OED: murder, "the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another".

I assume that "unlawful" necessarily implies wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover

"Unlawful" simply implies that something is against the law; it's illegal; it's been officially declared that if one does the action in question, one can be prosecuted, fined, possibly imprisoned, etc. for it.

The reason that it's illegal is that the folks who have influenced legislation have judged that it's morally wrong. But that's not what "unlawful" implies. Plenty of things are unlawful that are not generally considered ethically wrong. For example, in my area, it's unlawful to park on certain sides of the street at certain times during certain days. Not many people would say that the fact that that's unlawful implies that it's ethically wrong to park on those sides of the street during those times on those days.

OED: murder, "the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another".

I assume that "unlawful" necessarily implies wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover

Wow. He actually did it. I precautioned him against this five days ago, back on page 26:

(And to rule out one possible interpretation, I'll note that we are talking about science vs. ethics, not science vs. the law) — Sapientia

Unlawful doesn't necessarily imply immoral, and the latter is the only interpretation of "wrong" that would be relevant.

You are missing the point. There may be constraints on what could ever be actual (possibility), apart from the obvious purely logical ones, that are absolutely inherent in reality.

In other words there may be things we can imagine as possibilities which are not actual possibilities at all, and never could have been.

Yes either it is or it isn't possible, and you don't know which. This is just what I said. The default position may be for you to believe it is possible but this doesn't make it so. See the crucial difference now?

Yes either it is or it isn't possible, and you don't know which. This is just what I said. The default position may be for you to believe it is possible but this doesn't make it so. See the crucial difference now? — John

I saw it from the start. I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Obviously I'm going to say what I believe, and make comments consistent with my position.

It's no skin off my back. — Sapientia

Great, we wouldn't want you to be losing that oh-so-precious skin off your back, now would we?

For me it's really all just like water off a duck's nose. Or, in a different mood perhaps a bit more like snot on a chicken's lip.

Oh, yeah, right so your "default" belief is based on self-acknowledged ignorance?

So it is nothing more than a baseless leap of faith just like its opposite would be?

Oh, yeah, right so your "default" belief is based on self-acknowledged ignorance? — John

It is based on good reason. For example, Hume has some good arguments which are relevant in that regard. Although I do acknowledge that I am to some extent ignorant, as I expect you do.

So it is nothing more than a baseless leap of faith just like its opposite would be? — John

No. That question suggests that you have jumped to a conclusion.

Well, then I'm still completely in the dark as to what the "good reason" for your belief is...

For me the situation as outlined provides good reason for either suspending judgement or taking the leap of faith, and acknowledging the ensuing belief as being based on that faith, and/or on intuition or else on mere preference.

'Ipse dixit' - my new Fancy Foreign Frase for the day. I love it! I can't believe I've been hanging around philosophy forums for years and never come across it before, especially given how often some people do it.

Are you and Sapientia the same person?

Unlawful doesn't necessarily imply immoral, and the latter is the only interpretation of "wrong" that would be relevant. — Sapientia

In case you forgot how to read, I said that "unlawful" necessarily implies "wrong". We were discussing ethics, which I referred to as rules for human actions. I do believe that laws fall into this category.

See what I mean, you just define words as you please, in order to avoid facing the objective fact that you're wrong. When you can define words willy-nilly there are no objective facts, and you can never be proven wrong. But what's the point in such a semantic exercise?

Are you and Sapientia the same person? — Metaphysician Undercover

Haha, no, but I see he said almost the same thing that I did.

So would you say that it's morally wrong to park on a particular side of the street for a couple hours a couple days per week?

I guess it depends on how you define "normal state of consciousness". Is the normal state of consciousness a state of skepticism or openness. The heightened state you allude to may just come to a person, I believe, without them having previously cultivated intuition and faith; but it is more likely to come to someone who has cultivated those things.

Yes if it's cultivated perhaps. What I am referring to is not a heightened state, although that might accompany it. Rather it is a transformation in the consciousness of the witness. This in my experience involves a change, development, or journey in one's intellectual state, this probably involves a realisation of something not previously thought to be possible, again, something is revealed. So for example in the case of the Buddha this transformation revealed the reality of a transcendent state and realm, by the removal of a veil in his being. The removal of an impediment, so rather than seeing only the impediment, the Buddha saw the true reality.

If God appeared as a human person (as He is supposed to have done 2000 years ago) then presumably some would believe on the basis of intuition, others might experience a profoundly convincing vision and many would be skeptical and even disbelieve. Two thousand years ago, if undoubtable miracles were witnessed, many might have judged it to be case of witchcraft or possession by demons. Ironically a performance of genuine miracles would probably be far more convincing today in our scientifically skeptical age.

Yes, although there were some witnesses who experienced a revelation as I described it above, principally the disciples, along with some of the people who were healed. Regarding miracles, yes they might be more convincing today, but what would they be convinced of I wonder. Most people would suspect, I expect that the miracle is some kind of extraterrestrial technology and that God is some kind of alien. So we are confronted with regression, maybe it isn't God, just a more advanced being, and God is still hidden, but maybe it is a far more advanced being than that, with a far more convincing miracle, but maybe God is still hidden and this is an imposter and so on.

I suppose what I am homing in on is that in a person there is a process in the mind, which happens when a belief is formed. Resulting in a held belief, a conviction of the truth of something. It is a psychological process resulting in a persistent or deeply held conviction in someone's mind. This might also be accompanied by a process in which information(which may seem fantastical) can be implanted in the mind which is persistently or deeply known, or understood.

So the notional advanced being coming along and telling us the truth of reality, might just simply manipulate these capacities in us, transfer the information, or conviction and we would be in possession of the truth. There are many testimonies of such events in religious material.

And this might be what happened to Colin, the OP.

It was during the late 17th century... that the word "belief" changed its meaning. Previously, 'bileve' meant "love, loyalty, commitment". It was related to the Latin libido and used in the King James Bible to translate the Greek pistis ("trust; faithfulness; involvement"). In demanding pistis, therefore, Jesus was asking for commitment not credulity: people must give everything to the poor, follow him to the end, and commit totally to the coming Kingdom.

By the late 17th century, however, philosophers and scientists had started to use "belief" to mean an intellectual assent to a somewhat dubious proposition. — Karen Armstrong

Nowadays, 'belief' is shorthand for 'believing an empirical proposition for which there is no evidence'. Whereas, as Armstrong says, what it originally meant:

When a mythical narrative was symbolically re-enacted, it brought to light within the practitioner something "true" about human life and the way our humanity worked, even if its insights, like those of art, could not be proven rationally. If you did not act upon it, it would remain as incomprehensible and abstract – like the rules of a board game, which seem impossibly convoluted, dull and meaningless until you start to play.

Religious truth is, therefore, a species of practical knowledge. Like swimming, we cannot learn it in the abstract; we have to plunge into the pool and acquire the knack by dedicated practice. Religious doctrines are a product of ritual and ethical observance, and make no sense unless they are accompanied by such spiritual exercises as yoga, prayer, liturgy and a consistently compassionate lifestyle. Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvana, Brahman or Dao.

So my take is that what is of value from religion, doesn't reside in a belief, but what belief leads to. Belief in that sense is instrumental in leading to right action, not so much a matter of 'ortho doxa', or 'having the right belief'.

Yes, it might also be implanted like a seed, which develops and grows through "right action".

So would you say that it's morally wrong to park on a particular side of the street for a couple hours a couple days per week? — Terrapin Station

If it's not legal to park there, of course it's morally wrong to park there.

Do you understand that "moral" is defined as concerned with the distinction between good and bad, or right and wrong. This means that all instances of judging between right and wrong are moral cases. Any time that someone makes a judgement of right or wrong, this is by definition, a moral judgement.
Morality is concerned with our ability to make good judgements, in general, that is why good moral principles are fundamental in society.

Are you claiming that people think about law and morality that way, or are you doing a functional analysis of what law is (per how I described this earlier) where your conclusion is contrary to how most folks think about law and morality?

I'm looking at how the word "moral" is defined, and what philosophers in the past have determined concerning the reality of this subject. Look at Plato's "the good" in "The Republic". The good is responsible for the intelligibility of all intelligible objects.

The fact is that the faculty of decision making, in human beings is the same faculty whether or not they are judging not to steal, or to park on the wrong side of the street, or whether it is true that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. These are all judgements as to what is right or wrong. How could we single out one type of judgement, and attempt to claim that it is radically different from others, when they are all instances of human beings making judgements?

Morality deals with this faculty of deciding what is right and wrong, and to build a good character in a human being is to produce good decision making capacities within that person. The ability of a scientist, to make good objective decisions concerning the empirical evidence, is a moral capacity.

I'm looking at how the word "moral" is defined, — Metaphysician Undercover

What I'm asking you about is your analysis of "law." Are you claiming that you're appealing to some common way in academic philosophy of defining "law" as being necessarily moral?

Laws are typically pragmatic formalized applications of societal mores. And such mores typically are those considered to have the greatest moral significance in the society.

What's at issue in this tangent with Metaphysician Undercover, though, is whether "illegal" necessarily implies "immoral" or "morally wrong."

What I'm asking you about is your analysis of "law." Are you claiming that you're appealing to some common way in academic philosophy of defining "law" as being necessarily moral? — Terrapin Station

What I'm saying is that morality deals with our capacity to differentiate between good and bad, right and wrong. So, it follows that any type of decision making which is such as to distinguish between right and wrong, and this includes correct and incorrect, is inherently a subject of morality. Therefore all legal issues which distinguish between right and wrong are moral issues, and even the principles of mathematics and logic, where it is considered that there is a right answer, are issues of morality. Have you read Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" where he discusses the intellectual virtues, and contemplation as the highest virtue?

What's at issue in this tangent with Metaphysician Undercover, though is whether "illegal"necessarily implies "immoral" or "morally wrong." — Terrapin Station

Any judgement of "wrong" necessarily implies morally wrong, because that's what a judgement of right or wrong is, a moral judgement.

Therefore all legal issues which distinguish between right and wrong are moral issues, — Metaphysician Undercover

Are there "legal issues" (what we're actually talking about is legislation, but maybe that's a "legal issue") that do not distinguish between right and wrong and thus are not moral issues?

(Also, I'm not forgetting that you didn't answer the earlier question yet, but I'll ask you the above before getting back to the earlier question.)

Well, then I'm still completely in the dark as to what the "good reason" for your belief is... — John

The good reason is all of the evidence which suggests that it is not impossible. (I referred to some of Hume's arguments in that regard, so you shouldn't be completely in the dark, and if you are, then there's something that you can do about it). There is evidence which suggests that it is conditionally impossible, but there is good reason to doubt the presumed absoluteness of what it is conditional upon. And if it isn't absolute, then exceptions are possible.

For me the situation as outlined provides good reason for either suspending judgement or taking the leap of faith, and acknowledging the ensuing belief as being based on that faith, and/or on intuition or else on mere preference. — John

For you...

But I proportion my belief to the evidence, and the evidence suggests that it is possible.

Are you and Sapientia the same person? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, we most definitely are not. He has said some things which I strongly disagree with, and I have made that clear. But he seems like a smart chap, and I agree with him on that point and on others. I'm glad that I'm not the only one calling you out on this kind of thing.

In case you forgot how to read, I said that "unlawful" necessarily implies "wrong". — Metaphysician Undercover

And I said that unlawful doesn't necessarily imply immoral, and that the latter is the only interpretation of "wrong" that would be relevant.

Why are you making us go around in circles?

We were discussing ethics, which I referred to as rules for human actions. I do believe that laws fall into this category. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is an unsophisticated and overly broad categorisation which is problematic.

See what I mean, you just define words as you please, in order to avoid facing the objective fact that you're wrong. When you can define words willy-nilly there are no objective facts, and you can never be proven wrong. But what's the point in such a semantic exercise? — Metaphysician Undercover

:-d

What I'm saying is that morality deals with our capacity to differentiate between good and bad, right and wrong. So, it follows that any type of decision making which is such as to distinguish between right and wrong, and this includes correct and incorrect, is inherently a subject of morality. Therefore all legal issues which distinguish between right and wrong are moral issues, and even the principles of mathematics and logic, where it is considered that there is a right answer, are issues of morality. Have you read Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" where he discusses the intellectual virtues, and contemplation as the highest virtue? — Metaphysician Undercover

Let me guess... you're going to treat that as the single absolute interpretation, and anyone who deviates from it - even if for good reason - is changing the definitions, and defining words will-nilly, as they please, in order to avoid contradiction and the objective fact that you, Metaphysician Undercover, are always right, and they, therefore, are wrong.

But, if it wasn't for those meddling folks, like myself, and Terrapin Station, and many, many others who prefer a more sensible and sophisticated interpretation to your one, then you would've been able to catch them out and prove them wrong on their own terms! You seem to want us to accept your definition or interpretation, even though we have argued against it, just so you can relish in proving us wrong, and yourself right. But it isn't going to be that easy.

If it's not legal to park there, of course it's morally wrong to park there. — Metaphysician Undercover

Outside of your protective little bubble, that is a non sequitur and a category error. But I get it, you prefer your protective little bubble, where the line is blurred, and the two do not just partially overlap, but are necessarily connected and entirely overlap - even though there is no shortage of counterexamples which highlight that this leads to bad moral judgement in those cases.