Replies

The reasoning that the prohibition against murder is NOT a matter of personal preference is the same reasoning as the prohibition against 2+2=5. Neither permits a sustainable societal structure to be put in place. There simply is no society that permits or can permit any random member, at his pleasure, to purposefully kill another member. You can say all day long that it is a matter of preference, but it isn't. No more than a society can permit 2+2 to be 5.

You have improperly added the word "random" to the argument. My comment has to do with a society based on Might Makes Right, whereby murder is acceptable behavior for the strong, as a means of maintaining power over the weak. (Even so, absent "God's law written on our hearts," I think "random murder" would probably be just the startup transient for a society based on Might Makes Right. The motivation to commit random murder is moderated by a desire to remain un-murdered. Thus, the behavior of the weaker is governed by the threat of punishment or death at the hands of the stronger.)

What, precisely, do you mean by "sustainable societal structure?" Pharaonic Egypt lasted for thousands of years on the basis of the idea that Pharaoh held absolute power of life and death over his subjects. It's a historical fact that Pharaoh and his lieutenants could (and did) murder their subjects with impunity.

We would call Pharaoh evil. The Egyptians called him a god. Without some external "I AM" calling his murders wrong, the choice of "evil" or "god" is nothing but a matter of personal preference.

Get it?

To begin with, we are talking about two different acts. I was speaking about common, garden-variety murder, e.g., a robber shoots the cashier. You are speaking of acts committed on behalf of an existing government. I don't consider our capital punishment cases to be murders, though some do -- Europe considers themselves much more "enlightened" in this area. Does the Bible refer to the crusification of Christ as a murder? Was Spartacus murdered? Billy the Kid? Sacco and Vanzetti?

I do not consider that Ted Bundy was murdered. An act by the state taken to punish individuals that violate rules is not the same as the initial violators' acts. I don't consider imprisoning a kidnapper kidnapping, nor fining a thief theft.

All of which leads me back to my original conjecture: no society can permit murder. By murder I mean the capricious, intentional, unilateral act of killing by any member of the society of any other member of the society.

You can call the prohibition of murder a "fact." You can call it a "universal value." You can call it a "belief." But you cannot call it a "preference" for it is incompatible with establishing and maintaining a society. Just as 2+2=5 is incompatible with erecting tall structures.