Mur-diddly-urder

[Philboid Studge]

What's the deal with 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'?

Ask a Judeo-Xian why all manner of killing is commanded, committed, santioned, and otherwise encouraged by God in the OT and they say killing is fine, it's murder that was proscribed by God. The original Hebrew word, ratsah or 'murder' connotes a criminal act (as it does in English, where it's usually defined as "an illegal killing"). In other words, this seemingly straight-forward commandment leaves it up to humans to decide when it's right or wrong. So, what's the deal? How is that different from what moral relativists do?

(Shirley this has been bruited about in this forum before, but I couldn't find any relevant threads ...)

[Rhinoqulous]

I've brought this up to various Xtian's, in that if the commandment pertains to "murder" and not killing, then morality is context based, and not absolute. They usually respond "No it's not, stupid atheist", so I don't bring it up too often anymore.

Rhinoq

[Tenspace]

What's the deal with 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'?

Ask a Judeo-Xian why all manner of killing is commanded, committed, santioned, and otherwise encouraged by God in the OT and they say killing is fine, it's murder that was proscribed by God. The original Hebrew word, ratsah or 'murder' connotes a criminal act (as it does in English, where it's usually defined as "an illegal killing"). In other words, this seemingly straight-forward commandment leaves it up to humans to decide when it's right or wrong. So, what's the deal? How is that different from what moral relativists do?

(Shirley this has been bruited about in this forum before, but I couldn't find any relevant threads ...)
Christians don't kill people, it's the Atheist inside them that makes them do it. And they don't rationalize, so therefore, the ten commandments must be wrong.

And don't call me Shirley.


Ten

[Lurker]

I've brought this up to various Xtian's, in that if the commandment pertains to "murder" and not killing, then morality is context based, and not absolute. They usually respond "No it's not, stupid atheist", so I don't bring it up too often anymore.
It is context based. The bible teaches that very clearly as you pointed out. I'm not going to get into this again because I've explained it about 4 times on other threads, BUT morals are absolute in that they apply equally to everyone given the circumstances. Some say that's relativism but I disagree. It's not relativism according to the common meaning of the word today which says morality is relative to the individual (i.e. right and wrong are a matter of perspective/opinion).

[Philboid Studge]

I'm not going to get into this again because I've explained it about 4 times on other threads
Yes, there are some rather enduring themes in the forum. But can you help me find these specific threads -- or at least one -- then I'll leave you alone? I poked around in this category (Atheist/Theist Morality) and couldn't find any according to title, so I suspect what I'm looking for is buried. (something that specifically talks about killing vs. murder, and how we decide which is which.) If you can help, thanks.

[HMS Beagle]

According to this short, scholarly article (http://www.forward.com/issues/2004/04.01.09/arts5.philologos.html) about ratsah , Jewish commentators, as far back as medieval rabbis, accused Christian translators of distorting the 6th Commandment to make it conform to the Christian principle of turning the other cheek. So "kill" was used instead of the more precise, and more specific, "murder." Why? Because while Christianity gives lip service to loving one's enemies, the rabbinic maxim is 'he who comes to kill you, kill him first.' "

Modern translations prefer "Thou shalt not murder," hoping it excuses God's killing sprees, e.g., Numbers 31: "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males... But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (that last part isn't about killing, but I couldn't resist).

Ultimately, I think the 6th Commandment has to be regarded as morally ambiguous, given the centuries of argument over it. But what's surprising about that? It's hardly the only bit of Scripture (http://www.absoluteshakespeare.com/plays/merchant_of_venice/a1s3.htm) available to the devil.

Last thought: Only 2 of the 10 commandments are still considered crimes in modern societies. So God's batting average is worse than Giambi's.

Response to next posting: I stand corrected, and thank you.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

Last thought: Only 2 of the 10 commandments are still considered crimes in modern societies. So God's batting average is worse than Giambi's.
Three, if you count "Bearing false witness" as libel, slander, perjury, etc. (I assume the two you had in mind are the ones about murder and stealing).

[alaspooryorick]

Hey Moses, I can't let you into the holy land that you delivered my people to for forty years because you killed a guy once!

Hey Abraham, would you kill your son Isaac for me? That'd be pretty sweet!

:D

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

Hey Moses, I can't let you into the holy land that you delivered my people to for forty years because you killed a guy once!
Now, now, God didn't have a problem with Moses killing a guy. His beef with Moses is that he hit a rock to make water come out (instead of speaking to it).

[Lurker]

I'm not going to get into this again because I've explained it about 4 times on other threads
Yes, there are some rather enduring themes in the forum. But can you help me find these specific threads -- or at least one -- then I'll leave you alone? I poked around in this category (Atheist/Theist Morality) and couldn't find any according to title, so I suspect what I'm looking for is buried. (something that specifically talks about killing vs. murder, and how we decide which is which.) If you can help, thanks.
Try this one (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=738&p=7) (#102). You were involved in this discussion. Memory problems?

[Philboid Studge]

Try this one (#102). You were involved in this discussion. Memory problems?
Yes, I have memory problems, as I have pointed out many, many times in this forum. Or anyway, I meant to point it out -- maybe I forgot.

But I do remember that torturous thread like it was two weeks ago. Unfortunately post #102 -- which launches your intriguing theory that absolute morality varies according to circumstance (a contradiction that you continue to flog here: "...morals are absolute in that they apply equally to everyone given the circumstances") -- doesn't really address my question.

I'm asking this: when is a killing a murder? In Hebrew and in English the answer seems to be a question of legality, and I do not see from your posts any indication that God or Yahweh helps men sort out the distinction. (What I do see from the OT is that when these messy 'circumstances' arise, God tends to side with the OT authors. Funny, that.)

On the other hand, the word "kill" has no condition/circumstance associated to it. The only way to know if a specific act of killing is moral or immoral is to put the act of killing into a particular situation.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. So, "particular situations" determine what's killing and what's murder. We agree! Huzzah. On top of that, your posts then and now actually do answer my question: 'How is that different from what moral relativists do?' Answer: It ain't.

[Philboid Studge]

Thank you, HMSBeagle, that Forward piece was an interesting read. Note the conclusion -- "It is simply to say that, first of all, not all languages make an absolutely clear distinction between killing and murdering, and secondly, that, as is often true of translation, one's interpretation depends on prior attitudes." Apparently translations, like the morals themselves, are relative.

That article lead me to more information about St. Jerome, who was among the brighter bulbs of early Xians I think, and the first Latin scribe to get a bit squishy about killing v. murder (his 4th C. Vulgate Bible cast the die for later Catholic and Protestant versions). Not surprisingly, St. J is the patron st. of translators -- and Bible scholars! -- among other professions. (This is RA at its best, I think: when one thing leads to another and before you know it, you've learned something that could come in handy if you ever find yourself on Jeopardy.)

This Hebrew will turn Christian: he grows kind.
That's just wicked. Is Shakespeare really riffing off this notion that Jews were made of tougher stuff? "He who comes to kill you, kill him first." I wonder if Bush is a closet Jew.

So God's batting average is worse than Giambi's.
God should give steroids a shot.

[Lurker]

'How is that different from what moral relativists do?' Answer: It ain't.
It's very different. See Moral Relativism here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism) and here (http://www.moral-relativism.com/) just to cite a few places. I think the latter site sums it up with this statement:

"We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."

That's very different than saying a certain action within the context of a certain situation is immoral/moral regardless of who you are or what you think about it.

[Philboid Studge]

"We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."

That's very different than saying a certain action within the context of a certain situation is immoral/moral regardless of who you are or what you think about it.
Come now, Lurker. Linking to an evangelical Christian site (http://www.moral-relativism.com/common/aboutus.asp) that gives a wacky definition of moral relativism (it certainly doesn't apply to me) just so you can kick it around is hardly convincing.

Wikipedia presents a broad spectrum of relativist thought, none of which, that I can see, supports your claim. I'll give you this, however: it does say that for absolutists 'moral facts are invariant, though the circumstances to which they apply might be different.' Unfortunately whoever wrote that article leaves it at that.

So maybe I need schooling. Why don't you cite a specific example of 'the context of a certain situation' that makes a killing a murder? (This is getting perilously close to devolving into that thread we all thought we'd happily left behind us, so please don't do it if it takes us back there.)

By the way, is it troubling to you that every Biblical translator since, well, since the Bible was written, has had difficulty with this particular command? The KJV, e.g., waited until 1983 before changing 'kill' to 'murder.' If it was divinely inspired, why aren't the translators likewise inspired?

[HMS Beagle]

"We can all decide what is right for ourselves.That's very different than saying a certain action within the context of a certain situation is immoral/moral regardless of who you are or what you think about it.
Whoa, Nellie! The italicized sentence is a clearer statement of moral relativity than E=MC2 is of physical relativity. It says that right and wrong are relative to "ourselves", therefore-- tautology, anyone?-- it says that right and wrong (morality) are relative.

Earlier I argued that "the 6th Commandment has to be regarded as morally ambiguous, given the centuries of argument over it." Do you disagree with that? I mean, we're clever-enough dabblers, but scholars have devoted years to questions like, what's the truest translation of ratsah-- to kill or to murder? If they see ambiguity in the issue, I humbly submit that there is ambiguity to be seen-- and therefore, Moral Relativity is not only out of the barn, it's part of the Apocalypse.

[Lurker]

Come now, Lurker. Linking to an evangelical Christian site (http://www.moral-relativism.com/common/aboutus.asp) that gives a wacky definition of moral relativism (it certainly doesn't apply to me) just so you can kick it around is hardly convincing.
I didn't check the "about us" section so I had no idea it was a christian site. I just picked the first few "as Googled". How about this one (http://www.moralrelativism.info) as a replacement. I'm sure there are plenty of others. The prevailing idea is one where the individual/culture determines the morality - as opposed to the circumstances.

Why don't you cite a specific example of 'the context of a certain situation' that makes a killing a murder?
You mean a biblical example or one from today or ??

By the way, is it troubling to you that every Biblical translator since, well, since the Bible was written, has had difficulty with this particular command? The KJV, e.g., waited until 1983 before changing 'kill' to 'murder.' If it was divinely inspired, why aren't the translators likewise inspired?
Assuming what you say is true - I don't know and wish I did.

[Philboid Studge]

The prevailing idea is one where the individual/culture determines the morality - as opposed to the circumstances.
No. Well, you're half right, but you make it sound like relativists ignore circumstances (if that's what you mean by "as opposed to"). On the contrary, it is precisely the circumstances that influence how individuals/cultures make 'moral' decisions.

You mean a biblical example or one from today or ??
How about one from column A and one from column B?

Or, if you prefer, try these:
1. Would you say Americans are 'killing' Iraqis or 'murdering' them?

2. Would you say the al-Qaeda members who flew into the Pentagon were murderers or killers?

(I'm not using dictionary definitions for these. Just for brevity, I'm saying killing = morally justified; murder = not morally justified.)

Thanks for sticking with this. (I may come to regret it, but thanks.)

[Lurker]

No. Well, you're half right, but you make it sound like relativists ignore circumstances (if that's what you mean by "as opposed to"). On the contrary, it is precisely the circumstances that influence how individuals/cultures make 'moral' decisions.
I'm also saying morality applies to everyone in the same circumstance. It crosses cultural boundaries and individual opinions which is different (I think) than what you are saying above.

1. Would you say Americans are 'killing' Iraqis or 'murdering' them?
Both. I'd say both moral and immoral actions are taking place. Did President Bush act immorally with respect to iraq? Based on what I know "no", however I don't claim to know the same information as he does so I could be wrong. Are there some soldiers murdering iraqi's on the battlefield. I think yes.

2. Would you say the al-Qaeda members who flew into the Pentagon were murderers or killers?
Murderers.

I may have answered correctly above - or not. I'm not saying my answers = truth. I am saying that moral truths are independent of human perception much like facts are independent of human perception. If they depend on human perception then we could say killing innocent people is moral one day and immoral the next. It can't be both so which is it?

[Philboid Studge]

I'm also saying morality applies to everyone in the same circumstance
I'm not sure what you mean by 'applies' here, but I certainly agree that there are many cross-cultural behaviours with respect to 'morality.' Most (all?) cultures have developed anti-murder rules independent of Yahweh telling them when it's legal/illegal.

With respect to your answers: I, too, could be wrong and yes, more information would help. I suspect that in the first case, a range of 'crimes' are being committed. Going back to the dictionary definition for a moment, there is a substantial body of evidence that suggests the Bush Administration acted illegally in invading Iraq. And there's plenty of evidence showing he'd been thinking unkind thoughts about the leader of a sovereign nation for years. So you have 'illegal killing' plus 'malice aforethought' -- that's mur-diddly-urder. Everyone involved in the murder, from Monkey Boy to Colin to Condi to Rummy to soldiers actually pulling the triggers to the Bush supporters share varying degrees of responsibility. Even taxpayers, who don't really have a choice in the matter, are passively complicit.

As for the second case, I see it as pretty much a 'moral' equivalent to the first, i.e., equally repugnant. (You seem to think they are more 'guilty' than say, the Iraqi war planners. Why?)

I know where my assessments come from -- a whole range of experience and nature that yes, is sifted through my perceptions. I do not know where your assessments come from. Prayer? The Bible? Please show me. It sounds like we make the may same sort of judgment calls -- more or less -- based on a complicated suite of circumstances. This is precisely what people and communities do in deciding when killing = murder. God does not seem to offer anything of use, but I'm all ears.

I am saying that moral truths are independent of human perception much like facts are independent of human perception.
Which facts -- or moral truths -- do you know independent of your perception?

If they depend on human perception then we could say killing innocent people is moral one day and immoral the next. It can't be both so which is it?
It can't be? I think that when the Canaanites put live babies on the pyres, they were behaving 'immorally.' Obviously they didn't think so. On the contrary, they were following their religion! (And I'd bet there were survival strategies involved -- e.g., the sacrifices may have been concurrent with famine or drought, and babies were all take and no give in terms of food.)

I believe that when the Israelites exterminated the seven or eight nations of Canaan they were also behaving 'immorally' (much worse than mere baby sacrificers -- they killed everybody). They say God commanded them to do it, but I find such a claim incredible. A far more likely explanation is that they were justifying their carnage by giving it the imprimatur of divine authority. Their real objectives probably had more to do with, again, a survival strategy.

It can be both. You're only saying that it can't because you're stuck in a paradigm of absolutes. I may have asked you to ponder this Arnold Bennett line before: "All wrong doing is done in the sincere belief that it is the best thing to do." That goes for Canaanites, Israelites, Bush, bin Laden, me, you ...

[Lurker]

It can be both. You're only saying that it can't because you're stuck in a paradigm of absolutes. I may have asked you to ponder this Arnold Bennett line before: "All wrong doing is done in the sincere belief that it is the best thing to do." That goes for Canaanites, Israelites, Bush, bin Laden, me, you ...
It's getting dangerously close to rehashing everything again so I'm going to stop. You know where I stand, and I know where you stand.

[Philboid Studge]

It can be both. You're only saying that it can't because you're stuck in a paradigm of absolutes. I may have asked you to ponder this Arnold Bennett line before: "All wrong doing is done in the sincere belief that it is the best thing to do." That goes for Canaanites, Israelites, Bush, bin Laden, me, you ...
It's getting dangerously close to rehashing everything again so I'm going to stop. You know where I stand, and I know where you stand.
Agreed. The only thing missing is how you make assessments. Our exchange here only reinforces my belief that yours are made -- certainly with respect to killing v. murder -- pretty much the same way a relativist makes his: by examining the circumstances and applying what he 'knows.'

[ocmpoma]

"We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."

I have to side with Beagle here - this is a very accurate statement of moral relativism in its purest form, which is the form I subscribe to. Morality is just strongly held opinion. What I feel is 'right' or 'wrong' is just that - what I feel. There is no objectivity in morality, as it cannot be quantified in any way. As for murder, it's just illegal killing, as far as English goes. So a soldier under fire who fires back and kills another soldier, is 'killing'. If he does so without being under fire, he's 'murdering', since he has violated the law. And that is the only difference between the two.

[Philboid Studge]

I have to side with Beagle here - this is a very accurate statement of moral relativism in its purest form, which is the form I subscribe to.
Ironically, that's close to what (xian) theists believe as well, if you take "can" to mean "be able" (as opposed to "may" which is what the silly Evangelical meant when he wrote it). Since even xians are "able" to believe what they want -- otherwise there's no free will.

Re killing for military purposes: soldiers kill soldiers without being fired upon all the time. A bomber at 29,000 feet: killer or murderer?

Supposing the war itself is shown to be illegal (as the current one in Iraq may well be)? Is all the killing then to be considered murder?

[RedRob]

Killing, if not in direct self-defense, is murder. So if you pre-empt a killing it is still a murder, in other words if you kill someone because you hear that they might kill you it is still murder. So if a soldier kills someone who is directly endangering them it is in not murder but if he is killing them just because it's a war and he can it is still murder. Also a fact is not a fact because you believe it is but because it is a fact. You guys seem to be arguing about a particular societies view of things not how it is in reality. But seeing how people define reality by how society classifies normal behavior I guess your arguments are valid in that respect.

Here is my view outside of this miserable bubble we call society.
As a human I don't see myself constrained to any moral value defined by any society. I am human first everything else comes second. I choose not to kill because I don't want to be killed myself. I choose not to steel because I don't want others to steel from me. And so on..... So I don’t care what the American society’s view on the people that crashed in to the WTC is or Bush. I see them both from a human perspective and they are all murderers.

[ocmpoma]

As far as I understand the current rules of engagement, the bomb-dropper is not in violation of the laws of war, and is thus killing. I am not sure what happens if the war itself is shown to be in violation of international law - although my guess is that some patsy would take the hit for war crimes while the average Joe in the foxhole would not be prosecuted in that way.

Also, I agree that theists make up their personal moral code, as do we all. They are moral relativists, too - they just don't or won't admit it.

[Philboid Studge]

As far as I understand the current rules of engagement, the bomb-dropper is not in violation of the laws of war, and is thus killing.
Agreed. I brought it up because you used the example of 'a soldier under fire' and bombers seemed like an exception to me (not that I would know).

You're probably right about the patsy taking the hit while G.I. Joe or Jane gets off (Nuremburgishly?). Odd though, that only lowly grunts are being charged with Abu Ghraib crimes.

They are moral relativists, too - they just don't or won't admit it.
That does seem to be more and more revealed in this forum.

Are you in the military?

[ocmpoma]

"Odd though, that only lowly grunts are being charged with Abu Ghraib crimes."
The main difference, as far as I'm concerned with every other war crimes trial I can think of and Abu Ghraib was in who was charging who - that is, all the others are some other nation or international, and Abu is US charging US.
"Are you in the military?"
Yes.

[peepnklown]

I find it humorous that a all powerful god didn’t make anything clear.