Actually, Alex O'Connor (CosmicSkeptic on YouTube) is to release a video on why he believe death is not bad for those that die. Apparently he is delaying its release due to the sensitivities with the pandemic. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I’m a pretty big fan of Cosmic Skeptic so I’d have to stick around for that. One thing that makes him so great is his willingness to entertain very controversial viewpoints that other philosophers are not willing to entertain.

Others have raised the point that if murder was normalised there would be negative knock-on effects. Maybe I am missing something, but surely the knock-on effects of normalising causing suffering, would rise equally. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I agree, that’s what I’ve been trying to suggest in response to those posts. I think these types of slippery slope arguments are often a sort of last resort argument. If someone doesn’t have any other good reason to think that their ethical position is correct then they could always make a slippery slope argument and speculate a dystopian future created by an opposition to their viewpoint. You see this with the anti-euthanasia advocates for example. But, almost any position could be defended with a slippery slope argument. For example, I could argue that we should ban violent video games because they will eventually cause a normalization of gruesome murder and this will lead to societal decay.

Deprivation applies to most wrongs. Stealing deprives one of things. Rape deprives one of sexual choice. Each of these deprivations though can be recovered from. Murder, cannot. As there is potential to better oneself in almost every wrong except murder, I can't see these wrongs being greater than murder. — Philosophim

I have defined deprivation as an aspect of a harm that removes a benefit from a particular person. I don’t think that rape is primarily harmful because of deprivation as I have defined it. The primary aspect of rape that makes it really bad is that it causes a lot of suffering which isn’t inevitable suffering. The suffering caused by murder, on the other hand, could be called inevitable in a sense that this individual would have likely died in a painful way regardless. Though, I was talking more about painless murder being not as wrong as we typically think. Under my view, one could be committing a major wrong by murdering someone painfully. The wrongdoer’s biggest offense would be torture rather than murder though. Another thing worth mentioning is that there is a silver lining to getting murdered in that it alleviates you of any future suffering that you might have to undergo. This is at least a small upside to murder even for those who wish to continue living. Rape doesn’t usually have any upside at all. I suppose there are rare cases where a woman might think that there was a small upside to being raped because it made her a stronger person or maybe she is glad that it caused the creation of her child. Though, more often than not, rape makes people weaker by traumatizing them and a rape pregnancy doesn’t get celebrated and gets aborted or given away instead.

How about we call this, "Agency of choice". Again, all wrongs are the removal of choice from a person. Murder is when you deprive someone of their life against their consent for some personal gain. Again, all other wrongs can be recovered from to some extent except murder. If someone chooses to die, this is not murder. So someone may prefer death to a particular existence. When we choose for them, that is when it is an evil. — Philosophim

I also don’t think that the removal of choice is a central aspect which makes rape and torture bad. It is rather the suffering that it produces which is not inevitable suffering. It’s also worth noting that your agency of choice in regards to wanting to continue your life is bound to get violated at some point because you cannot live forever. Your agency of choice in regards to rape however, does not ever have to be violated.

Again, all of these griefs have the potential to resolve themselves into something better, except murder. — Philosophim

Why do you think that? Couldn’t you overcome the grief of your loved one getting murdered as well? Couldn’t you also better yourself after your loved one gets murdered? I’m having a hard time understanding why murder grief would be inherently worse than natural death grief.

I meant that lethal aggression has much higher psychological impact on people around, and I don't mean direct relatives here. In general such atmosphere will push people to be more aggressive. Even without direct immediate lethal context it may cause political disaster. — Skeptic

I don’t know if I agree with that. For example, there are murder scenes in kid friendly movies like the Lion King and the Hunchback of Notre Dame for example while mutilation scenes or rape scenes or torture scenes are pretty unlikely to be shown in any movie that isn’t for adults over 18. In addition, I have personally felt sick to my stomach when watching a documentary about blood diamonds and mutilation getting used as punishment for not finding enough diamonds and the scene in Get The Gringo where a cop gets tortured by having toes snipped off one by one and the scene from Tiger King where someone gets their arm ripped off by a tiger. I can vividly remember every mutilation scene that I have watched because of how sick to my stomach it made me feel. I can’t remember almost any murder scene I watched because those scenes have never had any emotional impact on me. I actually think my reaction to those different types of scenes is the typical reaction that people have. Mutilation scenes and torture scenes probably disturb people the most. Followed by rape scenes and murder scenes are actually probably last if they don’t particularly brutal.

murder scenes in kid friendly movies like the Lion King — TheHedoMinimalist

Quite strange comparison I wold say. Can you estimate probability of your own death by watching the Lion King? You are falling into a single person view again, but I'm talking about society perspective. Is it possible to make a higher psychological impact without lethal consequences? Yes, for sure, but average people in our society are completely different. If you are going to create lows for society, you need to understand the typical behavior in that society and reasons behind it.

I have personally felt sick to my stomach — TheHedoMinimalist

It means only that you didn't get use to such a view, and it's almost impossible for an adult without psychological consequences, but picture is different for kids. Did you try to imagine what is going to happen to the mind in a place where violent death is all way around? And we have a lot of historical evidence on this topic. So society is pretty confident about things it want to avoid

At some point I think it will become possible to change weights and to understand that in some cases consequences may be much worse than just death. But there is no way to change historical process in a blink of the eye

At some point I think it will become possible to change weights and to understand that in some cases consequences may be much worse than just death. But there is no way to change historical process in a blink of the eye — Skeptic

Well, I’m not trying to change the historical process in a blink of an eye. My goal is to make progress on that goal as much as I can. Obviously, we couldn’t really alter our laws in a democratic society without the members of such society agreeing with those laws on some level. Legal changes have to start with cultural changes. But, how do you initiate a cultural change? It seems like a good way to start is to make your case to the community of intellectuals and then hope a lot of them will think that what you are saying makes a whole lot of sense. Then, the idea spreads further and becomes fairly common among moral philosophers but mostly rejected by the common man. Veganism can be said to be in that sort of stage right now where a decent proportion of moral philosophers accept it but it’s mostly rejected by society at large. Eventually, ideas with decent intellectual credibility could start becoming more mainstream in society at large and it could change reactions and the historical process in the end. I actually really doubt that this will happen in the end but as a philosopher I enjoy talking about ideas that make sense to me based on the reasons given behind those ideas. I think that is a useful exercise for moral progress as well though because you never know how influential an idea can become. It’s worth noting that the idea of gay marriage was ridiculed in the past and it was also probably considered resistant to the historical process. If I was making an argument for gay marriage in the 80s, I would be under no illusion that everything would change in a blink of eye. Rather, I would hope that the idea would get more respect in a more enlightened future world.

I have defined deprivation as an aspect of a harm that removes a benefit from a particular person. — TheHedoMinimalist

Right. The ability to choose is a benefit of a person. People like personal agency.

The primary aspect of rape that makes it really bad is that it causes a lot of suffering which isn’t inevitable suffering. — TheHedoMinimalist

What is the cause of the suffering? The suffering of broken bones is different from the suffering of a broken heart. People like to have sex, but they like to have sex with people they choose to have sex with. Rape is removing a person's choice NOT to have sex. It is the removal of this personal agency that in my mind defines rape. If you have another way of defining it, feel free to propose it.

I suppose what you are trying to say though is about whether suffering is inevitable. We should define that more clearly.

While it is inevitable we will all die one day, dying at the hands of the murderer is not inevitable at that particular time. If the murderer did not interfere, it was inevitable that you would live. If we ignore the time between when you were murdered, versus when you would die of "natural causes", we are missing a major part of the equation.

The only way we could state murder to be equivalent with dying is if a person was murdered at almost the exact moment they would have died naturally. But the idea of, "You're going to die in 20 years, so its not so bad if I murder you now," doesn't work as a valid comparison

Though, I was talking more about painless murder being not as wrong as we typically think. Under my view, one could be committing a major wrong by murdering someone painfully. — TheHedoMinimalist

Actually narrowing down what you mean by a "major wrong", is difficult because of statements like this. Now its not inevitability, but the idea of murder with pain versus murder without pain which determines what makes it a major wrong versus not so bad. But that doesn't answer whether that's a major wrong in relation to different types of wrongs. Of course getting sliced into bits with a razor blade while numbed is going to be a less horrible experience then if you feel every second of it, but does that make the action less wrong then having 5 dollars stolen from you?

Another thing worth mentioning is that there is a silver lining to getting murdered in that it alleviates you of any future suffering that you might have to undergo. — TheHedoMinimalist

The problem is you're not including all of the other positives of living you might have to undergo as well.
Its kind of like saying, "I stole all your money, but don't worry, now you don't have to pay taxes anymore". Taxes are not the only thing we spend money on. Suffering is not the only thing we spend life on.

Again, all of these griefs have the potential to resolve themselves into something better, except murder.
— Philosophim

Why do you think that? — TheHedoMinimalist

Yes, that wasn't very clear. If my friend has five dollars stolen from them, I can feel grief at their loss. But five dollars can be earned again. If my friend breaks up with their significant other, I can feel grief at their loss. But they could possibly remarry, and they have other things in their life they still enjoy. Murder is the end. I will have grief over my friend. They will never come back. They will never experience life again. There is no potential for future joy or improvement. There is only the end.



.

Rape victims reportedly seem to regard the act of being killed as the worst consequence of being attacked. I think the OP seem to lack an ability to position oneself in another persons place, as it is written. There aint an abundance of thing more important than living.

But well, we celebrate soilders for taking the lives of others, so killing as such is not a total no-no in most cultures including the western one.

I think you're confusing murder with nonexistence with death. That's all I could gather from your post.

What is the cause of the suffering? The suffering of broken bones is different from the suffering of a broken heart. People like to have sex, but they like to have sex with people they choose to have sex with. Rape is removing a person's choice NOT to have sex. It is the removal of this personal agency that in my mind defines rape. If you have another way of defining it, feel free to propose it. — Philosophim

I don’t think the suffering that comes with rape is necessarily caused by a removal of choice. For example, suppose there is a guy who has a button that could freeze time and he uses this button to molest women. The women would never suffer as a result of the molestation even though their choice had been violated and I would go as far as to say that the time freezing molester hasn’t wronged them if there was a very low possibility of them ever finding out that they were molested by him. What he’s doing is still sexual assault though and he’s definitely taking away the women’s ability to choose to get touched sexually by him but it only matters if he either makes them feel suffering and deprives them of pleasure.

While it is inevitable we will all die one day, dying at the hands of the murderer is not inevitable at that particular time. If the murderer did not interfere, it was inevitable that you would live. If we ignore the time between when you were murdered, versus when you would die of "natural causes", we are missing a major part of the equation.

The only way we could state murder to be equivalent with dying is if a person was murdered at almost the exact moment they would have died naturally. But the idea of, "You're going to die in 20 years, so its not so bad if I murder you now," doesn't work as a valid comparison — Philosophim

I agree that getting murdered is not completely equivalent to dying a natural death and this is why I still think you can say that murder is wrong. My point is that we would likely consider murder to be a far smaller wrong if we also consider that we will have to face our mortality at some point anyways. It seems to me that your argument here boils down to a deprivation of life span which the murdered individual happens to value. In that case, I would argue that the reason why most people would rather get raped rather than get murdered has more to do with their fear of imminent death rather than a desire to live longer. I think we can maybe agree that if people prefer rape over murder because of a fear of death then it would be an irrational preference because they will have to confront their mortality at some point anyways. I could give you an argument for why I think it’s motivated mostly by the fear of death if you would like to hear one but I’m trying to keep my posts reasonably short for now so I’ll just let you respond first.

Actually narrowing down what you mean by a "major wrong", is difficult because of statements like this. Now its not inevitability, but the idea of murder with pain versus murder without pain which determines what makes it a major wrong versus not so bad. But that doesn't answer whether that's a major wrong in relation to different types of wrongs. Of course getting sliced into bits with a razor blade while numbed is going to be a less horrible experience then if you feel every second of it, but does that make the action less wrong then having 5 dollars stolen from you? — Philosophim

Well, I never claimed that having someone murder you painlessly is less wrong than something as minor as theft. Rather, I only claimed that it isn’t as bad as rape or long term imprisonment.

The problem is you're not including all of the other positives of living you might have to undergo as well.
Its kind of like saying, "I stole all your money, but don't worry, now you don't have to pay taxes anymore". Taxes are not the only thing we spend money on. Suffering is not the only thing we spend life on. — Philosophim

I am including all the positives in life as well. My point would be that unless you believe that a particular person would experience far more good things in life if he hadn’t gotten murdered than bad things in his continued life, you couldn’t say that getting murdered is extremely bad for that person. You can say that it’s still significantly bad though like the equivalent of having to serve a 5 year prison sentence or something.

I would argue that the reason why most people would rather get raped rather than get murdered has more to do with their fear of imminent death rather than a desire to live longer. — TheHedoMinimalist

You would rather be murdered than raped, personally?

Consider the economy of murder: Bob kills Jim (reasons are unimportant) Jim, being dead, has minimal positive economic value anymore, once he has been buried little to no economic return will be attributed directly to Jim. Bob goes to jail, resulting in temporary employment for lawyers, judge, etc. after which only the penal system gains by the murder of Jim.

Economic value is limited to confinement and care of Bob.

Consider the economy of Rape: Bob rapes Jim. Jim carries on living, employing various sectors such as acute healthcare, on going counselling, family services, possibly divorce lawyers (substantial trauma is life changing), Jim may need additional training for alternate employment, his family may need counsellors, etc. Bob goes to jail, employing essentially the same people as the previous murder example.

Economic value consists of confinement and care of Bob, plus all of the supports that Jim and his family require on an ongoing basis as a result of the rape.

Mathematically there is less employment, and therefore less societal benefit, to murder than other violent crimes, therefore murder is the worst crime as it has the least long term benefit for society.

In some cases death could be preferable instead of hard torture, it’s hard to tell or to generalise.

Well, I don’t think that we should assume that economic prosperity is purely defined by productivity. Rather, I think makes sense to think of it in terms of productivity relative to the desired consumption of consumer goods and services. For example, suppose you have a society full of financial minimalists who don’t work very often but also have little desire for consumer goods. I think it’s fair to say that this society would be just as prosperous as a society of hardworking people who have a high level of desire for consumer goods even if they might have a lower level of employment or lower work hours. Murder reduces the productivity of a society but it offsets this negative effect by reducing the consumption of that society as well. In contrast, the trauma caused by rape tends to make its victims less productive at work since it’s hard to have your shit together at work if you are dealing with trauma and it also increases the resource consumption of the victim because they now have to pay for therapists to deal with their trauma and that therapist could be helping us build more computers if rape didn’t exist.

While there may be more explanations given for the wrongness of murder, I think I covered the ones that are most commonly mentioned. I would love to hear some polite and constructive counter arguments to my claims and to start a pretty good dialogue. — TheHedoMinimalist

It seems sanctions against murder are required for the establishment of civilization. The law is an attempt to apply sanctions from the outside, while morality is an attempt to apply sanctions within each person.

I would suspect it depends on the condition of the "living" daughter. I am aware of some conditions that death would be preferable to. Either way, if the sentence is too light, vigilantism is more appealing.

I think you could approach this topic from another perspective. You can use any branch of moral philosophy under moral irealism / anti-realism to question the proposed moral "fact" ; "Murder is wrong" as not being a fact at all. According to all sub branches of moral anti-realism, moral statements are not facts, so we can either suspend judgment regarding them or allow disagreement in assigning truth value to moral statement.

You will obviously have to face moral realism but you can also get around it by criticizing the coherence theory of truth if we are supposed to know which moral facts are true or false. Coherence theory of truth allows contradictory ( not necessarily moral statements ) to be valid and that's a shortcoming.

It seems sanctions against murder are required for the establishment of civilization. The law is an attempt to apply sanctions from the outside, while morality is an attempt to apply sanctions within each person. — Hippyhead

I agree, I’m not trying to say that murder isn’t bad at all. I’m arguing that it isn’t as bad as most people think. I think murderers should get like a 5 year prison sentence or be sentenced to death.