moralist

So when the man made rules in an Islamic terrorist state are different from the man made rules in a democratic republic, is one wrong and the other right? Or does majority popular collective societal consensus determine the man made rules of the game?

You have a point about religious dogma, but knowing God exists does not interfere with observing first hand the reality of the consequences we set into motion by our actions and understanding the objective moral laws which govern them. I agree. Our nation was founded on the individual rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While that is true... by using our understanding that animals are only amoral products of genetics and are solely responsive to environmental stimuli, we can and do form useful practical beneficial alliances with them. Seeing eye dogs are one example. Police K-9 units are another. Horses are another. Where I live, people regularly ride horses on the streets. Granted, it's more of a recreation now than when it used to be vital transportation, but nevertheless there is an agreement made with the horses on our terms of our understanding the limits of their behavioral parameters.

I mean the consequences of our actions governed by those moral principles are as real as the consequences of the law of gravity.

Good. Take it wherever you choose. Does such a thing as "a broader good called force" exist? Is force morally neutral depending upon how it is wielded? Man Physical Force:

I agree... just letting you know that I'm not making an argument against your statement. Why do reasonable people differ on the concept of what is right? And along the same idea, why do people who possess the faculty of reason fail to do what is right?

Why does a man have a right to his life any more than an animal does?

Your excellent point raised another question. If it is only a matter of intelligence, why do very highly intelligent people murder their own? And I just wanted to clarify, I agree with most parts of the arguments presented. It's refreshing to read, instead of people romanticizing animals as role models to justify humans behaving like animals. That is a big difference, when some animals killing their own kind is necessary to unite them with their group. Ironically... that almost sounds like gangs.

I regard insuring the safety of others as one factor that makes a killing just.

How about this reason? Execution rectifies the injustice of a murderer continuing to breathe the air he stole from the lungs of his victim(s)?

Two examples of shared values could be children, or drugs. Both could be the basis of romantic love even though one is uplifting while the other isn't. I wouldn't include those as values because they aren't chosen. A moral value implies choice. It's worth seeking values in your partner which inspire you to become a better man.

I meant how we regard their behavior toward their own kind as compared to us and our own. If a chimpanzee murders another chimpanzee he is not prosecuted because it is normal behavior for an animal towards another animal. But if he tries to kill a human by tearing off her face and hands, justice is both swift and sure.

So the difference between humans and animals is that we can choose and animals can't choose? I agree about the delusional part but not about him being a moron. He was quite intelligent and had very high self esteem. So high, he felt worthy of ruling the world. I don't think it's possible for a human being to have more self esteem than that. He took great pride in what he was acheiving Animals' lives are constantly at risk, so what is the difference between them and us? But his goal was his own life... as the supreme leader of that "super-race". So bad moral choices destroy us. I wholly agree with this moral law to which everyone is subject, because it is as real as the physical law of gravity. That's almost it... the vital qualifier is it's what you choose your life as. Your first explanation was better. This returns to peril and again raises the question of why is it ok for animals lives to be in peril, but not humans? You did good Nicky.

That's a great distillation of murder. I love movie quotes. My wife and I have a notepad on which we write down the memorable ones. But if it isn't wrong for a lion or a chimpanzee to murder their own kind, why is it wrong for humans?

Why is it wrong in principle?

Male lions murder all of the cubs when they join a new pride. Chimpanzees also murder and eat their own. Yes, they are. So what is wrong with humans behaving like the other predators? I think it would all depend on the goal. Forgive me for using such a well worn example. Hitler's goal was to acheive an evolutionary superior race of humans, and so he murdered his own species (although he regarded his victims as being subhuman). If that goal facilitated evolutionary development why would it be wrong to murder in order to acheive it? Can you describe that process of devising when there is a disagreement as to what those principles are to be? I both understand and appreciate those rules, but they do not explain why murder is wrong. History does make a strong point, as there is no better teacher than the consequences of peoples' actions.

Killing for a perceived gain that is not in self defense.

While you offered an accurate description of the benefits of a social agreement, it does not explain why murder is wrong. I may be assuming that you believe that it is, but if I'm wrong let me know. If one person is stronger than another and kills him and takes possession of his property, why is that wrong? It went outside the parameters of acceptable discussion in this forum.

I heard this question discussed on the radio a few days ago and it took some very interesting turns: Can you explain why it is wrong to murder? Why is it wrong for humans to be like the animals where only the strongest survive?

...and there is no better way to learn than the through consequences of relationships. That process is much more than just an intellectual choice. People with matching values no matter what those values happen to be, are naturally attracted to each other. When it comes to males and females, and men and women... complimentary traits match. But same moral values match. Then they only thought they were good, and that's a very valuable truth to discover. This is the purpose of bad relationships... to teach us what we need to learn to become men. It's just a matter of defining terms. I draw a moral distinction between males and men. I was referring to the ideal which is worthy of aspiration, is it not? To become wise is to learn from the pain of mistakes to be set free from suffering their repetition. Whatever remains unlearned will surely be repeated. And each of us freely chooses to learn the easy way or the hard way. Some with a gentle tap on the shoulder and others by a baseball bat over the head.

World War One was never finished and neither side was defeated, so it continued as World War Two. Germany threw in the towel when America became involved. The harsh treaty imposed the Weimar Republic on Germany and levied astronomical reparations it could not pay, so the government printed money which destroyed the economy through inflation and paved the way for Hitler to rise to power.

It's implied that it's good... but a person could just as likely pursue an evil purpose, except that it would be impossible to derive any happiness from it.

An aspect of purpose could also include meaning. Viktor Frankl, in his book "Man's Search for Meaning", made the point that meaning is absolutely essential to happiness.

It's quite rational without being rationalizing to state that people naturally seek out their own kind. You're quite correct. People who form relationships match each other... for better or for worse. The better or worse all depends on the quality of their matching values which could be anything from sublime to rotten. There's another category which may or may not include those first two. Those whose values don't match. Yes. That's how males behave... not men. Right men cannot be swindled... however males are easy marks for females who share their values. The "nice ring" to which my statements refer is a wedding ring. ; )

Same here. I don't go to Krispykreme but I like the gooey red filling in the round ones, or the yellow custard in the long ones with the chocolate glaze on them.

A right man won't even need to try, because he will become the "wrong man" for wrong females who will naturally avoid him. In personal relations, people basically get what they deserve. My approach is different in that it's better to seek to understand yourself to be "the right bait for the right fish". Well if he does, it's well earned frustration. For what is wrong in a male is attracted to what is wrong in a female. That is the basis of their relationship. In contrast, what is right in a man is attracted to what is right in a woman, and that is the basis of their relationship. As I see it, they're still males who have not yet become good men as long as they do that.