Debate Thread

semicolon wrote:Oh, I meant in terms of ethics, but okay, you can have that one.

Oh. Yeah, ok.


Generaly, murdering children for no reason is a bad idea in ethics.

Every real action has a reason, even if it's unrealised. I'll go with "murder is good" as the view you've presented because that's as close as I can get. "Murder is bad" is the opposing view and is apparently ethically superior, but I feel it's only superior because that's what the majority believes; an appeal to popularity.

If someone out there believes murder is good, what makes him wrong? Is there anything inherently wrong with murder or is it just that our society judges it so? The loss of life, you might raise, but a corpse can fertilize plants and provide food. Murder can make way for promotions in business or a contract can earn you a lot of money; a utilitarian might agree that if the money you earned makes you happier than the child you murdered could ever be, then that is not a "bad" act. What makes a human murdering a child worse than a lion hunting a baby gazelle? What about the button beetle, the insect that has incest with its own offspring and then eats them? Bushfires rage and destroy plant-life and there are plants rely exclusively on bushfires to propagate. That happens in the natural world, surely if it was some fundamental law of the universe there would be some sort of repercussion. We are but one species on one planet in an entire universe, who's to say that there isn't a planet out there with intelligent life that doesn't see murder as "bad" or even have a moral code?

Though, if someone is murdering someone for absolutely no reason at all, with no cause what.so.ever, then they are free from ethical judgement because that is just an event, not an action. Moral philosophy is the discussion of whether the reasons behind an action are morally "good" or "bad". If there's no reason, there's no cause to judge. Would you judge a bullet for killing someone, or a robot programmed to kill? A tree falls and kills someone, can we blame the tree?

There is a difference between murder, and killing.

And that is?

Murder is a crime. Killing is not.


Animals kill. Police kill. Soldiers kill.

But murder is always a bad thing.

It's a subtle difference, but it is there.

But why is murder a bad thing? What is the difference that makes "murder" illegal? Killing and murder have the same definition except one is illegal.

These definition semantics are now becoming unrelated to ethics.

Society. There is no other answer.

Murder is bad, because we decided it is bad.

Then it goes back to my point of an appeal to popularity; why has society judged it bad?
Some societies have decreed that I shouldn't have sex with men or let my woman reveal her thighs, what makes murder any different?

Society has judged it bad because... Well, society has judged it bad.

People have judged that they cannot function in a society if everyone could kill everyone else, so they made it wrong.

Now that's just circular reasoning.

Fundamentalist societies are apparently wrong on the belief that homosexuality will ruin human society; I'm not seeing much of difference between the banning of that, of drugs, of alcohol, and that of murder.

You don't see a difference between homosexuality and murder?

No, I meant that I don't see the difference between the banning of them because they have the potential to ruin the society.

I don't think most people though Gay people would ruin society. I just think they didn't like gay people.


Having the freedom to murder anyone you wanted to would ruin society.

It's not about whether humans can "murder responsibly", for lack of a better term; it's about whether or not there is a piece of universal logic which proves that murder is unethical. All sorts of animals murder each other and have survived as a species, it's not uncommon in the animal world for a species to kill their own ilk.

But wait, that gets us back to "kill" and "murder".

So what makes "kill" and "murder" different?

Society says "murder" is illegal.

And why is it illegal?

Because society couldn't function if murder wasn't illegal.

But what about animals that murder each other?

That's not "murder" that's "killing".

Right, I'm done with this little logic circle, this is going to go nowhere.

There is no rule of the universe that says murder is wrong. No one ever said there was.


Sure, animals can survive killing each other, but we're not the same type of animal. You can't compare humans to any other animal because we're simply too different. Our society wouldn't survive if everyone could murder. Our species probably would, but that's not the same thing.

Top Hat Zebra wrote:Society. There is no other answer.

Murder is bad, because we decided it is bad.

I would posit another answer, which more directly speaks to the distinction.

Murder is killing with malicious intent, for no good purpose, with no aim other than to kill. In American legal terms, there is also the distinguishing factor of premeditation. When you murder someone, it is not because you are trying to survive, or because you are acting justly in accordance with your duty as a soldier in a war. You are taking a life out of hate or (in worse cases) pleasure.

When a lion kills, it is because it is hungry. When a soldier kills, it is because he is in a war, against an aggressor who will not stop otherwise.

The point is that life is recognized as special and precious, and the taking of that life without (objectively) just cause is morally wrong.


[]

There we go, that's a much better definition.

I think I'm going to leave it there because if it goes any deeper it'll just get into situational semantics or universality and that's just a godawful drain.

The Guardian has been talking about male circumcision for a while now, and I thought it might be interesting to talk about it here. I believe the debate was kickstarted when a German court tried to enforce a ban on male circumcision in the country.

The main articles are here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/27/circumcision-ruling-germany-muslim-jewish?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jul/17/german-circumcision-affront-jewish-muslim-identity?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/22/catherine-bennett-circumcision-is-bad

The main arguments in the articles are thus: one view is that circumcision in infanthood is a violation of the rights of the child. Another view is attacking circumcision is an attack on religious freedom and tradition: circumcision, as a religious or cultural practice, has existed for hundreds if not thousands of years. Health reports from WHO seem to suggest circumcision has significant health benefits, such as reducing the likelihood of contracting AIDS and penile cancer, as well as being more hygienic.

Personally I fall down somewhere on the "circumcision is bad" side of the argument. If we consider circumcision as a religious marker it strikes me as a bit presumptuous to think your child will automatically be a Jew or a Muslim. They may well be and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. But you don't know: the child isn't you, and they may well decided to abandon religion in later life. Based on that, it seems better to wait until a child is 18 or over before they commit to something like this. Cutting off a foreskin isn't like having your ears pierced: you can't stick it back on if you change your mind. I also disagree with people who say it falls under the category of parents taking responsibility for their child's welfare. Circumcision is not like education or feeding a child properly: if you don't do it, what exactly is going to happen? I haven't been circumcised, which I am very glad about in truth, and I seem to have turned out okay.

If we consider circumcision from a hygiene standpoint, the arguments for this also strike me as a bit tenuous. In terms of AIDS prevention, you really shouldn't be relying on your foreskin for protection from STIs. You should wear a condom or talk to your partner about STIs beforehand. Similarly, it's not too difficult to clean a penis in terms of general hygiene. Male health doesn't revolve around the presence or absence of a foreskin: I believe a urologist was saying a foreskin can introduce health problems for older men, but is this the case for all men? How many men are afflicted by a foreskin in later life?

In terms of health issues, i.e. pain or discomfort from not having a foreskin, it's hard to be conclusive. Some people said they were unconcered by their circumcision whilst others reported significant levels of discomfort. Since I'm sourcing these comments from an anonymous forum I'm reluctant to say too much here.

This is a hugely complex issue so I won't say much more in this post other than this: I am intensely reluctant, as a rule, to advocate doing something on mere religious grounds. Doing something for religious purposes seems to revolve around a mix of doctrine and tradition. Doing things merely because we always have, or because a (sacred) text tells us to strikes me as incredibly poor reasoning, and saying so isn't being hateful or anti-religion. I want to be able to engage with a belief system intelligently and critically, and ask if its practices can work in modern society rather than just accepting and allowing any aspect just because the text says so.

I never really understood why this was such a huge issue. I don't think that having your baby circumcised is a violation of his rights, because it's not like it's going to forever alter his life for better or for worse. It's not like being circumcised causes you to miss out on anything in life. However useless the procedure is, I don't think it can cause any harm (So long as it's done well. A circumcision done improperly can be significantly harmful for reasons that cause me to instinctively coss my legs in order to protect my groin.)

As for the religious angle, I don't really think it matters much. Yes, it's done merely on traditional grounds, but again, it's not like the procedure is a major life decision.

Dewmann wrote:It's not like being circumcised causes you to miss out on anything in life. However useless the procedure is, I don't think it can cause any harm

I could say the same thing about amputating one of a child's toes or cutting of its earlobes, yet, if I were to do that, I would probably be put in jail for the rest of my life.

Would you brand a baby with a crucifix? Or tattoo a portrait of Engels on his thigh?

I believe circumcision is in the exact same genre; it's permanently mutilating the child and forcing it to be a recongnised member of a belief before it's had a chance to decide its own beliefs. If someone wants to cut off their own foreskin, that's cool, but I live by the belief that one shouldn't dictate anything outside of their own person. I'm entirely accepting of any beliefs until someone starts pushing them on others.

I've got a foreskin and I am quite happy with it. It's a nice sheath for my glans and moves smoothly, without lubrication. It's sensitive and lots of fun to play with.

Well yes, but unlike toes, earlobes or tattoos, it's not like too many people are going to see your penis, unless you're willing to pay a lot of money, be it to prostitutes, the court, or whatever.

It's not about outward appearance, it's the fact that circumcision is an irreversible and completely unnecessary medical procedure that's being inflicted without consent. You shouldn't make this decision for your child in the same way you shouldn't tattoo "I ♥ Jesus" on his ass because of your religious convictions.

As per the ruling: "The fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighs the fundamental rights of the parents."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/​48669041

Woah. Im not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I hate smoking. On the other hand, I hate the fact that the government has taken away the right to display their company logos, and such.

Page not found?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48669041#.UCs9S0SG8y5

Now?