JerryM

There is no absolute, completely objective basis for morality, but I think your idea about considering the effects on society comes as close as one can get. Humans are social animals. A functioning society is necessary for survival and proliferation of our species. I do believe that society is a biological imperative for us. Widespread, wanton killing of other people (at least within the tribe, or immediate social group) prevents society from functioning. That is why such behavior is "wrong." Now of course, there are all sorts of circumstances where killing is justified, so this is not absolute or totally objective by any means. But examining how actions affect society is as objective as it's possible to be.

tronvillain

viscousmemories:
Yes, as I will cease to exist when I die, the details of my life and death will be inconsequential. As I have yet to die, the details of my life and death are quite important to me. Now, while I do not believe that life is "sacred" or that everyone has an inherent "right to live", I do value life and acknowledge the "right to live" to a certain extent.

There is no logical justifcation for not killing you based solely on how the act will affect you, but there is a logical justifcation for not killing you based on your opinion about being killed while you are still alive.

The victim of a murder is the person who was killed. Not, mind you, the person who has been killed (there is no such person), but the person who was killed. Of course, there are secondary victims such as those with a direct relationship to the victim, and there are tertiary victims and so on until you encompass all of the society. By that point there will be virtually no impact for most murder victims, so focusing on the effect an individual murder will have on a society would be somewhat pointless.

Theli

There seems to be a part missing, the morality you speak of tends to only deal with pain, and not with loss.
What is the worst thing about stealing someone's money?
It's not that the person will cease to have the money, but that you rob him of the chance to use it. Aswell with life, the dead do not care as they are dead. But they do not live either, and we can assume that in this example it would be better for that person to live longer than being killed.
You don't become morally righteous just by not doing wrong.

Psycho Economist

Nuts! Even if they perfectly fail to remember, there is still a very high liklihood of suffering... pain from the assault, nausea from the drugs, reactions of wittnesses, chance pregnancy or STD's...

So you don't like utilitarianism... most people don't subscribe to it. But the original post advocates a way to salvage some morality out of utilitarian arguments against murder in the absence of never-ending consciousness (and attendant anguish of being murdered) on the part of the victim.

I do think that the loss arguments being expressed now do represent a stronger line of reasoning, though.

Xeluan

Leaving aside the questions of an inherent right to live, the problem I see with this argument is that if focuses on the "then" ie after you die.

The fact that tomorrow or in 30 years or whenever I'll shuffle off my mortal coil is irrelevant. Life is immediate. As long as I'm alive my life is relevant.

Xeluan

Jamie_L

Whoa there, pilgrim! It's a though experiment/hypothetical intended to illuminate flaws in the line of reasoning. I.E., IF it were possible to do such a thing in the way I described, would it be imoral? That was the point of the comment.

Jamie

Psycho Economist

Fair enough. I just think this one was particularly problematic because there are results of sexual assault that go beyond the harm of experiencing it (notice, I let your other examples slide). Here, there's still the problem that you did not get her consent, which is a problem for Kantians but not necessarily utilitarians. We don't have to make this example perfect, perring every ethical objection to rape away until you're left with a question of whether some percectly inoccuous rape is still immoral.

The original post said: in the case of murder, because the victim himself cannot possibly be aggrieved, should we not define its wrongness based on how others are hurt. Murder is a strange bird among crimes in that respect: the victim cannot possibly be the one aggrieved by it (if you don't believe in consciousness after death). Crimes that leave their victims alive can potentially aggrieve the one the crime was perpetrated against (and ususally do), and those around the victim.

Jamie_L

Likewise. I knew it wasn't quite the same as the other examples when I wrote it. Carry on.

Jamie