Is it impossible for you to murder innocent people and children?

Assuming the answer is yes, then doesn’t that make you a bad/ineffective philosopher, since philosophers should consider all possibilities, thoughts, methods, and actions? So why not murder innocent people and children, if you can get away with it, and there exists no God?

Let’s say your reason for murdering them is “for fun”. Is the only thing/force stopping somebody from murdering others an appeal to “innate human rights” and “equal treatment”? If humans are animals, then can’t humans also be treated like animals, like a master to his dog or cat?

I mean, I know people will say: “Well you can murder them but they’ll come after you looking for revenge!” But let’s assume that Might makes Right and you’re in a position of superior social power, like a king, prince, or nobleman. If you are in this position of power, and people cannot stop you by force, then why NOT do whatever you want to other people, even if it’s “evil”?

someone hasn’t been reading their Dostoyevski

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

Is this HelptheHerd in diguise?

You’ll have to re-define the evil to justify it to others, so they accept it more readily (to sugar-coat it). If you need an example, just look at present day politics (propaganda campaigns).

Capitalism is why one des not do this. In other words; common sense.

Pandora, what if you’re in a position of absolute power as not to need to justify your deeds to anyone. Is such a position of society possible? Isn’t such a position beyond good and evil?

Kriswest, explain further how capitalism prevents somebody from committing heinous acts even while having the capacity to do so.

Capitalism is at the very center of many lifeforms. We do what we do to thrive. It would not be in our best interest to start murdering because we can. Our commonsense of self preservation /capitalistic nature would run through the probabilities and possibilities of the consequences of such actions. In the end the outcome would for most people be : yea thats stupid and would most likely shorten my life or way of living. So our self preservation/ Capitalistic nature/instincts prevents us from doing what you propose. Ethics and morals are based upon this nature if one looks deep enough. We have a social life and a private life. We try to protect both parts of us. Consider the social life an entity. We are all part of that entity. So morals and ethics are that entity’s capitalistic nature/ selfpreservation. Society strives to preserve itself and thrive. If the parts of that entity went of on murderous bouts, then the entity suffers. This cannot be allowed to happen because we are capitalists by nature. So to will be the entity of society.

The only position that I can think of where this would apply would be that of a god (or goddess, like Hera, for example). In the real world, a ruler must maintain people’s good will (in other words, maintain his good reputation), or he’ll be overthrown, if not be general public, then by his enemies (by various ingenious means). The absolute power under conditions that you speak of does not exist in this world because in this world (well, for one, you’re just a mortal man, like any other), then there is always competition, and you will always be surrounded by ambitious people just waiting to take your place. So, one is forced to negotiate to maintain his power. It’s a very delicate and refined art - it’s politics, basically.

Psychopaths are not aware of the concept empathy.

No, I think they just have their own definition of it. Even Physcopaths discriminate.

There are a few people who have tried to live this way, so let’s take a moment to ponder them.

Benito Mussolini - deceased (shot)

Saddam Hussein - deceased (hanged)

Muammar Gadhafi - deceased (beaten and killed)


So innate human rights is the only thing stopping people??? I was right?

That’s kind of scary what Humanism has become, wow. :astonished:

New Age Religions have nothing on this ideology, very profound!

Well, when one person thinks they can rule with an iron first a large group of people, they may succeed at first. When that large group of people grows sick of it, they may use their numbers to create change. One man stands no chance against a mob, sir. It’s not really in the best interest of anyone to assume that the correct way to rule a group of people is through cruelty.

It makes you no philosopher at all when you cannot even ask a question correctly.

Murder is the taking of someone’s life. Now, you can take it all at once, or in bits and pieces, like when you waste a person’s time, you are wasting, or taking their life. When you steal from a person, you have take a part of a persons life. For that time, you have slain them. etc., etc. All of this is true because your actions can either maintain and promote life, or not. The life of a thing is determined by its products, learn how to apply this, and you will see a great deal of killing going on where before you were oblivious to it.

“innoncent” is a relative term, and you did not provide the needed syntax to complete the question.

I hope so.

But we had to consider it to answer the question. Or are you saying that a philosopher must actually carry this out?

If being an atheist is a necessary condition for being a philosopher you have to eliminate a lot of the core reading of philosophy. Beyond that, I think you are very confused about the difference between thinking and acting.

Only a psychopath thinks that the only thing stopping people from killing is ideas. IOW people without empathy.

Of course, this happens.

I dunno, perhaps I’ll start with you. But actually the answer is, I don’t want to kill innocent people. Do you?

Do you feel compelled to make yourself do things you don’t want to do?
I don’t.