Murder is morally wrong. That some murderers enjoy it is irrelevant. I enjoy vanilla ice-cream - do you think that matters ?
you must have a heck of a load of implicit premises because that seems like a big non sequitur.
In fact, they find it beneficial in the ex ante sense.
anyway it seems to be a rhetorical question as you provide a possible reason, they are ‘sick’ … but that’s your suggestion not mine…
You are right, it is a rhetorical question. I could have simply asked “Why do murderers murder?”
By the way, murder is human action.
so what?
Everything is an action aimed at some goal. Read more Aristotle!
Good question. The answer is that “murder” isn’t a law, and it’s not not against any law, as such. The law states “murder is bad.” The law is true, murder is indeed bad for humans. If the law were “murder is good,” then humans would feel an imperative to murder (because natural laws are specific to the nature of each organism), and they would cease to exist.
I believe I answered this earlier:
That is a rhetorical question too. You are starting to think.
The point being: violating your natural law against murder can very well be a means to an end ex.: the murderer enjoys it.
There simply is no objective reason why murder is morally wrong other than YOU say so.
I either dont understand you hashem or i actively disagree with you. let me find out which it was.
are you saying that there is no objective moral law about what people can and cannot do, but just natural law ‘advice’ about what is ‘good’ for people to do and avoid doing ? if so I disagree. if not then where does what you just wrote fit in?
another non sequitor. its impossible for me to even try to agree with you because you arent showing joined up thinking but are massively leaping around everywhere.
The natural law is objective. The natural law of human ethics does not state what people can or can’t do, it shows what will allow or prevent fulfillment of the nature of man.
when i say can and cannot in the above, i meant in the moral (not the physical) sense.
The natural law is not advice. It is a series of absolutely true factual statements. I.E., a natural law ethic for humans is “murder is bad.” It is absolutely true, because murder prevents humans from existing, which is certainly a natural tendency of humans.
Well thank god I criticize Mises for establishing normative subjective values in which you cannot criticize the ends. Hooray for Rothbard, without his refutation of this, we could all be utilitarian murders! [:P]
the way you can tell that a system of thought is one whose context is ethics/morality is that it tells you what you can and cannot do, what is morally legitimate and what is illegitimate. you just have a system of advice, “oh, i suggest you dont! no dont do that! why not? well, in case you go against your nature, …which hardly matters since there is nothing morally illegitimate about going against your nature.”
yes, but you’ve defined legitimacy out of ‘bad’ so its not a moral issue any more. you have gutted your ethics of ethics.
And YOU just said that. so what?
Will is universally human. That is a principle - the act of will. Law is universal and to understand human nature, in other words, the natural tendency of a human, which in this context is act of will, then your assertion fails Charles. It is not universal. It is not a law. A murder murdering is countering an act of will of the victim. Thus the murderer is actively countering a universal human act and the only way to rid and absolutely counter a universal is to, in this case, kill it. But at death the victim is no longer within the scope of human nature - they are dead.
And how can a murderer do this? Because of free choice. Humans can counter and thus perverse their own individual nature upon themselves or others. That doesn’t negate the universal act of will of a living human, which life is another universal principle of human nature, but that’s another bedtime story.
Indeed. My point is that not everybody agrees that murder is wrong and I point to murderers as an example of such people.
So, your natural law is not universal as evidenced by human action.
Re-read my post. I did an edit.