it is just not categorical.
...Just like inconsistent things aren’t categorical.
#159
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
I mean if you define inconsistent as "not applying in every possible circumstance" then yeah my position is inconsistent. Maybe a better word would be inconstant? It's a weird definition since inconsistences are typically illogical. But if that is your definition, then sure, my position is inconsistent, but there's still nothing wrong with my position. 
#160
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
I mean if you define inconsistent as "not applying in every possible circumstance" then yeah my position is inconsistent.
And how is that different from your definition?

Maybe a better word would be inconstant?
It’s all synonymous really.

But if that is your definition, then sure, my position is inconsistent, but there's still nothing wrong with my position.
There is no but, you said it yourself it’s illogical.

#161
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Before we continue  into this conversation, do you agree or not agree with the statement that you are frivolously using semantics? Please do not lie to me. If you don't agree, then maybe it will be worthwhile to continue this, but if you do agree, either because you're being willfully dishonest or just trolling, I don't think this conversation is worthwhile for either of us. Trust me, blatantly using semantics to win an argument is just embarrassing. It does not make you look good. 

If you feel that you're not using frivolous semantics, please feel free to elaborate as to why that is. 
#162
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
If you feel that you're not using frivolous semantics, please feel free to elaborate as to why that is. 
Because you’re the one that asked for the semantic dispute when you argued a contrast between categorical, inconsistent, and inconstant so if anyone’s being semantic it’s you with all the extra synonymous terms you’ve added into this equation, you just want to question my authenticity now because you lost the dispute.
#163
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Is the statement: "killing people is typically wrong, however sometimes killing people is necessary for self-defense"  illogical?
#164
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
I wouldn’t say so.

#165
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
I wouldn’t say so.
So then why is the claim I'm making, that it is typically wrong to harm innocents but sometimes harming innocent people is necessary to make a state function, illogical? Isn't it the same kind of sentence?

Isn't it true that that sentence, "killing people is wrong" is non-categorical in that case because it does not apply in every possible circumstance? So therefore isn't the sentence inconsistent, and therefore illogical?

#166
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
I edited my sentence for increased clarity.
#167
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
So then why is the claim I'm making, that it is typically wrong to harm innocents but sometimes harming innocent people is necessary to make a state function, illogical? Isn't it the same kind of sentence?
Because the former is in regards to the guilty and the latter is in regards to the innocent.
#168
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
In both cases there are statements that are non-categorical. You have equated non-categorical to inconsistent to illogical. But you accept one and reject the other. 

If you don't accept that, how about "I usually support doing my homework, but when I had to go to my grandma's funeral I thought I should skip it". Is that ILLOGICAL?

You are in denial of basic logic. 
#169
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
In both cases there are statements that are non-categorical.
No they aren’t, and you still didn’t answer my question 

And how is that different from your definition?

You have equated non-categorical to inconsistent to illogical.
You’re the one that equated inconsistent to illogical, and since I concurred you took issue with it.
#170
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
No they aren’t
Explain to me why "I usually support doing my homework, but when I had to go to my grandma's funeral I thought I should skip it" is logical (if you think it is) but "I usually oppose harming innocent people,  but it is acceptable when it is necessary for the functioning of society" is illogical. The killing people statement makes sense too but this one is better. 



and how is that different than your definition

It is BLATANTLY obvious that when someone says that one is being inconsistent in a negative way they mean that you are selectively believing in something without a sufficient reason to believe something in one case and not the other. It's not just when a principle doesn't apply in all cases. 

We'll get to the other stuff later. 

#171
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
You’re the one that equated inconsistent to illogical, and since I concurred you took issue with it.

There is no but, you said it yourself it’s illogical.

I never said it was illogical. Did you not say that I said it was illogical because I said it was "inconsistent"? Does that not mean you equated inconsistent to illogical or am I confused?
#172
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
(if you think it is)
Well I don’t.

The killing people statement makes sense too
Then stick with that, don’t overcomplicate things with the extra unnecessary hypotheticals.

It is BLATANTLY obvious that when someone says that one is being inconsistent in a negative way they mean that you are selectively believing in something without a sufficient reason to believe something in one case and not the other. It's not just when a principle doesn't apply in all cases.
It’s all the same really, nonetheless even by your standard your inconsistent in a negative way (I’m not sure such a thing exists as a positive) because it is NEVER acceptable to harm an innocent human being under any circumstance and that’s a categorical statement.

I never said it was illogical.
Yes you did you said

inconsistences are typically illogical.
Unless I should’ve paid more attention to “semantics” with the word typically.
#173
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Well I don’t.
WHY NOT??? Forget about the killing people one. 

It’s all the same really, nonetheless even by your standard your inconsistent in a negative way (I’m not sure such a thing exists as a positive) because it is NEVER acceptable to harm an innocent human being under any circumstance and that’s a categorical statement.
So you support the abolition of the state?

#174
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Or maybe you just support abolishing prisons?
#175
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
WHY NOT???
Don’t concern yourself with that, it’s straying from the topic at hand.

So you support the abolition of the state?

Or maybe you just support abolishing prisons?
Please don’t make me the main focus here, this is about you.
#176
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Lmfao if you say so. 

I believe that the existence of prisons and a government is necessary as a prerequisite for protecting innocent people (and humanity in general). In a stateless society or a state of chaos I don't believe that innocent people can be protected period, much less anyone else. If that means that an innocent is accidentally harmed by being convicted for a crime they didn't do once in a while, then that has to happen. 

Once we create a society with a government and rule of law or some other system to prevent chaos, we are in a better position to concern ourselves with protecting innocents and preventing people from being used as means to ends. 


#177
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
If that means that an innocent is accidentally harmed by being convicted for a crime they didn't do once in a while, then that has to happen. 
That sounds kinda similar to what sadolite was arguing yet you still asked the question, just saying.
#178
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
That sounds kinda similar to what sadolite was arguing yet you still called him out, just saying.

This argument is going in circles. You tell me that my position is consistent because I oppose X but support Y which requires X. I say that we shouldn't do X unless Y. I explain why explain why circumstance Y is important enough for us to do X. Then you refer to someone who supports X in the absence of Y.

Are you trolling?
#179
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
Then you refer to someone who supports X in the absence of Y.
How do you know it’s in the absence of Y?

#180
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
How do you know it’s in the absence of Y?
Because society won't fall apart if we don't kill all murderers, rapists, and pedophiles. This is evidenced by the fact that we haven't killed murderers, rapists, and pedophiles for a while in the U.S. and society magically still functions.