What would make you commit murder?

[trenton]

2 hours ago, Elliott said:

Help you go through and get over the trauma, give you coping strategies for the mean time. You go over the trauma, and recontextualize how your mind thinks of it.

I have recontextualized my trauma from enough perspectives that changing the interpretation has lost meaning. If you think I haven't thought about my trauma from a certain perspective, then which perspective are you thinking of? What do you think my trauma is doing to me that would need to be solved? 

Also what does getting over my trauma mean? Have you tried therapy with success? What did you get therapy for that makes you confident?

You make it sound simple and obvious as if therapy is reliable enough that I should be confident in it.

[trenton]

I think people are too wrapped up in moralizing to seriously contemplate these questions. I have already done a lot of deconstructing monster narratives. Anybody you call evil is still fundamentally human (or God if Leo is right.)

I don't think you guys have done the same work with deconstructing monster narratives. It looks like you still hold moral judgements against murders and rapists. Moralizing doesn't really tell me much.

It looks like I won't really get far asking questions like these to others. I wanted to know what to expect from an intimate relationship if there are cases of people with homicidal rage who want to murder someone. It would help to know what drives people to such behaviors.

The way I framed it was that vengeance involves a spectrum of harm. I thought that someone could harm you to different degrees leading to different degrees of provocation. I doubt AI can help if it would just tell me to call 988 or something. AI is often poor with deep questions because it incorrectly flags it as seeking permission. It did this with incest as well.

[Elliott]

39 minutes ago, trenton said:

I think people are too wrapped up in moralizing to seriously contemplate these questions. I have already done a lot of deconstructing monster narratives. Anybody you call evil is still fundamentally human (or God if Leo is right.)

I don't think you guys have done the same work with deconstructing monster narratives. It looks like you still hold moral judgements against murders and rapists. Moralizing doesn't really tell me much.

It looks like I won't really get far asking questions like these to others. I wanted to know what to expect from an intimate relationship if there are cases of people with homicidal rage who want to murder someone. It would help to know what drives people to such behaviors.

The way I framed it was that vengeance involves a spectrum of harm. I thought that someone could harm you to different degrees leading to different degrees of provocation. I doubt AI can help if it would just tell me to call 988 or something. AI is often poor with deep questions because it incorrectly flags it as seeking permission. It did this with incest as well.

We aren't moralizing here. This idea in your head about murdering people is only part of your traumatic response, you probably have other anti-social behaviors that would limit you in relationships and society.

[Leo Gura]

Tacos with no hot-sauce.

[Ulax]

1 hour ago, trenton said:

I think people are too wrapped up in moralizing to seriously contemplate these questions. I have already done a lot of deconstructing monster narratives. Anybody you call evil is still fundamentally human (or God if Leo is right.)

I don't think you guys have done the same work with deconstructing monster narratives. It looks like you still hold moral judgements against murders and rapists. Moralizing doesn't really tell me much.

It looks like I won't really get far asking questions like these to others. I wanted to know what to expect from an intimate relationship if there are cases of people with homicidal rage who want to murder someone. It would help to know what drives people to such behaviors.

The way I framed it was that vengeance involves a spectrum of harm. I thought that someone could harm you to different degrees leading to different degrees of provocation. I doubt AI can help if it would just tell me to call 988 or something. AI is often poor with deep questions because it incorrectly flags it as seeking permission. It did this with incest as well.

i'm confused. You asked a moral question and now you complain about moralising?

[Majed]

@trenton

2 hours ago, trenton said:

 It did this with incest as well.

You guys just like taboo shit at this point.

[trenton]

3 hours ago, Ulax said:

i'm confused. You asked a moral question and now you complain about moralising?

In this case the question was 

"What would make you commit murder?"

You only need to feel justified from your point of view in order to actually commit murder. I explained that I would more likely feel justified in extreme scenarios. Some people in intimate relationships would murder for less. In navigating intimate relationships we need to make sure we know what would lead to homicide if people feel justified in committing murder over adultery.

So far it looks like most people haven't imagined a scenario in which they would feel justified in taking a life other than in self defense.

Also people keep throwing the Bible at me because they assume I am at stage red. The moralizing I am most concerned about is people using the Bible to argue against murder as if that proves anything. Those arguments are terrible.

[trenton]

@Majed

2 hours ago, Majed said:

@trenton

You guys just like taboo shit at this point.

Philosophers seem to have solved incest and I believe they have a fair position. Presently philosophers are more interested in discussing why necrophilia is wrong. It isn't actually obvious. I am not sure about necrophilia.

The problem is that taboos are being taken as obvious when they are not obvious.

Regarding incest there is a well known scenario that counters your assumptions.

Imagine a boy and a girl were born as fraternal twins. They were separated at birth and never met each other.

At the age of 25 they met and were attracted to each other. They dated and started a relationship indistinguishable from any other healthy relationship without knowing they were long lost siblings. They bond through having sex while using birth control and only later discover they were siblings separated at birth.

If you think incest is wrong and taboo, then it isn't obvious why these two would be evil or bad people. The reality is that incest is not intrinsically bad, but rather it typically is accompanied by contingent harm. This is why rule consequentialism is the reason why incest would be outlawed. Most people react to incest as if it is like rape, but that isn't necessarily true. Instead it is a general moral heuristic treated as if the disgust is what makes it morally wrong despite the moral arguments being objectively terrible.

The same applies to murder in this case. I seem to have triggered moral disgust. This is why people started throwing the Bible at me as if those are good arguments. They are not.

[trenton]

Imagine the following scenario.

Most of us would agree that you can kill someone to protect your family. A question the following scenario asks is why not kill someone after they killed your entire family? Why only before?

Imagine that you were forced to watch as your child was tortured and eventually beheaded. Suppose the rest of your family was murdered by the person too.

Now suppose that this person is a corrupt officer who accepts bribes and more than willing and able to frame you for the murder of your family. You will be put in prison forever if you don't kill the officer. If you do kill him, then you will be found guilty of murder and put in prison forever.

Would you now be willing to commit murder? The consequences are horrible no matter what you do. Why wouldn't you murder this asshole? Why not take him out with you?

The common pattern across these scenarios is that the justice system is broken. "Murder" is a legal definition or ruling just like "rape." You could legally murder someone in these types of scenarios. How exactly should murder be defined?

Does seeking revenge actually make the action wrong from your point of view, or should we let this person go free and do whatever he wants while exploiting the broken justice system?

This is also why I established the argument for "mutual destruction" in the logic of murder such that the consequences become irrelevant. The common argument against murder is that the consequences are bad. But what if the consequences are bad no matter what? Your life would be unlivable in any case.

I sited frame ups like identity theft as another possible example.

[Elliott]

19 minutes ago, trenton said:

Imagine the following scenario.

Most of us would agree that you can kill someone to protect your family. A question the following scenario asks is why not kill someone after they killed your entire family? Why only before?

Imagine that you were forced to watch as your child was tortured and eventually beheaded. Suppose the rest of your family was murdered by the person too.

Now suppose that this person is a corrupt officer who accepts bribes and more than willing and able to frame you for the murder of your family. You will be put in prison forever if you don't kill the officer. If you do kill him, then you will be found guilty of murder and put in prison forever.

Would you now be willing to commit murder? The consequences are horrible no matter what you do. Why wouldn't you murder this asshole? Why not take him out with you?

The common pattern across these scenarios is that the justice system is broken. "Murder" is a legal definition or ruling just like "rape." You could legally murder someone in these types of scenarios. How exactly should murder be defined?

Does seeking revenge actually make the action wrong from your point of view, or should we let this person go free and do whatever he wants while exploiting the broken justice system?

This is also why I established the argument for "mutual destruction" in the logic of murder such that the consequences become irrelevant. The common argument against murder is that the consequences are bad. But what if the consequences are bad no matter what? Your life would be unlivable in any case.

I sited frame ups like identity theft as another possible example.

It's not a realistic scenario, the corrupt and framing part aren't realistic, especially paired with your family ever being murdered.