A question within morals and ethics

It is assumed that morals and ethics can
and do improve with rational thought and
behavior… Kant connected morality with
rational thought… but as a thought experiment,
let us suppose that morality/ethics is not compatible
with rational thought…trying to bring in rational/
logical thought into morality doesn’t improve it, but
rather hurts it… an interesting thought…

traditional ethics/morals comes from the gods/religion…
and the justification is often considered to be, its true
or right because it came from god…and in Christianity,
the heart of morality/ethics come from the ten commandments…
thou shall not…

and upon reflection, the basis of such morals comes from
god… there is no logical or rational basis for Christian
ethics outside of, god demands it…that is the entire
justification of Christian morals/ethics… god has decreed
it… and where is the rational, logical aspect of this?

In fact, I would suggest that traditional ethics/morals
are not rational, or logical… at no point in the bible
does the bible say, god want us to act moral because
it is the rational or logical thing to do…
In a very real sense, religious moral edicts are
not rational or logical… they appeal to
our non-rational, non-logical side of human beings…

good and evil are not rational beliefs but irrational,
illogical beliefs… and we attempt to find rational,
logical grounds for morals and ethics…

take for example, ‘‘thou shall not kill’’ but the grounds
for this commandment is not based on rational, logical
grounds… god decrees it… which by its very nature is
irrational, illogical… so, how do we turn this irrational
commandment, ‘‘thou shall not kill’’ into a rational,
logical commandment?

We should not kill because it harms, damages the
state and society because it allows behavior that
can rapidly get out of control and consume the
state/society… that is rational, but not very convincing…
and yet, it is true that allowing people to kill, very quickly
turns a state into a ‘‘state of nature’’ where no one
is safe…I would suggest that morality and ethics are
grounded on irrational and illogical justifications,
which to become more effective, should be found in
logical, rational justifications for our actions and
behavior… ‘‘thou shall not kill’’
in order to keep our society/state orderly and efficient…
that lacks the pizzazz of ‘‘god decrees it’’ which
appeals to our emotional side of being human…

which at its heart is just another means/way of avoiding
taking responsibility or accountability for our own actions…
heavy lies the burden of taking accountability for ones own
actions… and by depending on the religious aspect
for our morality, we avoid taking responsibility for our
actions…if we were to actually bring in logic and
rationality into our morals, then we would be forced
to become accountable for our morals, out ethics…
that is, in part, why people won’t accept logic
and rationality in our morals and ethics…
who wants to be held accountable for their own actions?

having a rational, logical basis for our morals, ethics
require us to become accountable for our morals/ethics…

Kropotkin

“so what exactly is written in the Book?”

“thou shalt not kill”

“why ‘shalt not kill’ instead of a simple ‘don’t kill’?”

“don’t know exactly.”

“thou shalt not is future tense. Future tense was employed in the Book so that you all knew you could never, ever, kill, for the entirety of your existence.”

“and so?”

“well, it happens you not only can, but do kill, and even worse, you condone killing whenever you seem fit.”

“maybe so but I’m not perfect… [etc]”

“I know you’re very far from perfect. Know for a fact. But the problem is, the Commandment from Heaven demands perfection of you. Complete integrity. ‘Thou shalt not kill’- ie, you will spend the entirety of your existence not killing, not even once, you won’t ever even harbor the thought. But what do you do instead?”

“I only kill if absolutely necessary. Self-defense, war, and the like.”

“Then the Book, being a creation of Heaven, should proclaim: “Thou shalt not kill, unless thou art forced to.” For Heaven surely know you and your limitations. But nope, the Book forbade you from ever killing. You have absolutely no excuses. Unless…”

“Unless what? I owe an explanation of my deeds to the Almighty only. He knows I strive for perfection, but I’m weak, I’m human, I’m a sinner.”

“Unless you were humble enough to admit that the Commandment from Heaven was designed for a phantom, an idealized creature, not for a flesh and blood human being. I pretty much know you are weak and human. But exactly for being human, you should exercise your humility more freely. Forget an unquestionable code of values if you will always be excusing your inability to follow it to the core. You are imperfect, ok, then you need to rely on a worldview that’s imperfect too. Your morality is just too much for your fragile shell. You either give it up and become honest to yourself or just go on pretending to embrace it altogether, even though rejecting it whenever necessary and always looking at a hypocrite on the mirror.”

In Hebrew it literally means Thou shalt not murder, as in wrongfully kill. Killing itself and in the most general sense you seem to be thinking here, is not what it means. “The Hebrew word used here, “ratsach,” actually refers to murder, not just any act of killing. This distinction highlights the commandment’s prohibition against unlawful taking of human life.”

Or just keep being dumb. Meh.

Once again, brilliantly exemplifying the same point you try to criticize.

But I’m dumb, let the experts speak:

Thou Shalt Not Kill or You Shall Not Murder?

*written by Larry Brigden
Senior Editorial Consultant (Linguistics)

Introduction: רצח (ratsach)

The Authorised (King James) Version translation of Exodus 20.13 is ‘Thou shalt not kill’, but more modern versions, such as the English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, and even the New King James Version, translate the verse as ‘You shall not murder’, evidently preferring ‘murder’ as the translation of the Hebrew word in the verse to ‘kill’. So which is correct? Should the verse read ‘kill’ or ‘murder’? The purpose of this brief article is to demonstrate that ‘kill’ is in fact correct and that the use of ‘murder’ by the more modern versions indicates a departure from some quite important principles of translation.1

The Hebrew word in Exodus 20.13 is רצח (ratsach), a word that can mean ‘to commit murder’, but which also has the broader, more general meaning of ‘to kill’, ‘to slay’. The context determines which meaning should be used for the word in each place where it occurs. That is why the translation of רצח (ratsach) in the AV, as well as in other translations, varies according to the context: sometimes ‘kill’ or ‘slay’2 and at other times ‘murder’.3 The question then is whether ‘kill’ is the better translation of רצח (ratsach) in Exodus 20.13 or ‘murder’. The AV translators evidently thought the former, while more modern translations evidently think the latter.

Differing opinions

Some who criticise the AV translation of ‘kill’ argue that the Hebrew verb רצח (ratsach) means ‘murder’ and therefore that is how the word should be translated here.4 But they are quite mistaken, as a survey of the use of רצח (ratsach) in the Old Testament makes clear.

For example, in Numbers 35.27 we have:

… and the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill [ratsach] the slayer [ratsach5]; he shall not be guilty of blood

Now, the Hebrew word for ‘kill’ is the same as the one used for the ‘slayer’ (in the latter case it is a participle). Yet, quite obviously, the former action cannot be ‘murder’ for the text explicitly says that ‘he shall not be guilty of blood’.

Consider also Numbers 35.30:

Whoso killeth [ratsach] any person, the murderer shall be put to death [ratsach] by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.

Here the same verb ratsach describes the act of one who kills ‘any person’ and the act by which the killer is himself put to death. But obviously the latter action cannot be ‘murder’, though the same verb is used.

The cities of refuge

Then there are the cities of refuge listed in Joshua 21. They are called city of refuge of the ratsach (Joshua 21.13, 21, 27, 32, 38). Are each of these to be translated as a city of refuge of the ‘murderer’ because ratsach must have that meaning? Obviously not, since it was not the purpose of the cities of refuge to harbour a murderer but simply to give refuge to a manslayer from the avenger of blood till the case should be tried (Numbers 35.12). And most modern versions correctly translate this as ‘city of refuge for the manslayer’.6

The impact of a translation choice

Others argue that ‘kill’ seems to introduce a contradiction into Scripture since certain killings are permitted and even sanctioned by Scripture.7 But they seem not to notice that by translating ‘murder’, the impression may be given that some types of unlawful killing, such as manslaughter, suicide, etc., could be understood as not forbidden by the commandment. Misunderstandings are possible with any translational choice, but the solution is never to adjust the translation in order to avoid any ill consequence that may be supposed to attend it. Rather, the aim should always be to translate the original Hebrew or Greek word as it stands in the text, though having due regard, of course, to the context and the analogy of Scripture. It must always be left to the preacher or expositor to explain the meaning of the original word and clear up any supposed inconsistency with the rest of Scripture. It is not the work of the translator to attempt such a task, but as far as possible to faithfully translate the word as it stands in the text.

Examining ratsach in context

So which is the correct translation at Exodus 20.13, ‘kill’ or ‘murder’? As already noted, the Hebrew word רצח (ratsach) can have the narrower meaning of ‘murder’ or it could have the broader meaning of ‘kill’, ‘slay’. The correct meaning of the word in Exodus 20.13 will depend on the context. Is there anything in the context of Exodus 20.13 that would favour either meaning? As the commandment is very briefly expressed, the broader and more general meaning of ‘kill’ would seem to be favoured. At least, there is nothing in the context that compels us to adopt the narrower meaning of ‘murder’. Any such narrowing of the meaning must therefore be arbitrary and motivated by considerations outside of the text itself, such as the need to avoid a supposed contradiction with the rest of Scripture as mentioned above.

The broader meaning of the Hebrew word רצח (ratsach) at Exodus 20.13 is also confirmed by the inspired and authoritative exposition of the sixth commandment in the New Testament. In Matthew 5.21–22 our Lord contrasts the faulty understanding of the sixth commandment common at that time with its true meaning, indicating by His exposition of the commandment its very broad scope, reaching even to the first motions of enmity toward another:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire

The Greek word for ‘kill’ in Matthew 5.21, φονεύω (phoneuó), closely matches the Hebrew word רצח (ratsach) in Exodus 20.13, being also capable of both the narrower meaning of ‘murder’ and the broader meaning of ‘kill’. But it may be observed that if ‘murder’ were substituted for ‘kill’ in the initial statement of the commandment in verse 21, as in most modern versions,8 then the contrast with the broader scope of the commandment in verse 22 is not so fitly stated.

The intended contrast is evidently between the outward physical act of taking life and any inward malice and enmity of heart. Our Lord checks the sin at its source, even when it falls far short of the outward physical act. That being the intended contrast, how is it fitting that the first member of the two things contrasted should be the very specific act of ‘murder’? Is the contrast not more fitly expressed between any outward act of killing and the inward motions of malice and enmity of the heart? Such inward motions of malice and enmity do not necessarily always aim at ‘murder’, but may extend only to grievous bodily harm, though that may yet, even if unintentionally, actually issue in the death of the victim. Thus, ‘kill’, being the broader term, covers all cases and is the more suitable term as the first member of the two things contrasted. But to restrict the first member of the contrast to the narrower act of ‘murder’ is unnecessary and appears as an artificial over restriction.

Conclusion: The correct translation

In conclusion, the translation ‘Thou shalt not kill’ is the correct translation of the Hebrew at Exodus 20.13. This was the translation of the verse found in all early English Bibles9 and up until about the mid twentieth century when most versions substituted ‘murder’ for ‘kill’ on quite inadequate grounds, grounds which in fact reflect a departure from important principles of translation. The work of the translator is, as far as possible, to faithfully translate the word as it stands in the text, having due regard to the context and the analogy of Scripture, and not attempt to adjust the translation so as to avoid any supposed contradictions with the rest of Scripture. The clearing of such supposed contradictions must be left to others, to the preachers and expositors of the Holy Scriptures.

Endnotes:

1.This article does not discuss the other clear difference between the translation of the more modern versions and the AV, which is the use of ‘you’ instead of ‘thou’. The English ‘thou’ is certainly more accurate, being a singular pronoun matching the underlying Hebrew singular pronoun, whereas the English ‘you’ may be singular or plural. But the key difference in the translations is the substitution of ‘murder’ for ‘kill’, and hence the discussion here is confined to that difference.

  1. Exodus 20.13; Numbers 35.6, 11, 12, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30; Deuteronomy 4.42, 5.17, 19.3, 4, 6, 22.26; Joshua 20.3, 5, 6, 21.13, 21, 27, 32, 38; Judges 20.4; 1 Kings 21.19; Psalm 62.3; Proverbs 22.13; Hosea 4.2.

  2. Numbers 35.16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 31; 2 Kings 6.32; Psalm 94.6; Isaiah 1.21; Jeremiah 7.9; Hosea 6.9.

  3. ‘“Thou shalt not kill” vs. “Thou shalt not murder”’, Andrew Holt, Ph.D.: History, Religion, and Academia, apholt.com/2015/03/17/thou-shalt-not-kill-vs-thou-shalt-not-murder. It is worth noting that, according to the modern Hebrew dictionary, Reuben Alcalay, The Complete Hebrew English Dictionary, (NY, USA: P. Shalom Publications, 2000), רצח (ratsach) is not confined to the meaning of ‘murder’, but may also mean ‘kill’.

  4. It is actually the participle form of the verb with the article, חַצֵ֔הרָ֣, which is used here.

  5. One interesting exception is the version called ‘God’s Word’ which has ‘a city of refuge for murderers’.

  6. Self defence (Exodus 22.2, Esther 8.11), lawful war (Judges 7.13-25, 1 Samuel 15.3, 1 Chronicles 19.6-19) and capital punishments judicially inflicted for certain breaches of the Moral Law, e.g. bestiality (Exodus 22.19), adultery (Leviticus 20.10), sodomy (Leviticus 20.13), sorcery (Leviticus 20.27), idolatry (Deuteronomy 13.10),

  7. English Standard Version, New International Version, New American Standard Bible, New English Translation, etc.

  8. Geneva, Bishops’, Coverdale, Tyndale. Even the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible uses ‘kill’.*

So, no, THOU SHALT NOT KILL, but you kill all the time, so your morality is worthless.

Yawn.

Thinking seems just downright dull to you, doesn’t it? Concepts, understanding, truth, meaning… naw. hells naw!

Keep copy-pasting stuff. Seems to suit you.

Someday you may even end up like… most everyone else here.

Considering Jews in the OT literally killed countless animals and humans. While following their own commandments. Because, ya know… “kill” has specific and contextual meaning, dont it?

Again… meh

Honestly you bore me. SO how bored must i be, at this point? You guessed it. Literally no one else around. Not one meaningful soul

Still , I wish you well. All the luck in the world. Cause you need it.

1 Like

Yes i left you some easter eggs. maybe youll even find them!

Why are you guys acting like the other guy stole from your mother without paying her back the full sum, verbally assaulting her all the while?

When Jesus equates holding a grudge or tearing each other down to murder, he’s not equating it to killing in general.

Mom better get her money so you boys can get along!

Man, I couldn’t care less about your opinion on me. If I have something to learn it won’t surely be from you. I was addressing PK’s OP, implying that it’s useless to have a moral code if you’re going to always ignore it whenever you need, for whatever reason. Yes, Jews killed and kill a lot. That’s why ‘thou shalt not kill’ is meaningless. Same goes for most other commandments.

Anyway, back to the point, and this is not necessarily directed at you, many men are concerned in attaching themselves to strict moral codes, like the Jewish one, instead of adopting an ethical stance on life that does not rely on an idealized version of what a man should be or do, but takes men for what they are, and is based simply on reciprocity. I will treat you like you treat me. If you force me to kill you, I will kill you. This is not unreasonable and does not force men to always preach something and do the exact opposite.

So, yes, morality is worthless, ethics however is quite justifiable if the individual actually sticks to it and follows the rules he establishes for himself.

I never insult anyone. Insults [ad hominems] are proof of intellectual inefficiency. They’re employed when the guy don’t know what to say to actually win the argument, he wants to end the debate before it even starts. I see that ad hominems are quite popular here. That’s weird for a philosophical network. One should expect philosophers to be balanced. But nope, people here get emotional very easy. That makes it hard to find anyone here worthy of wasting precious time with.

So “eye for an eye” right? That rule/law was in order to prevent overkill. It was based on an idealized version of what a man should be or do. Instead of taking humans for what they are, which at the time was a bunch of people that exacted revenge in a way that the punishment did not fit the crime, it set limits on their inclinations.

I know how and why such strict moral codes where established eons ago. I know how hard life was for Jews at that time. I understand perfectly well why it was important to force men to believe killing was essentially wrong. What I don’t understand is why men stick to the strictest codes when times are entirely different, and circumstances make many or most of the commandments impossible to follow. They can’t change their Sacred Law. But they can’t obey it either. So the result is hypocrisy. The rational version of the commandment should be: “Don’t kill unless it’s absolutely necessary”. That’s the version Jews and Christians actually follow. It’s not hard to see what’s the conclusion to draw from this. Morality is fixed, immutable, and therefore meaningless, because it doesn’t take into account actual life. Ethics, however, is not, because it assumes that circumstances change, and therefore it has to adapt.

You’re still saying killing in general, when it is murder.

The rest of what I have to say, I already said here:

Read (or re-read) the 4th post in this topic. There you have an expert explaining why the best translation is really kill. Kill obviously includes murder.

As for other=self, no, you recognize in the other one someone who is alike you, who is similar to you, but who’s also, at the same time, entirely separated from you. A body you cannot trespass and a mind you cannot penetrate. The “treat others like you’d like to be treated” mentality is reasonable, yes, but mostly when you recognize, like Camus, that these others share the same living space with you, that treating them well may be good for your own survival, ie to create for yourself a healthy environment to live in. It’s not over an admittance that we’re one and the same. Nope, we’re all essentially different from each other, our innermost being is inaccessible to everyone else around us, and even trying to express it through the means of communication is doomed to fail. Unless I’m misreading you and what you’re really saying is that self=other means just that, ie, that I recognize that my neighbor’s external existence is basically the same as mine, ie, “we’re on the same boat”, etc. That’s Camusian ethics.

self=other recognizes we each have a unique:

…but we DO each have one, and that’s the connecting point.

Camus recognizes, or doesn’t. He did not invent what he essentially is. He either revolts and exiles himself from reality, or accepts, and develops to fruition… despite parts of reality having developmental delays…

Like not reading my earlier response to the “expert”:

recognition of essential being is the proper response… cognitive distortion is the broken one

recognition transcendence is distortion