The following is a short (relatively short) excerpt of a conversation I had recently on the topic of morality and murder. I will reveal myself to be the person marked as “X”, trying to convince the other person of the rationality of murder and the unjustifiability of morality. Perhaps not my true views, but valid arguments nonetheless.
The other person will remain anonymous as per the spirit of the blog. I have attained permission to use this conversation in here.
X says
Morality per se is useless and should be disregarded as such if it has no logical, rational basis.
All morality can be interpreted differently by every single person, hence a test on the subject cannot actually have any 'wrong' answers.
Y says
morality is useless as it's the package of agreements. which should be held on. like not murdering people
X says
The thing is, is murdering people so bad?
It depends on the person to decide if it is immoral
Y says
... yes, it is.
X says
But it is for the society to decide if it is illegal
Y says
yup. society also makes boundaries for what is moral and what isn't
X says
Why is it so bad to kill people?
Y says
because it's killing people
X says
So?
That is not a valid argument
The thing is, I am not saying killing people is moral, I am simply saying it is not immoral
Y says
These are not opposing events? *(translated)
X says
Hence if you disagree the burden of proof lies on you
Walking outside is neither moral or immoral if it is a result of free, uncompromised thought and decision.
As is murder.
Y says
I think feeling relatively safe around fellow human beings is quite important thing in human life
and usually one doesn’t murder with a ‘free, clear head’ * (translated)
X says
Because it is illegal
I don't want to go to jail
Seriously
So I don't kill people
Not just that, I lack the reason to kill people
I would gain nothing
It is high risk, no reward.
Y says
People that murder, are almost never rational * (translated)
X says
Yeah, ever heard of something called a 'war'?
People kill to survive
Cause they know the other side will be gunning for them.
Y says
that is a completely different matter *
X says
It is murder
Of another human being, nonetheless
[…]
X says
Think of assassins then
They kill cause they get paid
Y says
I would never do that.
and I find it immoral *
X says
But you cannot deny that murder is rational for them, hence not immoral
Every person wants good for oneself
Y says
not without exception *
X says
And killing a stranger hardly hurts one, getting something for doing it is good.
There is no such thing like absolute altruism
Y says
that stranger is always somebody's own. it is very hard to forget it, y'know
of course there isn't.
but selfishness has its own limits
X says
So what if the stranger knows or is related with other strangers?
It does not really matter from the murderer's perspective, now does it?
Y says
do you know what empathy is? you try to be rational
X says
A risk of a revenge is pretty much the only risk.
I've heard the word.
It has something to do with emotions.
Y says
but you fully forget human feelings, which are actually quite important things.
yup
understanding what others feel
X says
And a neurological problem of interpreting presumed emotions of other people as your own.
Y says
if you put it that way
X says
I do
Y says
(I have a neurological problem.)
X says
We all do
Y says
I think only people without empathy can kill in normal circumstances
X says
Empathy can be ignored and existent at the same time
Y says
I don't think killing produces feelings small enough to be ignored.
X says
Yet you can kill mosquitoes on a daily basis
What puts people so much higher?
They are still basically parasites feeding off the Earth, walking towards self-annihilation
Y says
logically, evolution. I have my own reasons though
[…]
since we are speaking generally, they do not matter so much *
X says
Fair enough
But then you agree that in a general perspective the morality of murder is highly questionable, if at all significant
Y says
I think evolutional and emotional reasons are good. and I stand by that *
X says
So you support neorological defects that limit our ability to strive further as individuals and therefore create a smaller but more advanced society?
Y says
what is wrong with that?
I mean, having safe and comfortable society doesn't mean that it's inferior.
X says
Those criteria are also matched by the superior society
Simply instead of a moral boo-boo on killing, it becomes unnecessary from any rational perspective.
Y says
so, if every person has an ability to come and murder you, it doesn't make you feel unsafe ?
X says
They don't have a reason to, so yes
[…]
X says
As long as you can ensure killing you is not worth the trouble, you are of value.
Y says
people do many things just because they want to
X says
You actually are worth something in the society's perspective
Your prolonged existence is in the interest of the society
Y says
The more average you are, the less reason to whack you. It would have to be a very small and controlled society, which I don’t fancy. *
X says
The more mediocre you are, the smaller are the negative consequences
Y says
So basically Hitler was moral? It does not work like that, people are based on emotions. *
X says
Killing Hitler would not have had very dire consequences
Failing to, did
And Hitler also made the foolish mistake you speak of
He listened to his emotions (specifically the rage against jews), which made him a tyrant more than pretty much anything else.
Y says
you can't cut emotions just off.
X says
You don't have to cut the out of your system
You can simply take notice of their existence, try to justify them, and act accordingly
Y says
One of my friend described (something a bit different) to me once:
I don’t think all occurances are power related. I think it comes form an odd sense of entitlement and self gratification.
You see something you want or have an urge to do something and you just do it.
No consideration. No applied logic.
And it is quite... usual. People don't think, they act
X says
They act according to some logic
Some impulse drives them
It may be as simple as 'what the heck', I admit
Y says
so you think what they've done is justified?
X says
But that only confirms that they can ignore morality because of that
For them, most certainly!
Which is the whole point I have been making this whole time
Morality is a poor substitute for laws
It almost never applies rationally and you can never define it.
Y says
which doesn't mean having morality isn't justified.
X says
Hence murder is moral as long as somebody is concerned.
Y says
I will never agree with you.
X says
Okay, let me explain it in layman's terms
Y says
go on
X says
Everything that can be interpreted as moral can be interpreted as immoral.
Everything that can be interpreted as immoral can be interpreted as moral.
The interpretation depends on the person in question, his culture, his way of thinking.
Morality, as a whole, is therefore based on the lack of absolute values, there are no zeroes and ones (as per binary), there are always fractions.
As a corollary, morality cannot define any value of any action. If cannot do that, what's the point of it?
Y says
it sometimes changes what we do
I never said I'm scientifically supported
it isn't even my intention
X says
When does it ever chance our actions?
Y says
for example, if a person decides whether or not to continue communicating with a family member they don't like, sometimes they consider if it's considered moral. (it was out of the blue though)
example.
X says
No
What is considered is 'Why not?'
It causes no apparent harm and might prove useful at some point in time
At this point, the conversation steered off topic and night fell. But what came out of it was quite astonishing, even you have to admit the arguments were quite plausible and persuasive. However, I am quite certain that even you might can counterarguments (hence in favour of morality as a guideline of decision-making and anti-murder morality), so please reveal them in the comments.
EDIT: Please forgive the terrible formatting, I really did not bother with it, I copied it directly during the conversation.
No comments:
Post a Comment