The difference is really that the former is a normative command while the latter is nothing more than a myth.

In the latter case, there is not a necessary consequence at all. Nature doesn't ordain the killer will suffer anything at all. That's down to the actions and choices of those around him. His treatment is always uncertain. Society has to act against him to suffer anything at all. What results from his killing is not "what must happen," but merely what those around him happen to do.

If the killer is to suffer or be punished, those around him have to choose ethically and exert power over him.

Consider in this context the meaning(s) of 'dharma'. That is a key term in Indian religion and philosophy. It is taken from a Sanskrit root dhr_ meaning 'to hold (together). It is translated variously as 'duty' 'code' and 'law', although it is one of those many Indian terms for which there is no direct equivalent.

But, especially in the Buddhist context, ethical normativity is certainly not underwritten by a cosmic lawgiver or personal deity. The implicit understanding of Buddhism is that the Buddha 'sees things as they truly are', meaning, generally, that he understands the psychological and affective causes of suffering, which arise from craving and identification with sense pleasures. In that, Buddhist ethics are quite convergent with those of other traditional philosophies, but again, not dependent on the notion of an external authority that meets out punishments and rewards. (I suppose it is nearer in some sense to virtue ethics, i.e. virtue or 'right action' being inherently rewarding.)

The implicit understanding of Buddhism is that the Buddha 'sees things as they truly are', meaning, generally, that he understands the psychological and affective causes of suffering, which arise from craving and identification with sense pleasures. — Wayfarer

He understood the cause of stress, which although is indeed suffering, does not cover all bases. Buddhism can help with anxiety, stress, disappointment, fear, etc. But it hardly helps with any other kind of discomfort.

But my understanding is, very briefly put, that the purpose of life is to awaken, and to serve awakening. To what? one might ask. I think you have to be able to develop a sense of gratitude, and also a sense of wonder at what most people think is ordinary (although that is by no means all there is to it.) — Wayfarer

If I can jump in, I agree with this purpose. I share these values. But I view it as a chosen purpose. We can identity with this notion of virtue, having experimented with others perhaps.

So the sense, common to a lot of existentialism, of having been 'thrown into existence', isn't warranted (although I hasten to add, I could easily understand why many people do feel that way, like the poor unfortunate refugee diaspora.) — Wayfarer

While I'm sure that there are tortured existentialist that fit this bill, I don't think contemplating or pointing out our "thrown-ness" has to be "poor-me" or "a stranger and afraid / in a world I never made." Sure, the scientific image provides a plausible story, but that this in particular happens to be the plausible story is part of our thrown-ness. Upon reflection, the world appears radically contingent. It could have been another way. Other worlds are not all logically contradictory.

...because of that we actually have a reason for existence, and it's up to us to work out what that is; I think a good deal of unhappiness is caused by the unwillingness to face up to that fact (for which, see Eric Fromm, Fear of Freedom). — Wayfarer

This is very close to Sartre's existentialism. We are "condemned to be free." So we are tempted to fall into a state of "bad faith" and describe ourselves as objects with a fixed nature. My problem with Sartre was the unstable blend of world-fixer and poet of radical freedom.

And also we have stewardship of 'spaceship earth', which, in my view, is the only vessel we're ever going to have (so we have to overcome our promethean sci-fi fantasies of interstellar travel). — Wayfarer

I'm surprised you think we're stuck here. We might destroy ourselves before technology liberates us from this spaceship, of course, but we'll be pioneers again if we don't.

He understood the cause of stress, which although is indeed suffering, does not cover all bases. Buddhism can help with anxiety, stress, disappointment, fear, etc. But it hardly helps with any other kind of discomfort. — DarthBarracuda

Not so! 'Stress' is just a trendy translation of dukkha, another Buddhist term which doesn't have a one-word equivalent. But suffice to say that according to Buddhists, Nirvāṇa is the end of all suffering - not de-stressed, not chilled out, but end of suffering altogether, once and for all.

'Samsara has no beginning but it has an end. Nirvāṇa has a beginning but it has no end' - Buddhist saying.

I don't subscribe to any established "school" or approach to ethics.

For one, I'm no longer of the opinion that any sort of overarching principle-oriented approach is a good idea. Those approaches always seem to lead to what I consider ridiculous stances.

Trying to be less difficult, though, you could probably say that my ethical views tend to follow a combination of ideas related to existential authenticity, a kind of loose, minarchist libertarianism, and some socialist ideals. --As if that's less difficult, haha.

Basically, though, I approach each situation on its own terms and try to reach what seems to me like a reasonable conclusion that errs on the side of permissibility, or that errs on the side of not instituting grossly disproportionate punishments/retribution. Again, I don't think that principle-oriented approaches tend to do that.

Situation ethics, then?

Situational ethics is often defined like this, per Wikipedia: "Situational ethics, or situation ethics, takes into account the particular context of an act when evaluating it ethically, rather than judging it according to absolute moral standards. In situation ethics, within each context, it is not a universal law that is to be followed, but the law of love."

My approach doesn't have anything to do with a "law of love" or anything like that, which still seems to be a principle-oriented approach.

Re: slavery. Id like to do some more research, but the sense I got is that slavery has always been abhorrent.... there was always mistreatment (as if "only" ownership wasnt bad enough), and there have always between people who didn't give slavery a seCond thought. I got the sense it was just assumed that some people deserved to be slaves.

John Holbo points out that Plato doesnt include slaves in his Republic. Thats something.

Take a look at Book I of Aristotle's Politics.

Perhaps Plato had no slaves in his Republic because the majority of its workers in it were no better off than slaves in their subjugation to its ruling class.

Perhaps Plato had no slaves in his Republic because the majority of its workers in it were no better off than slaves in their subjugation to its ruling class. — Cavacava

LOL! :-*

Maybe you meant that the ruling class was no better off than slaves in their subjection to the citizens... The guardians (ruling class) were raised very austerely, they didn't have families, they belonged equally to all other guardians. Guardians weren't allowed to love each other, they weren't allowed to have sex or be intimate with anyone, they weren't allowed to own any property. They were supposed to devote all their time to study and development, protection and care of the community. There was only one time when the guardians were allowed to have sex (with other guardians), and that was only for reproduction, and it was expected to be promiscuous because the guardians were to develop no love, intimacy, or partisan (exclusive) affection one towards another. Again - the guardian class would deprive themselves of all goods in order to devote themselves 100% to the protection of the community. Plato was keenly aware that given the function of the guardians, they should develop characters which were entirely devoid of the usual joys - their life would be a life of servitude to the Good, above all else.

And this idea is fundamentally correct and has been carried through. There is a reason why priests (the leaders) are, in many religions, required to be celibate for example. It's supposed to be something that they give up, in order for their affection to be universal, and have no elements of partisanship within it. Plato's guardian would love all men equally, and make no distinctions whether it was his son, his wife, etc. - indeed, these concepts didn't exist for the guardian. But remember the function of the guardians isn't to live the best life - but rather to ensure that the best life is possible for everyone else. So don't expect the guardians to live nicely - they didn't.

This is an often misunderstood attitude of Plato. Many think Plato encouraged a community of women, or communism in the same way Marx did - but this is totally false. The community of women was indeed a privation of the goodness of love and intimacy that the guardians undertook in order to be most fit to serve and protect their community. But because people's thinking is twisted - they expect it to be the opposite - they think that because the guardians are rulers, they must have lived the best life, and if they lived the best life, then that means that Plato thought that a community of women and communism was the best socio-political system of organisation. Nothing could be further from the truth. They expect the rulers to be those who have the best lives, and therefore they too desire to be rulers. The truth is that rulers don't live very good lives. Their lives are a sacrifice to the gods - pure duty, and not enjoyment or pleasure characterises the guardians. Nobody would like to be a leader - as is made clear at the beginning of the Republic - but one decides to become a leader because in the absence of one (or worse, in the presence of an incapable one), society, including that person, will be worse off - pretty much one becomes a leader when there is no alternative. Leadership is a sacrifice one makes, because the disease (socio-political disorder) is worse than the pain of the cure (leadership - order).

Re: slavery. Id like to do some more research, but the sense I got is that slavery has always been abhorrent.... there was always mistreatment (as if "only" ownership wasnt bad enough), and there have always between people who didn't give slavery a seCond thought. I got the sense it was just assumed that some people deserved to be slaves. — anonymous66

No - they thought slavery was an evil, but a necessary one (hence the some are slaves by nature from Aristotle), and therefore supported it, because eliminating it would have caused more problems than maintaining it, and gradually eliminating it. Similar to the situation with servants in India today. So yes - there are evil things in our midsts that we have to do something about - but we have to be careful that by solving them we don't bring about even greater evils.