99Percent

Ok, I will go through this once again:

It is not a "perfectly" rational decision to intentionally murder someone if not in self-defense for the simple reason that you will enter into a perpetual state of violence. In this state of violence your life is forever at risk as everyone else will always be on guard against you, distrust you, fear you, etc. In fact maybe even kill you before you kill again. In effect you have shown disregard for human life, including your own.

Or in the unlikely scenario that you are able to hide your act of murder you then enter into a state of irrationality because you are living a lie. A lie that is objectively immoral because it involves other volitional human beings. So for example you will never be able to answer truthfully if someone asks you "have you ever killed anyone for pleasure or money?" for if you do answer truthfully you then enter into the state of violence above.

tronvillain

You seem to be saying that there are generally extremely negative consequences to other people knowing that you are a murderer, which is generally true. Obviously, the decision to commit murder must take into account the likelyhood of other people finding out about the murder and what likely consequences will be. Still, saying that murder is always irrational implies that no benefits could ever outweight the consequences, which seems unlikely to always be true.

Now, you patch the larger hole in your argument by asserting that lying is irrational, so that if you killed someone you would have to let others know or be irrational. Why is is it irrational to intentionally mislead others about the truth? It may be considered immoral under many moral frameworks, but one cannot from that argue that it is irrational. The truth may objectively exist, but that does not in of itself make it irrational to induce a belief which is contrary to the truth. In many cases lying appears to be perfectly rational - it can result in an outcome which is superior to the outcome which would have resulted from telling the truth.

Also, one can conceal the truth without lying or even misleading. If someone asks "Have you ever killed anyone for pleasure or money?" you could simply refuse to answer, or you could answer affirmatively but refuse to provide any details, and so on. You could probably go most (if not all) of your life without ever being asked such a question, which would make lying or refusing to answer completely unnecessary.

You have not demonstrated that murder is objectively wrong.

99Percent

The truth may objectively exist, but that does not in of itself make it irrational to induce a belief which is contrary to the truth.

Tron, you have some weird concept of what rationality is. Lying is not rational, no matter how you look at it. Irrational beliefs is very different from objectively knowing what is false.

How can you have any morality if you can justify any "moral" decision by covering up the truth? Its like justifying cheating as long as you don't get caught.

An alcoholic justifies his first drink by saying to himself "it will be my only drink, I promise" which is a lie, and he knows it.

A husband cheats his wife by saying to himself "I am going to divorce soon anyway" which is a lie and he knows it.

A murderer kills for pleasure by saying to himself "I won't get caught" which is a lie and he knows it.

A marathoner makes a huge shortcut and wins the marathon. His medal is a lie and he knows it.

All of the above are objectively immoral acts because they are based on intentional lies, they are so because the truth can be objectively determined.

When you initiate violence by murdering someone you enter into a state of violence, for the rest of your life. That is not rational, no matter how you look at it. Violence is always irrational.

In many cases lying appears to be perfectly rational - it can result in an outcome which is superior to the outcome which would have resulted from telling the truth.

But the supposedly superior outcome is based on a lie. It is false. It is therefore an invalid outcome.

Also, one can conceal the truth without lying or even misleading. If someone asks "Have you ever killed anyone for pleasure or money?" you could simply refuse to answer, or you could answer affirmatively but refuse to provide any details, and so on. You could probably go most (if not all) of your life without ever being asked such a question, which would make lying or refusing to answer completely unnecessary.

If you refuse to answer you are admitting guilt. Would you refuse to answer if your girlfriend asks you if you have been sleeping around? If you answer affirmatively but refuse to provide any details you are begging the question. That you can probably live the rest of your life without having to respond to such a question is irrelevant. The fact remains that you will have to be untruthful if the question ever arises, you are in an untruthful state and therefore in an immoral state. This is not the same as a trivial lie, because a trivial lie can always be uncovered without any bad consequences, but uncovering the lie of a murder does have a negative consequence.

You have not demonstrated that murder is objectively wrong.

I have if you accept the premise that lying and violence is irrational.

WhiteKnight

Opinions on the legal executioner?

Here's a person who's paid to murder, yet without the negative stigma of illegal murderers. Is legal execution an immoral act?

tronvillain

99Percent:

I am afraid I am going to have to say that your grasp of the concept of rationality is quite weak. Lying can be rational (though it will often not be), in that it can yield an outcome superior to that resulting from telling the truth.

As far as I know, that is how most people justify cheating. You have morality because cheating is countered by emotions like fear (of being caught), empathy (for those who lose unfairly), guilt (from conflicting with learned rules), and pride (in winning without cheating). In the absence of those and similar factors, people would cheat constantly.

A murderer kills for pleasure by saying to himself "I won't get caught" which is a lie and he knows it.[/quote]

All of those are examples of self deception, and as defined appear to be irrational. Still, these few examples you cannot even conclude that self deception is always irrational, let alone the deception of others.

A few examples of my own:

A job applicant lies on his resume, which results in him getting an interview.

A job applicant lies during an interview, which result in him getting a job.

A worker lies about his project, which results in him getting a promotion.

Where exactly is the irrationality in these cases?

Yes, he does, but it does not follow from his medal being a lie that he has done anything irrational. Apparently he cares more about having the medal than earning it honestly. Where is the irrationality?

Yes, they are intentional lies (you have specified that they are), but you have not demonstrated that intentional lies are necessarily immoral. This is just an unsupported assertion.

Yet another unsupported assertion from 99Percent. Initiating violence by murdering someone does not necessarily cause you to enter into a state of violence for the rest of your life.

It does not seem to follow the superior outcome being caused on a lie that it is "false" or if it does (depending on what you mean by "false") it is not apparent that people should care. If I can get a million dollars for telling a lie, why should I necessarily care that the million dollars is "false"?

Do you listen to yourself? If you asked me "Have you ever killed someone for pleasure or money" and I refused to answer would you conclude that I had killed someone? If I replied in the affirmative but declined to provide any details, would it really worry you? Could you really do anything about it? It seems entirely possible that for a big enough payoff, someone could live with the possibility that someone might ask the question, and the possibility that they might react badly. This is assuming no lying of course, which you have simply asserted is irrational without justification.

I think that few people would consider that premise self evident, and I certainly don't. It is in fact fairly easy to construct cases in which they appear rational, unless one simply asserts that they are not.

To conclude: