Skip to main content

Dial M for Mur...er...Morality

I was watching a video from the Prager U YouTube channel where Dennis Prager asks the following question:

But how do you KNOW that murder is wrong?

Prager's idea is that we can think murder is wrong, or feel inside that murder is wrong, but that this is not enough: according to him, it's vital for us, and for society at large that we KNOW murder to be wrong; and the only way we can KNOW it is that God tells us it is wrong.

The problem with the example of murder, is that it's completely relative. Murder is defined as the illegal killing of human beings. So anytime we want the killing of some being to be considered "wrong", all we have to do is to classify that killing as "murder". And conversely, if we want the de-lifing of some being to be permissible, we classify it as not murder. Some examples of killing that is not murder are these:

  1. War. It's perfectly legal to kill someone -- or millions of people -- using war as an excuse. There are many examples in the scriptures of God commanding this, so it's also possible for a person to argue that it's not only legal, but moral to do so.
  2. Execution. Killing someone for breaking the law is another category of making it OK in the eyes of the law (and God) to de-life someone. It seems ironic to me that we kill mostly to punish killing.
  3. Non-humans. It's never murder to kill beings that are not human. We get away with some absolutely awful behavior using the category of "non-human" as an excuse. In fact, this is one technique that we humans use to get rid of people we don't like -- we classify them as somehow less than human. Think of the Holocaust, or slavery, or any of the various pogroms and genocides that have taken place in the last few centuries.
Dennis Prager never wants to have this conversation, and he fervently hopes that people who view his videos will never exercise their critical thinking skills in this regard. But the really interesting question in this space is not "how do you KNOW murder is wrong?". The real question is this:
How do we decide when killing is wrong?
And the reason Dennis Prager would go to any lengths to avoid ever touching on this subject is that it leaves his Absolute Morality shtick without a leg to stand on.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Comments on Paradox: On Ownership

It's funny, but not not surprising, that we seem to have had some similar life experiences. The notion of ownership has been very transformative in my life, too. I can clearly recall several instances of what some might call an epiphany, where I experienced an overwhelming realization of ownership. These instances were all similar -- a sudden certainty, like a light turning on, that I was in the right place at the right time doing the right thing for the right reasons; and the not-unpleasant sensation of a new weight of responsibility settling on my shoulders, a weight I was comfortably able to bear. For the longest time, I had no word to describe these experiences, but I have come to view them as taking ownership. These experiences, and the habit of ownership that arose from them, have been very instrumental in any successes I have experienced in my life. Every religion on the planet is probably eager to offer an interpretation of these experiences -- to frame them in the phraseol
1 comment
Read more

E pluribus unum

The original motto of the United States, e pluribus unum -- from many, one -- originally signified the inclusion of 13 separate colonies into one body politic. But it also came to represent the notion that you can come to this country and become a participating citizen, taking on the responsibilities and reaping the benefits. In the 1950s, in response to severe threats playing out on the world stage, we adopted a new motto, In God We Trust . In many ways, this motto's intentions were similar to those of the original -- to unite us around a common purpose in order to prevail against forces seeking to destroy us. It was an understandable but risky choice to adopt the new motto. And now the full extent of that risk is becoming clearer every day. The trends we can see developing around us are making it more obvious than ever that we have to quash the terrifying specter of a government that wields the power of religion.  Power does not respect religion. It only uses it to advance its o
Post a Comment
Read more

Let's talk about freedom

People talk about freedom all the time, but do they ever really think about what it means to be free? Let's take a couple of examples to use as thought experiments. No one should be surprised when my first thought turns to language. Here's too much linguistic freedom in action: Gukb fsilmpmer splifffdd ..;;, !!! @ WASKKQS&&&&^^^^ zzzzmzmzmllllz( If we want to take advantage of language, we have to obey some rules -- a whole lot of them, many layers of rules. In situations where your native language is being spoken, your ear is finely tuned to detect unbelievably minute departures from normal language sounds. You can detect a non-native speaker a mile away from a slightly mispronounced vowel, or even just a missing glottal stop where you would normally expect it. And don't even get me started on grammar. For every way to get something right, there are 100 ways to get it wrong. And yet, once we learn to work within the rules of the language, we experience a mu
Post a Comment
Read more