I was wondering...

[murkar]

Well (semper) if we're going to get philosophical...maybe there is no such thing as murder. Does consciousness ever actually leave your body when you die? And is death necessarily a bad thing? without death life would have no meaning. So maybe murder and assassination shouldn't have significance at all; how can we punish people for causing death without knowing the full implications of the action?

[Omoc]

Well (semper) if we're going to get philosophical...maybe there is no such thing as murder. Does consciousness ever actually leave your body when you die? And is death necessarily a bad thing? without death life would have no meaning. So maybe murder and assassination shouldn't have significance at all; how can we punish people for causing death without knowing the full implications of the action?

There IS such thing as murder Becouse we defined murder as taking a fizical capability of livning and existing in this world.

And we can punish it, becouse we also define termin murder as ilegal. And out of that, we have full right to punish it even though we don't know exactly all the consuquences...

[MGZ]

life ends naturally on its own. killing someone ends their life prematurely (depending, of course, on when you consider life to have begun) and in a culture such as ours that values life so much (again, with different ideas on just when "life" begins) we feel not just the right but the need to prosecute and punish those who commit such an act.

[murkar]

Then our societal values jump to the conclusion that death is a bad thing. Not only that, but we also place it in the responsibility of the courts to place a value on somebody's life in the case of wrongful death charges. I for one value death as much as life because without it life would have no meaning; I would feel no need to press charges on someone who killed me, but our court systems take it upon themselves to charge those for murder without knowing the intentions of the deceased.

How can we define life to be valuable with nothing to compare it to? Whatever comes after what we know as life is unknown to us. It's like charging someone for forging a lottery without knowing whether they forged a winning ticket or a losing ticket; you can't charge them for the amount without knowing the full implications. In the same way, how can we call murder a crime? We don't know what the full implications of death are.

Of course with this accepted as a societal norm our world support structure would crumble, so our attachment to the material world can only be fully manifested through ignorance of these facts; we rationalize the idea that murder is bad in order to keep our societal system alive (self deception).

[murkar]

So we are stealing life? If we define life as consciousness then how can we say we are stealing consciousness? We don't know what happens to it when we die.
The physical body ceases to function but the spark of consciousness may not. Most of our laws here in North America entrench catholic values in the way we govern because of the English and French who settles here over four hundred years ago. Couldn't we adequately argue that heaven is better than earth and that by murdering someone a favor was done? And without knowing whether it was the intention of the deceased we know whether they chose death or not (hence the legalization of assisted suicide was squashed).

And what if we don't define life as consciousness; what would we describe it as? Therein lies the problem: everybody perceives life differently and each person's definition of life would include different details. A clear legally accepted definition of life would be required and it would have to represent the values and beliefs of everybody it concerns (all, considering life concerns all people). And the definition could be constantly challenged and proved to be mistaken over and over and over because the definition will always be changing as the societal values which shape our perceptions change.

[murkar]

U fail to comprehend!

[semper]

Well....

Well (semper) if we're going to get philosophical...maybe there is no such thing as murder. Does consciousness ever actually leave your body when you die? And is death necessarily a bad thing? without death life would have no meaning. So maybe murder and assassination shouldn't have significance at all; how can we punish people for causing death without knowing the full implications of the action?

ok. Murder:
"The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice"

or is it?

"A flock of crows"

or

"Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder."

In this instance, someone would have been killed, there by we would be referring to the first and possibly third definition, depending on whether ur british or not. Is there such thing as murder? Is there such thing as you? Is there such thing as society and laws and definitions to dictate or set the meaning of common language for communication between sentient beings we presume exist? If you want to ask is there such thing as murder in that instance, you need to question the origin of the query in the external world, ultimately leading you to an infinite regress where one thing and one thing alone is certain, you at this very second are thinking and thereby exist.

Does consciousness leave the body after death? A great question, let me know when u have an answer.

Is death a bad thing? In the case of Tok'ra, no its not, in the case of my fictional aunt ruby, its exceedingly bad...were back to perceptions shaped by our experience (if your that way inclined) or our apriori knowledge affecting our character etc etc.... You cant tell people what to think, but humans have this great habit of flocking together, ergo death is generally viewed as a negative thing. Why negative? Because we fear death, because no one knows what happens after, (thats also why people seek out religeon, fear dying and of course its part of why we morn our losses).

Without death, life would have no meaning. You sure about? You think the meaning of life, is for it to end. Where would be the logic and reason of it existing in the first place then? I believe you make your own meaning to life. If the meaning is death, life is unecessary and would exist or have prevailed as it has. It God makes the meaning then we have no free will. (This is, for the moment ignoring Determinism..) Actually! Lets go there...is there even a meaning to life? Is that just not the feeble mind of humans saying things must be justified because of our own societies. Same with the universe. Just because we mortals have a beggining and an end, dosent mean the universe does. For all you know we could all just be an experiment in a little computer game, organic machines reaction to the stimuli in our enviroment, nothing more then cause and effect.

Maybe murder and assassination shouldnt have significance at all? How can punishment be given out? Well, lets look at it in simpler terms, lets say we have some how affirmed that everything exist's in some form of reality (which it does..even if its make believe you are perceiving it, giving it some form of existence because its having an effect, although im circling here, because im presuming that this effect has t have a cause, but thats very human now isnt it? Confusing? No? Lets press on...) so we have affirmed everything does exist, well then we have society and people in it. We have life, lets make life tangible for a moment. Life can be taken. Do you like things being taken from you without you wanting it to be taken? When u have no knowledge of the consequences? If the thing taken from you takes you away from your family and loved ones, its hurts them because your not with them, or maybe you go to hell? Can we, still on earth KNOW for a fact that death ends all happily and everything? I doubt it. So from a general point of view, who likes their stuff being stolen or destroyed. I know I dont. There bye punishment is given, negative feedback discourages people from repeating actions, this leads me into the second point I make from this. As humans we are slaves to instincts, one of which is to survive and preserve the race, very basic I know, but its there. What do you know! No murder = more life = higher chance of race survival.

right next...

Then our societal values jump to the conclusion that death is a bad thing. Not only that, but we also place it in the responsibility of the courts to place a value on somebody's life in the case of wrongful death charges. I for one value death as much as life because without it life would have no meaning; I would feel no need to press charges on someone who killed me, but our court systems take it upon themselves to charge those for murder without knowing the intentions of the deceased.

How can we define life to be valuable with nothing to compare it to? Whatever comes after what we know as life is unknown to us. It's like charging someone for forging a lottery without knowing whether they forged a winning ticket or a losing ticket; you can't charge them for the amount without knowing the full implications. In the same way, how can we call murder a crime? We don't know what the full implications of death are.

Of course with this accepted as a societal norm our world support structure would crumble, so our attachment to the material world can only be fully manifested through ignorance of these facts; we rationalize the idea that murder is bad in order to keep our societal system alive (self deception).

Most of this I answered in the reply to your first post.

How can we define to be valuable with nothing to compare it to? Making it priceless? So as humans, most humans cannot even begin to, or even care to try and comprehend something like that, life is given values in comparison to the possible consequences of our actions that could take it away and the amount of satisfaction we get from that. Revenge, $$, pleasure take ur pick.

You would not press charges on someone that killed you? Id say to you to think harder on that one.

All yoru doing now Murkar is asking questions millions of humans ask every day, that can for the time being have no possible answer other then you have to take what society has thrown at you and form your own hopes (or if you have read/heard of a certain book..beliefs...I find the two are interchangable when religon is present.) I suggest Murkar you read Neitzsche.

@Omoc: I do accept personal debating challenges, but depends on the mood I am in when u ask me, and the topic you would want to debate.

U fail to comprehend!

[spoiler]Most humans cannot comprehend. Some are lost, some are lazy, some are stupid and some are very misguided or delusional. All have one thing in common. They are human. Finite. Flawed.[/spoiler]

[vinny d]

To quote someone,

Perception is reality.

In the end it is all how you perceive it.

[murkar]

I will check out some Neitzsche over the weekend semper. I will come to this but I have no time to debate until tomorrow night (sorry), It's 11pm now and I need to start my essay on federally funded religious schools...which I haven't started...and which is due tomorrow morning.

[Omoc]

I am to lazy to read this Omoc out...