Serial Killer Philosophy

[Meatplow]

So i'm having a discussion with some strange wench on another board who claims she truly wants to experience the thrill of murder or being murdered.

Anyway, would you consider there being any validity if you think in terms of amorality and post-modern reasoning that can truly justify the murder of an individual?

[Iskandar]

Okay Raskolnikov.

[Meatplow]

What is your take on the matter Iskandar ?

[Light Flantastic]

there is no right and wrong do what you like bro

[Iskandar]

Murder can be justified if it prevents more murders or something.

Otherwise not really.

It's simple utilitarianism.

[McP3000]

so youre like tronn

a murdererererer

[Smokey D]

Murder can be justified if it prevents more murders or something.

Otherwise not really.

It's simple utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism would say that murder is justified if it made the murderer (or some other people) really happy and the victim (or some other people) only kinda sad.

As for the thread topic, Streetlightrock was pretty big on the idea of existential freedom preceding any moral restriction whatsoever, but I didn't really get it.

[Buckey1983]

How arrogant do you have to be to feel you have the justification to end someone else's life? No one deserves death, maybe suffering for life but I can't see how anyone can truly justify taking someone's life without. Who are you to say that your personal anger is so important that someone else must die?

[McP3000]

what if you save 4 lives by killing 1?

[Light Flantastic]

Utilitarianism would say that murder is justified if it made the murderer (or some other people) really happy and the victim (or some other people) only kinda sad.isnt that hedonism

[Mr. Ron]

How arrogant do you have to be to feel you have the justification to end someone else's life? No one deserves death, maybe suffering for life but I can't see how anyone can truly justify taking someone's life without. Who are you to say that your personal anger is so important that someone else must die?
nah that is where you are wrong

[McP3000]

i agree many people that frequent sputnik deserve to be euthanized

[1338 h4x0r]

No one deserves death, maybe suffering for life

oh nice, being raped and beaten daily until you become an old husk that no one wants to touch, a fate worse than death, cool bro

[Smokey D]

isnt that hedonism

Hedonism is the theory of value which underpins Benthamite utilitarianism (that is, the theory of value which says 'happiness is good'). Utilitarianism goes a step further and applies that theory of value to practical reasoning by saying 'whatever creates the most happiness for the most number is the morally correct action'.

[Iskandar]

It would make a lot of people around here happy if I died.

[Smokey D]

That doesn't mean we would be morally justified in killing you, though.

Unless Streetlightrock is right and there is no right or wrong at all.

[Light Flantastic]

i wouldnt want iskandar to die

i dont know who else dislikes his opinions

[Iskandar]

He's an existentialist; ergo he thinks everything is subjective but not necessarily meaningless because of it.

At least that's what I gather from reading between the lines of his philosobabble.
i wouldnt want iskandar to die

i dont know who else dislikes his opinionsPretty much everyone on the right of the political spectrum.

[Light Flantastic]

more than me, at least

[Iskandar]

Hey I dislike your opinions too but I don't feel the need to point it out constantly.

Wait never mind yes I do.

[1338 h4x0r]

I don't think right and wrong really exist. Well, they might, maybe in the sense that numbers exist. Kind of meaningful abstractions.

That being said, I adhere to higher utilitarianism (as per Mill)

[Stig Caraveo]

yeah it's impossible to argue logically against someone who doesn't feel empathy for other human beings. if their philosophy is that it doesn't matter whether another person dies/experiences pain then there is no way for us normal people to debate this. they are just assholes, do you see?

isnt that hedonism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus this is one of my favorite wikipedia articles

[Iskandar]

Numbers are far more concrete than morals Chris. Five means the same thing to everyone (well except the Pirahã or something because they have a cultural constraint against counting) but the notion of sexual ethics probably varies between me and the guy down the street.

[Smokey D]

He's an existentialist; ergo he thinks everything is subjective but not necessarily meaningless because of it.

At least that's what I gather from reading between the lines of his philosobabble.

The thing I don't get with streetlightrock is that he says freedom precedes any other characteristic of an individual and that therefore there are no limitations on what one can do, but surely freedom is subject to the same discursive processes as every other characteristic. There is nothing ontologically prior about freedom any more than there is about other part of morality.

[StreetlightRock]

Utilitarianism would say that murder is justified if it made the murderer (or some other people) really happy and the victim (or some other people) only kinda sad.

As for the thread topic, Streetlightrock was pretty big on the idea of existential freedom preceding any moral restriction whatsoever, but I didn't really get it.

not exactly. I just haven't figured out a way to overcome it yet, though i know its out there.

[Iskandar]

Do you mean he's ignoring physical limitations and stuff.

[Smokey D]

No, I mean the concept of freedom is subject to the same processes which determine 'identity' or 'right' or 'wrong' or any other thing we can imagine, so I don't get how it precedes anything.

But now that he's here he can probably explain it better than I can.

[Iskandar]

Actually I doubt that for the reason I just explained (I'm not well-versed in philosobabble as eloquently as he is).

But I dig ya.

[1338 h4x0r]

Numbers are far more concrete than morals Chris.

I believe that, by examining neural activity, we can eventually figure out a more or less indisputable formula for utilitarianism ... something that could, at least theoretically, be number crunched with an optimization algorithm to get the best results for society

[Smokey D]

Yah but the problem is utilitarianism is bunk.

[StreetlightRock]

my philosobabble skillz kill.

No really tho, given a concrete example like murder the way to morally condemn it would be to recognize that murder eliminates the free flow of power between any two individuals. ('cause one is dead, duh!).

If you want elaboration, the point is that yes, even if freedom exists, it is always restricted by any one configuration of power. That's inescapable. But morally, that power relation should always be in some way reversible, or at least not be blocked.

[Iskandar]

Yah but the problem is utilitarianism is bunk.No u

[1338 h4x0r]

Yah but the problem is utilitarianism is bunk.

Why is it bunk?

Nothing has ever made so much sense

[StreetlightRock]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster

this is ok?

[Smokey D]

No really tho, given a concrete example like murder the way to morally condemn it would be to recognize that murder eliminates the free flow of power between any two individuals. ('cause one is dead, duh!).

Mmk but why is 'eliminating the free flow of power between individuals' wrong?


Why is it bunk?

Nothing has ever made so much sense

Well, because it depends on the dubious premises that the only relevant moral criterion is maximal average benefit (however you define benefit), that the good precedes the right, that the goods of human life are essentially commensurable in terms of benefit, that abstract concepts of maximal benefit are useful for practical reasoning.

I see no obvious reason to conclude that utilitarianism makes more sense than say saying that my rights (at least my right to life) provide me with an indefeasible claim limiting what you can do to me, even if it would serve the communal interests.

[Der Übermensch]

thrill of Murdering... ok...

I don't exactly see the thrill in BEING murdered though...

[Smokey D]

Consider a big rock which would kill you if it fell onto you. Even though we are sure of it, we also know, that because of its enormous size and mass, it is sure that we wouldn't feel any pain. In other words, we are not afraid of a rock, but of death. Since fear is a component of pain, in this case it follows that pain is in death. Now comes a crucial point: God is a pain in the fear of death'. For if there was no death or pain there would be no need for a God or Gods.

Now, we can continue with philosophy of freedom. Kirilov is obsessively attached to freedom, so that he doesn't agree, not in a single moment, that there is the slightest possibility that he is not a free agent. In a conversation to Pyotr Stepanovitch, he argues:

"It's not an agreement and not an obligation. I have not bound myself in any way." or "I didn't bind myself, I agreed, because it makes no difference to me."

And even if Kirilov doesn't bring into question the very existence of free will, he is convinced that there are several levels of it. A highest act of free will is a suicide.

"I want to put an end to my life, because that's my idea, because I don't want to be afraid of death."

Kirillov can now infer that if one commits suicide, he directly rejects God's existence, since he does not have any fear, and God is a fear. Hypothetically, one would kill oneself not in affection, but in calmness. Such an agent, who would prove that there is no God, would then declare himself as God. As one who can give and take life as one who can create or cause

[StreetlightRock]

Mmk but why is 'eliminating the free flow of power between individuals' wrong?

Because our freedom can only be expressed through the power we wield. And if freedom is an intrinsic part of our being/identity, that power should be (more or less) free to flow. On the flip side, we should not use that power to block or freeze another's exercise of it. What it should be is reversible, or free to change. Murder eliminates this.

[1338 h4x0r]

Well, because it depends on the dubious premises that the only relevant moral criterion is maximal average benefit (however you define benefit), that the good precedes the right, that the goods of human life are essentially commensurable in terms of benefit, that abstract concepts of maximal benefit are useful for practical reasoning.

Well ok bounded utilitarianism makes sense. It's a great guideline anyway.

And yes I think utility is ultimately measurable. Look up 'neuroeconomics utility' in Google or something to see what I mean.

[Iskandar]

thrill of Murdering... ok...

I don't exactly see the thrill in BEING murdered though...Tell that to the German dude who placed a personal ad to be cannibalized, which some other guy happily provided for him.

That's like saying "I can see the pleasure in whipping someone during S&M activities, but not in being whipped" yet there must be pleasure in it for some people or they wouldn't do it.

[Smokey D]

Because our freedom can only be expressed through the power we wield. And if freedom is an intrinsic part of our being/identity, that power should be (more or less) free to flow. On the flip side, we should not use that power to block or freeze another's exercise of it. What it should be is reversible, or free to change. Murder eliminates this.

Yah why?

Well ok bounded utilitarianism makes sense. It's a great guideline anyway.

And yes I think utility is ultimately measurable. Look up 'neuroeconomics utility' in Google or something to see what I mean.

I would suggest that people have different conceptions of benefit, which pretty much makes utilitarianism useless as a guide for practical reasoning.

[BridgeToSolace]

I always found it self evident that if I value myself I have to value other people, since everyone (including myself) is essentially the same.

But that's not much as far as philosophy goes >_>

[StreetlightRock]

because to exist is to be able to express your existence.

Meaning of life right there

[Iskandar]

Existence precedes essence. Holy **** do I win the prize.

[Smokey D]

because to exist is to be able to express your existence.

Meaning of life right there

No ought from a mere is.

[StreetlightRock]

wwwhhhhyyyy

[Smokey D]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_ought_problem

[Iskandar]

He made a positive statement, silly.

[Smokey D]

wat

[McP3000]

the meaning of life is to find meaning

[Der Übermensch]

Tell that to the German dude who placed a personal ad to be cannibalized, which some other guy happily provided for him.

That's like saying "I can see the pleasure in whipping someone during S&M activities, but not in being whipped" yet there must be pleasure in it for some people or they wouldn't do it.

True on the first point, but I think you are stretching the analogy. The getting a spanking doesn't result in death...

[BridgeToSolace]

The meaning of life is to be happy.

Der, those people are probably suicidal but too squeemish to actually kill themselves.

[Smokey D]

True on the first point, but I think you are stretching the analogy. The getting a spanking doesn't result in death...

Man can only stop living in fear of death when he rejects such fear to such an extent that he is willing to kill himself without any care

[Der Übermensch]

Yeah, but thats not the same as doing it for "the thrill of being murdered."

edit to smokey: That justifies it as an intellectual exercise, but it would be somewhat self-defeating to put into practice.

[BridgeToSolace]

Ever done it?

It's pretty sweet.

[McP3000]

The meaning of life is to be happy.

Der, those people are probably suicidal but too squeemish to actually kill themselves.
thats finding meaning in happiness

my definition still encompasses yours

[Smokey D]

I don't see any meaningful distinction. Presumably if you place enough value in free will or whatevs then it would be thrilling to have overcome what is arguably the greatest restriction on free will.

@ Der.

[BridgeToSolace]

thats finding meaning in happiness

my definition still encompasses yours

Happiness doesn't necessarily mean smiley fun time but rather a level of contentment with your actions.

ie. a father who works his *** off at a job he hates so that his son can go to college and be successful can still be considered happy even if he isn't smiling and laughing every day.

[Iskandar]

True on the first point, but I think you are stretching the analogy. The getting a spanking doesn't result in death...It's a difference of degree.
Man can only stop living in fear of death when he rejects such fear to such an extent that he is willing to kill himself without any careI can do that, I hate my life.

But I'm too useful to other people. This forum is just the tip of the iceberg.

[StreetlightRock]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_ought_problem

no thats silly the assumption is that my "ought" statement is not grounded in "rationality".

1. the meaning of life is to find meaning (is)
2. meaning can only be found if we can seek it (establishing the relationship, which btw, is value free)
3. to seek it we must be free to do so (ought)

[die of starvation]

ya i can think of a variety of situations where murder could be justified

i dont see what it has to do with serial killers or people who want to be murdered



also the dropper why do you hate your life

[Iskandar]

I lack fulfillment which can only be achieved through making a difference in the lives of others.

[BridgeToSolace]

3. to seek it we must be free to do so (ought)

I'm curious as to your definition of freedom.

[die of starvation]

I lack fulfillment which can only be achieved through making a difference in the lives of others.
have you considered fighting fires

[Iskandar]

have you considered fighting firesI don't have the physique for it.

[StreetlightRock]

I'm curious as to your definition of freedom.

last post before i dash 2 work:

I mean freedom to choose your own identity. This has two sources, one within (I am free to choose my identity - and pretty much any act you do establishes your identity) and one from without (my freedom to choose has to be affirmed and allowed by others otherwise it can become meaningless).

[Iskandar]

I didn't choose to be genderqueer, dude.

[BridgeToSolace]

(my freedom to choose has to be affirmed and allowed by others otherwise it can become meaningless).

Doesn't this mean that to be free, by your definition, you have to impede on other peoples freedoms (their freedom not to affirm you)?

Everything is a consequence of what happens before it. You aren't actually choosing something, you're compiling your memories and past actions, mixing them with your thoughts and then acting in accordance.

To me, freedom has to involve the capacity to do something else. But the past is concrete and everything is a consequence of the past, so the now is predetermined. There's no possibility of me not being at the computer right now typing this message.

So that's why I don't think we're really free. We're always free to do what we most desire (both conscious or subconsciously) in a situation, but we lack the capacity to influence what we desire.

EDIT: hope that made sense

[Smokey D]

no thats silly the assumption is that my "ought" statement is not grounded in "rationality".

No, even oughts grounded in rationality aren't necessarily true.


1. the meaning of life is to find meaning (is)

A contestable premise.

2. meaning can only be found if we can seek it (establishing the relationship, which btw, is value free)

A contestable premise.

3. to seek it we must be free to do so (ought)

Whence the ought? All you have said are three is's. You haven't said why it is good or bad to seek or not to seek or to be free to seek. You've just said that is it is so.

And also, your definition of freedom or meaning of life is not value free, so no relationship you have established between them is not value free.

[Raayl]

Anyone who thinks nobody deserves to die has clearly never stepped foot outside their comfortable, post-modern, developed, non-violent cultured bubble of security.

There are bad people in this world. There are terrible people in this world. Finding somebody that deserves death isn't difficult. If you think it is, well - I suggest getting out a little more.

Further

Murder has nothing to do with the ethics of human life. It really doesn't. Very rarely is murder considered in such a way by actual murderers. There is almost always some other circumstance that trumps this fancy philosophical discussion. Hence the compulsion to murder at all. Nobody would were they subject to such an intense internal discussion about the ethics and philosophy of ending a life.

My point:

Freedom, ethics, or the "right to life" have little to do with murder, in my experience and study of it. This includes compulsive, passionate, and professional murder. These are the three main propensities cited by our legal system in america for murder. Murder very seldom (if at all) occurs for any other reason than those three. None of those three propensities indicate some advanced philosophical, and internal debate within the murderer. Hence, no murderer is a philosopher. They're simply full of ****.

[Der Übermensch]

It's a difference of degree.


By orders of magnitude...