I'd have to completely agree with, Isle.

If someone personally asks me to kill them and we sign some form of contract to prove said person wanted me to kill them, that way I wouldn't get into any form of trouble, than I say it's okay and I would gladly do it. No matter what their reasoning is, it's their life and they could do whatever they want with it. Family and friends are completely irrelevant, as it's not their life, so they should not get any say in the matter at all.

Oberyn wrote

MLGTricky wrote @Isle, I wasn't referring to Emotion as having an impact on a persons thoughts, I was referring to OP telling me this post was to have a discussion with no emotion. I agree with your statement, emotion should not totally effect your thoughts on morals, but I disagree with you generalizing morals as something that everyone views as the same, that killer may think that killing is a good thing, different people think different ways.

When I accused you of making an appeal to emotion, I am looking for a logical solution to this problem.
The very fact that people have different emotions about murder makes it a folly way to solve something like this.

I'm looking for:
a + b + c = d
not
a in my opinion equals c and b is not a very nice thing to do, so d.

Well im sorry, but there is no answer to your equation. Murder will always be a situational affair, it's always going to require situational variables. But to once again answer your OP, your asking if a murder with the stated three variables would be in a greyed out, amoral area, and my answer is no. Let's take your formula for example, a b and c are your requirements, those alone don't immoral youneed a specified 4th variable like, has this person committed specific crimes, etc. In order for the equation to balance out.

Miss wrote I'd have to completely agree with, Isle.

If someone personally asks me to kill them and we sign some form of contract to prove said person wanted me to kill them, that way I wouldn't get into any form of trouble, than I say it's okay and I would gladly do it. No matter what their reasoning is, it's their life and they could do whatever they want with it. Family and friends are completely irrelevant, as it's not their life, so they should not get any say in the matter at all.

I strongly believe that nobody should have the right to take a life. In the situation you have described, I affirm it to be morally wrong to kill that person. The fact that the individual is requesting you to do so doesn't morally justify carrying out the murder at all. Not only this, but what if the individual was mentally unstable? I agree everybody has a right to end their own life but I strongly disagree with giving anybody else the power to take theirs away.

MLGTricky wrote @Oberyn
amoral-unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something or lacking a moral sense.
*More for me than anyone else.
The reason I believe this is illogical is due to the fact that this doesn't distinguish where you've found these requirements, as if you asked me what makes murder immoral these probably aren't the three conditions I'd think of, not to mention you said a homeless person in the original post, but I believe there are plenty of more exceptions to these 3 requirements you've stated.

I said Amoral was probably the best way to describe it being that it is somewhere in the middle, I don't think there is actually a word which means 'the grey area between moral and immoral.'

What are the conditions you would think of which make murder immoral?
and I'm excluding religious and emotional reasons because they are subjective, unless you have a logical way of backing up that emotional reason.
I.E: Murder is wrong because it makes me feel bad because...

A homeless person is less likely to have family and friends who care about them, that is the only reason why I said a homeless person.

MLGTricky wrote Well im sorry, but there is no answer to your equation. Murder will always be a situational affair, it's always going to require situational variables. But to once again answer your OP, your asking if a murder with the stated three variables would be in a greyed out, amoral area, and my answer is no. Let's take your formula for example, a b and c are your requirements, those alone don't immoral youneed a specified 4th variable like, has this person committed specific crimes, etc. In order for the equation to balance out.

The equation was only to illustrate the difference between a logical answer and an emotional one.
It had no relevance to any variables in the thought experiment.

But even if it did have relevance you haven't provided any reasons why it wouldn't be amoral to murder someone under the conditions of the 3 variables.
You're saying it requires a 4th variable without providing a reason why 3 variables aren't enough.

If you have the thought capacity to ask me to kill you whilst having to design a contract that explicitly details you giving me the power to end your life without suffering any consequences, that also respects your wishes to ending your life, than you're not mentally unstable.

iyop45 wrote

Miss wrote I'd have to completely agree with, Isle.

If someone personally asks me to kill them and we sign some form of contract to prove said person wanted me to kill them, that way I wouldn't get into any form of trouble, than I say it's okay and I would gladly do it. No matter what their reasoning is, it's their life and they could do whatever they want with it. Family and friends are completely irrelevant, as it's not their life, so they should not get any say in the matter at all.

I strongly believe that nobody should have the right to take a life. In the situation you have described, I affirm it to be morally wrong to kill that person. The fact that the individual is requesting you to do so doesn't morally justify carrying out the murder at all. Not only this, but what if the individual was mentally unstable? I agree everybody has a right to end their own life but I strongly disagree with giving anybody else the power to take theirs away.

What reason do you have to say that it is morally wrong though?
You can say that it is morally wrong all you want, but you have given no reason why other than the fact that the person may be mentally unstable.

What if a psychologist performed an analysis of the person's mental state and came to the conclusion that they were of sound mind while making the decision?
Or a team of psychologists unanimously agreed that the person was of sound mind?

Would you still find it morally objectionable?

Miss wrote

Click to View Content

iyop45 wrote

Miss wrote I'd have to completely agree with, Isle.

If someone personally asks me to kill them and we sign some form of contract to prove said person wanted me to kill them, that way I wouldn't get into any form of trouble, than I say it's okay and I would gladly do it. No matter what their reasoning is, it's their life and they could do whatever they want with it. Family and friends are completely irrelevant, as it's not their life, so they should not get any say in the matter at all.

I strongly believe that nobody should have the right to take a life. In the situation you have described, I affirm it to be morally wrong to kill that person. The fact that the individual is requesting you to do so doesn't morally justify carrying out the murder at all. Not only this, but what if the individual was mentally unstable? I agree everybody has a right to end their own life but I strongly disagree with giving anybody else the power to take theirs away.

If you have the thought capacity to ask me to kill you whilst having to design a contract that explicitly details you giving me the power to end your life without suffering any consequences, that also respects your wishes to ending your life, than you're not mentally unstable.

+ @Oberyn

Sure, assuming they're mentally stable - Fine. So you're saying a contract can give you the power to kill someone? I don't think you can just delegate the power over someones life. I'm not religious but I do believe that if you're giving anyone this power you're pretty much giving them the role of God and from a moral standpoint I think that's wrong. Even if it's delegated from the person who wants to be killed. Hence, I don't think anybody should have the power to control who lives or dies in any circumstance.

*That was the main point of my reply. I feel you're both addressing only a very small part of what I wrote initially.

This topic is actually one that is just so far off of what we are typically taught and "told" to think like that i am actually fearful of bringing my mind to these thoughts. To even think of justifying murder really is beyond my comprehension, however this does pose some valid questions that really make you think twice.

iyop45 wrote

Miss wrote

Click to View Content

iyop45 wrote

Miss wrote I'd have to completely agree with, Isle.

If someone personally asks me to kill them and we sign some form of contract to prove said person wanted me to kill them, that way I wouldn't get into any form of trouble, than I say it's okay and I would gladly do it. No matter what their reasoning is, it's their life and they could do whatever they want with it. Family and friends are completely irrelevant, as it's not their life, so they should not get any say in the matter at all.

I strongly believe that nobody should have the right to take a life. In the situation you have described, I affirm it to be morally wrong to kill that person. The fact that the individual is requesting you to do so doesn't morally justify carrying out the murder at all. Not only this, but what if the individual was mentally unstable? I agree everybody has a right to end their own life but I strongly disagree with giving anybody else the power to take theirs away.

If you have the thought capacity to ask me to kill you whilst having to design a contract that explicitly details you giving me the power to end your life without suffering any consequences, that also respects your wishes to ending your life, than you're not mentally unstable.

+ @Oberyn

Sure, assuming they're mentally stable - Fine. So you're saying a contract can give you the power to kill someone? I don't think you can just delegate the power over someones life. I'm not religious but I do believe that if you're giving anyone this power you're pretty much giving them the role of God and from a moral standpoint I think that's wrong. Even if it's delegated from the person who wants to be killed. Hence, I don't think anybody should have the power to control who lives or dies in any circumstance.

*That was the main point of my reply. I feel you're both addressing only a very small part of what I wrote initially.

But your point that it is wrong hasn't been backed up by anything.
Legally it's wrong, yes, but you haven't said why it's morally wrong other than because you think it is.
There's not much to discuss about that without saying, 'Well I think it's OK, so up yours!'

For instance, I can't speak for Miss, but in my case I would say that it's OK to kill someone if they have signed a contract allowing you to do so because of 2 things:

1) The person must be suffering, and preventing suffering is a good thing.
2) It is good to respect a person's autonomy.

I am in no position to tell that person 'No, you're not allowed to die prematurely.'

Morals are completely subjective so really it depends on the person.

I believe just about everyone except psychopaths can agree that killing someone innocent is immoral, so I don't think your homeless theory works. :p