I am not sure if he even understands what he is saying. In another thread for example: http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=191490#p2633357, he confuses what he quotes. He thinks that he is justifying how objects derive from subjects whereas the example of the copernican revolution deals with our understanding and knowledge of natural phenomena and not the creation or generation of natural phenomena from the idea.
The copernican revolution deals with creating a hypothesis which explains observations which did not accord with the previous assumption that the sun and planetary bodies revolve around the earth, the revolution did not change the manner in which objects and natural processes operate, but allowed us to explain the phenomena which a previous theory did not account for. This is the inspiration for modern scientific hypotheses and testing by evidence. If he means applying precise knowledge like mathematical accuracy to a faculty like invention, this was taking place before copernicus.
The Kant’s Copernican Revolution was merely an analogy to denote a paradigm shift in thinking and not the content-of-thinking, i.e. instead of thinking like every one else, one address from the opposite direction as what Copernicus did.
Calling the other ‘moron’ and making all sorts of personal accusations on the other is personal attack in a discussion. What is weird is such a response arise out of merely disagreements on your part. Normally such personal attacks arise from some sort of subliminal cognitive dissonance in the brain that compel the other person to lash out.
If any one counter or attack my ideas I would welcome it as that means opportunity for new knowledge if I had wrong views.
I have been in such philosophical discussions for a long time and I have been in your shoes before and now can easily step into the shoes of others to understand [not necessary agreeing] their point of views.
Prismatic, you should go back and look at what the question of measurement was in reference to. It was in reference to moral maxims:
The question of measure refers to the measure of goodness or badness of a given thing. If one measures zero or a million killings, it says nothing about whether those killings are good or not, particularly since you’ve already admitted in this thread that killing in self-defense is okay and those million could have hypothetically been in response to attackers:
It is key that you had to have a real life analogy where discover of facts is based upon observable evidence.
This brings up my thought in question, which was answered by not a single soul. That aside, “Do you justify murder for peace?”
In this, we see clearly there is no justification for a murder, yet only a fact that one tried to prove. So, then we know we couldn’t have given gratitude in to the murderer. This is to say it’s anybody’s opinion whether we perceive the murder to have been good or bad. But like I said there is no compassion for the murderer, now is there. And that is what we see constantly. Justification. We don’t happen to stumble upon a suicide either and convince ourselves what we witnessed was in natural response to … and I’m just putting this out there, natural circumstances. Cause this thread did go by the subject, Natural Response. only if that’s not what was implied here, then I’m amazingly confused. My next observation in question would be in response to what, Not having the ability for certain things, or whatever the case may be. Then allow me to answer this, it’s space in which there is no more room. You take all the space from somebody then, in their case, it’s obviously a response to have killed yourself. To say if it’s natural or unnatural is preposterous in my opinion. How then can we fathom the justified and unjustifiable? There had been reason for somebody to do what they did, yet to say if it was natural, well that’s leaving an entire spectrum to be observed. Was it that, that person had no other response to go off of, in order for it have occurred naturally? As if naturally is by destiny, then yeah… Suicide is a natural response to having lived in certain conditions.
It’s an honest observation of reality. You are evasive, arrogant and stupid. Nothing personal. You somehow think this is not relevant. But it is. Without addressing your fundamental mistakes no progress can be made in this discussion.
The reason I kept my mouth shut – and yes, I did keep my mouth shut – is because I did not want to scare you away.
The moral maxim ‘murder is absolutely wrong’ is supposed to promote moral goodness.
This “absolute” is translated into a measurement i.e. ‘ZERO’ murder.
Now if there are a million killings, then the MORAL gap between good and evil is ONE million killings.
This moral gap will enable an objective basis to reduce the evilness of one million killings progressively towards good, i.e. ZERO. On the basis of a vision of ZERO killings, humanity will strive hard using various means [crack their brain] to find solution to achieve ZERO killings even when it sound impossible. What is critical is such a ideal-based moral system drives an atmosphere of striving for continuous improvement and a never give up attitude.
Now if you propose of slipshod morality Model, i.e. you accept 100,000 killings per year as inevitable because as per your observations humans are fallible and so conditional due to various reasons, you will never be able to progress beyond 100,000 killings a year.
You will be very happy if the average murders/killings per year is 100,000 per year and make no attempt to find ways to improve nor strive for quantum improvements toward ZERO.
It is my honest observations your philosophical competence is not up to mark. Your philosophical views are very stupid, one track, shallow, narrow and simple minded.
Stupid = lack of philosophical intelligence.
As for staying or going I will decide myself, it is not for you to manage.
Who is displaying arrogance here especially when the your level of philosophical knowledge is so kindergartenish.
“Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.”
In some odd way, the more you believe the after-world will be a much better place to exist, the more logical it would be to get there sooner. Given that death will happen anyway, it’s kinda like, let’s get this party started.
Given the psychological state of the majority, religions, especially theistic religions are a critical necessity for the majority. Without religions many [not all] will go psycho, so even illusory grounded, theistic religions are the optimal solutions within the given state and constraints.
We have not better choice but to accept theistic religions at present [not future] but what we should be very critical is the evil elements that are imputed in the supposedly immutable holy texts of theistic [believers at the MERCY of an all powerful God] religions.
While all religions has their negative baggage which should be addressed, ISLAM is the only religion that at present has very active malignant and toxic elements within its supposedly immutable holy texts. These evil elements influenced and inspired SOME Muslims who are born with active evil tendencies to commit terrible evils and violence via various methods among which is unnatural suicide bombings. The evidence is so glaring [49,477];
Would it be considered “murder” if one kills a serial killer who has killed incessantly and one realizes beyond the shadow of a doubt that he would never come to justice? He would go on killing.
Consider the “peace” which would be in the lives of his future prey if someone managed to kill him - children, women, men…
The word “justification” would not even be part of the equation!
What did Freddie say:
What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 153
Then again, you may have meant something akin to a man or woman killing his/her spouse for peaceful living. Who could justify that? All one would have to do his leave.
That would be murder.
There is no simply lack and white when it comes to murder and killing except in some cases.
There are always the ethical issues involved.
You said it yourself, “Except” which always with life and death there is a black and white underlining foundation of how one was murdered and how it all transpired, the reason behind the motivation, and if it was justification for anything else.
So to have stopped a murderer that lead a wild murder spree isn’t justification enough to have murdered the murderer? It’s just a matter of perspective through the eyes of those bathed in darkness or light.
That’s true that there’s a continuity of the ethics which lie within the whole murder aspect, yet to have forced someone from (murdering) does that only pause the situation for so how long, can the conflict between two souls last, if it’s not ended with ones own death.?
That’s not such an irrational thought though, is it?
There’s nothing wrong with delaying one’s gratification.
So, what’s the thing which we can do for the moment in order to make that postponement easier on us?
Is it possible that on some level we do not trust what we say we “believe”?
So perhaps we are more logical than we know ourselves to be - or at the very least, not as stupid as some of our individual beliefs might take us for.
When I believed in all that jazz - God, heaven, the works, I still would not have hurried the process. Is there anything wrong with loving and being and remaining where you are for the duration? Despite the negative, there is by far still the positive and the beautiful but that too is only an individual perception. We all see with different eyes.
What I was, in essence, trying to get across there, is that I would not have to “justify” anything insofar as my murder/killing of that man.
For me, when we feel a need to justify, we feel a need to explain or excuse ourselves.
Perhaps we are just not certain that what we did needed to be done.
Something that needs to be “justified” either in my own mind or in another’s is "rationalization.
It is all about perception for that matter. Who can truly say what is subjective and objective?
True
Can you clarify what you mean here. It’s kind of ambiguous to me.
Isn’t it justification enough if you know ethical from unethical???
What already had transpired is unknown, yet with examination and an investigation there’s room to find true evidence of what happen, along with courts and cases (sometimes) justification is the goal.
To have been more specific I should have said forced someone to Stop murdering. In this case can you really stop someone from murdering their selves? No. The same goes for someone with the intent to harm. Obviously the thought grow into an action and it than was put into effect. The same goes for nature itself. If there’s a nest at harm from a predator the only way for all of this to end is for one of them to have either gone separate ways or murder, justification or not.
