It's what I was told is why the Biblical rule against murder doesn't cover killing animals for food or self defense. Not sure what Strongs says about the word choice in Exodus but it sounds reasonable.
Is a Public Philosophy Still Possible?
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
It's what I was told is why the Biblical rule against murder doesn't cover killing animals for food or self defense. Not sure what Strongs says about the word choice in Exodus but it sounds reasonable.
But the commandment simply states: Thou shalt not kill.
But upon further research, the Hebrew was mistranslated ......The Hebrew original meaning: Thou shall not murder.
When I look at Strong's Concordance for Exodus 20:13 ("Thou shalt not kill") it appears the original Jewish word is רָצַח (Rasah) which is used in the BIble 14 times to mean "murder" as opposed to 5 times in the sense of "kill". It apparently is used especially in reference to murder.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Killing for some legal or justifiable reason that society has agreed as a whole to isn't "murder."
Nussbaum wants the Aristotelian conception of the good life to provide “the philosophical underpinning…of basic constitutional principles that should be respected and implemented by the governments of all nations.”
A key passage for Nussbaum is Aristotle’s claim in the Politics that “the best constitution” is that “according to which anyone whosoever is able to do best and to live a flourishing life.”
libertiesjournal.com
A key passage for Nussbaum is Aristotle’s claim in the Politics that “the best constitution” is that “according to which anyone whosoever is able to do best and to live a flourishing life.”
Is a Public Philosophy Still Possible?
Are we living in a “golden age” of public philosophy, as some claim? There sure is a lot of it, as magazines, blogs, podcasts, and Substack newsletters proliferate. Even the New York Times ran a philosophy column for over a decade in which philosophers shared their thoughts on issues “timely and...
libertiesjournal.com
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Because it is universal to the set subset selected and irrelevant to the larger set as a whole. Even the dictionary definitions explain it that way.
You are correct. Sound logic.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
... whereas you run your mouth about quantum mechanics while simply not understanding any of it.
Yes, yes, ... the world is full of ignorant, undereducated leftists who need to be dragged into the light. Don't even bother trying to teach them quantum mechanics.
Glad you wrote that science is something that comes from opinion and popular vote.
The death knell of the Platonic forms is Goedell's Incompleteness theorem which says that we can never know such a reality in its entirety, which looks the same as there not being a universal and objectively true reality beyond human opinion.
[note: rationale is correctly spelled with an 'e']
It's extraordinary this even has to be explained to anyone.
It's been extensively explained to you by other posters on the thread and by the best English dictionaries on the planet why you are so surprisingly uninformed about how the word 'universal' is used in the English language.
The only reason you and others are claiming "morality is a universal" is so it is removed from being just a human invention. If you then say it ONLY applies to humans then it really sounds like a human invention.
You are free to ignore my actual point so you can belabor your misinterpretation.
The only reason people suggest morality is "universal" is to avoid it being simply a human invention.
If it ONLY APPLIES TO HUMANS then it sounds a lot like a human invention.
Good, you've given up trying to claim the word universal only has one, and only one shade of meaning.
Correct, only the human mind is able to perceive transcendent concepts like Pi, the quadratic equation, equality, liberty, morality, because we are uniquely imbued with logic, reason, the ability to think about the abstract and transcendent.
Armadillos, centipedes, and earth worms are not able to percieve the quadratic equation, the universal gravitational constant, or form ideas about morality, art, and infinity.
Thanks for admitting you were wrong to claim the word universal had one, and only one shade of meaning.
I understand as an atheist you are required to believe morality is relative and strictly subject to opinion, popular vote, and popular whim.
You might right about that. But that still doesn't make moral relativism appealing as an existential concept.
You have no higher ground to say what Hitler did was wrong compared to a higher standard. All that exists is your opinion, and Hitler's opinion. And Hitler had both German law and the German people on his side.
From a scientific, Darwinian evolution perspective it makes perfect sense for Hitler to eliminate the disabled, handicapped , and mentally retarded from the population. It's only your opinion that it was wrong, you don't have any higher standard outside of human opinion to point to to say Hitler was wrong.
Most Americans supported the genocide or oppression of the American Indian. According to your theory that morality is just matter of opinion and popular whim, there was nothing wrong with how the Indians were treated in the 19th century.
I believe what happened to the Indians was wrong, even if it was supported by popular opinion at the time, because human conscience is able to appeal to a higher morality.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
And, in a reverse example, this is why the Animal Rights movement is idiotic. You cannot apply human Rights to animals that cannot understand those Rights. Humanity can be kind to animals, but we cannot extend our Rights to them such as in a court of law. A collie would have no understanding whatsoever of the process or rules for example.
I am one hundred percent in favor of laws that punish or sanction capricious and unnecessary cruelty to animals.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Agreed, but animals shouldn't have the Right to sue like animal rights people want. The animal has no idea what that means or entails.
Fido is never going to have civil rights.
But the concept of cruelty seems to me to be linked to a higher sense of justice beyond the laws of man.
There's something imprinted on our hearts that makes abject cruelty repellent to most psychologically healthy human beings. A lot of Germans might have agreed in theory with Hitler's proposition that the Jews needed to be culled, exiled, abused. But if most German civilians actually saw up close and personal the horrific cruelty in the death camps, they'd probably get sick to their stomach.
I don't know why people object to ethics being a choice of nations to enact laws.