Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Mounce574]

To my way of thinking, apart from self-defence the other justification for killing is consent. If someone of sound mind asks you to kill him or agrees to you killing him in order to achieve some goal that he cherishes, then it seems that you do not wrong him by so doing.

The law may not call that murder. But then we're into a problem of use of language again - we only call it murder when we think it's unjustified...

THe law does call that murder or accessory to murder though. In the state of Oklahoma- Shooting with intent to kill carries the same penalty as attempted murder. In my mind Kill and Murder are one and the same. The end result is the person's physical body ceases to function in any capacity other than decomposition.
I don't know if I would ever say someone of sound mind would ask you to kill them. Extreme pain or hopelessness would cause someone to be desperate to rid themselves of that feeling. Those people generally commit suicide, which I think is wrong in a spiritual sense.
Is it justifiable for the state to execute death row inmates? Recently a person I know killed a police officer and crippled another. He was given a death sentence by lethal injection. Another person I know (I am beginning to believe I need to reevaluate the people I am around) killed a man by shooting him in the back. He was given life with possibility of parole. Why is the standard of who is sentenced to die different for each person? The first did not plan on shooting anyone, the second did. The first had never been to prison before. The second had been to prison at least twice. By looking at those factors- is it justifiable to kill the first man but not the second? Both caused the kiss of life of one person. Both fled the scene of their act. Ironically they are both similar in age.
I don't feel guilty for what I did overseas. I don't know how anyone else would view the situation soldiers are placed in. I was part of supply, I wasn't on the frontlines. I can honestly say that it didn't matter to those shooting at me. They hated me for what I represented - a foreigner in their land opposing their belief system. That being said, I know many people who have killed someone out of self-defense feel guilty for taking a life. I don't know if I would feel the same or mentally detach myself from what I did like I have my military past.

[LuckyR]

Easy question with a single logical answer. Having said that, many compound the situation with their "beliefs" instead of concentrating on what they supposedly are seeking to do (not wanting to offend a complete stranger).

If you're answering the question "how to get on with a stranger", then yes, the answer "accept their use of language" is both simple and true. "Don't insult them, their tribe or their religion" would be another.

But that's not really the point at issue. The question is more about what is a reasonable balance between getting on with other people and saying what one believes to be true. Somewhere between riding roughshod over their point of view and being a complete doormat lies a happy medium that is polite but not lacking assertiveness.

Even a conversation with a stranger is a form of relationship, involving give and take on both sides.

So, what's your answer to MY question, do you call the Hispanic guy "Latin" when asked, or do you persist in calling him "Hispanic"?

Since you asked, "Hispanic" as a racial descriptor is an Americanism that I have no attachment to. If I'm interested enough to ask about his racial background, then I'm likely to get a better answer if I use his terminology for it. If the terminology seems to me to contain an untruth (?"First Nations"?) then I have to weigh up pragmatically how much I want to hear his information against my distaste for untruth.

Whatever choice is made as part of that encounter, when he's gone away i'll happily talk with you about "cowboys and indians" in the language I grew up with. He has no rights over our conversations together.

I don't refer to his heritage/race.
Unfortunately, avoidance doesn't always work.

Yes, avoiding topics where offence is likely to be taken seems prudent with strangers.

The difficulty with pronouns is that they appear to be making a judgment about a possibly-controversial topic, whilst it is difficult to avoid their use in natural English.

If a female person is visiting my office, I want to be able to say to a colleague to show her where she can get a cup of coffee, without going into personal details of how much that person identifies with masculinity/femininity.

Dragging one's personal baggage, psychological problems and sex life into an office setting is unprofessional.

Back to topic: murder without guilt- what guidelines outside of self-defense do you set that justifies murder in any way? Or is it considered punishment instead of murder?

Apologies for continuing the tangent. I post on a phone in odd moments and haven't mastered the art of quoting a tangential discussion on a new thread.

To my way of thinking, apart from self-defence the other justification for killing is consent. If someone of sound mind asks you to kill him or agrees to you killing him in order to achieve some goal that he cherishes, then it seems that you do not wrong him by so doing.

The law may not call that murder. But then we're into a problem of use of language again - we only call it murder when we think it's unjustified...

Happy we are in agreement on how to have polite casual conversations.

I also agree that meeting folks where they are when in conversation with them carries no obligation to use their descriptors when they are no longer part of the conversation.

Sorry to break it to you but office etiquette is changing. True, since it is near the beginning of the change there is currently a lot of pushback and naysayers (as always happens during such events).

As to the OPs topic, it ISN'T a legal discussion of: under what circumstances can one be found not guilty of murder, it is techniques to assuage the natural emotion of guilt when one commits murder.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the January 2023 Philosophy Book of the Month, Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise by John K Danenbarger



Since there are few topics in this forum in relation to murder, morality, selfishness, etc. I had a thought on asking this unusual question. Please do not be bothered by my dark thoughts (you always have the choice to just ignore the topic) and I am extremely sorry if this question makes you uncomfortable?

What will be the best reason for you to think of to get ridden from the guilty feelings if you are to (or had already) commit murder? In other words, killing what sort of a human being will let you be in peace (or with the least amount of guilt)?

If I understand what you're asking, you're asking for techniques or circumstances for addressing guilty feelings such that one eliminates or minimizes them.

Obviously sociopaths don't feel guilt, which though interesting, don't address your question. Similarly killing Hitler (or another death-deserving person) generally won't induce guilt and thus also don't apply.

Clearly rationalizations are the standard way of addressing self doubt/guilt. In my experience anger is the most effective emotion to counter sadness. So if I am upset with the death of my victim, I would exaggerate an act committed by the victim in my mind such that I became very angry with them.

Your response touches upon an interesting aspect of human psychology - the use of rationalization and redirecting emotions to assuage guilt. It's true that we often employ such methods to alleviate our sense of wrongdoing, and anger can indeed be a potent distractor from guilt.

However, it's important to acknowledge the gravity of the question at hand. We're discussing murder, an act that takes away someone's life, a moral line that most people agree should never be crossed. Trying to find ways to feel less guilty about such an act may be a dangerous path to tread, as it could potentially lead to justifying or normalizing extreme harm to others.

Instead of trying to diminish the guilt associated with such an act, perhaps it's more beneficial to consider why such feelings of guilt arise in the first place. Guilt is often a reflection of our moral compass, indicating when we've done something that we believe is wrong. It serves as a mechanism for self-regulation, prompting us to make amends and avoid making the same mistake in the future.

So, if one is to hypothetically consider such a situation, it might be more productive to examine why the thought of committing such an act causes guilt, and what that reveals about our underlying values and principles. This could lead to a deeper understanding of our own moral landscape and its role in guiding our actions.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the January 2023 Philosophy Book of the Month, Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise by John K Danenbarger



Since there are few topics in this forum in relation to murder, morality, selfishness, etc. I had a thought on asking this unusual question. Please do not be bothered by my dark thoughts (you always have the choice to just ignore the topic) and I am extremely sorry if this question makes you uncomfortable?

What will be the best reason for you to think of to get ridden from the guilty feelings if you are to (or had already) commit murder? In other words, killing what sort of a human being will let you be in peace (or with the least amount of guilt)?

If I understand what you're asking, you're asking for techniques or circumstances for addressing guilty feelings such that one eliminates or minimizes them.

Obviously sociopaths don't feel guilt, which though interesting, don't address your question. Similarly killing Hitler (or another death-deserving person) generally won't induce guilt and thus also don't apply.

Clearly rationalizations are the standard way of addressing self doubt/guilt. In my experience anger is the most effective emotion to counter sadness. So if I am upset with the death of my victim, I would exaggerate an act committed by the victim in my mind such that I became very angry with them.

I don't think anger counters sadness. Sometimes anger is grief manifested.

Indeed, you're right. Anger can be a form of projected grief or sadness and it often arises from a sense of being wronged or hurt. It's a secondary emotion that can mask the primary ones like fear, embarrassment, or sadness. Therefore, to use anger as a tool to alleviate guilt could be misleading. It might provide temporary relief, but it doesn't truly address the underlying feelings of guilt or remorse.

Furthermore, relying on anger to justify an act as grave as murder could potentially lead to a cycle of violence, where the initial act of harm is followed by rationalization and then further acts of harm, thereby creating a perpetual cycle of anger and guilt.

While it's a natural human tendency to seek ways to alleviate distressing feelings, it might be more constructive to focus on understanding these feelings and their root causes. This can help us learn more about ourselves and develop healthier coping mechanisms. Guilt, in particular, is often a sign that we've acted against our own moral code, and it's essential to acknowledge and learn from it rather than seeking ways to suppress or eliminate it.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the January 2023 Philosophy Book of the Month, Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise by John K Danenbarger



Since there are few topics in this forum in relation to murder, morality, selfishness, etc. I had a thought on asking this unusual question. Please do not be bothered by my dark thoughts (you always have the choice to just ignore the topic) and I am extremely sorry if this question makes you uncomfortable?

What will be the best reason for you to think of to get ridden from the guilty feelings if you are to (or had already) commit murder? In other words, killing what sort of a human being will let you be in peace (or with the least amount of guilt)?

If I understand what you're asking, you're asking for techniques or circumstances for addressing guilty feelings such that one eliminates or minimizes them.

Obviously sociopaths don't feel guilt, which though interesting, don't address your question. Similarly killing Hitler (or another death-deserving person) generally won't induce guilt and thus also don't apply.

Clearly rationalizations are the standard way of addressing self doubt/guilt. In my experience anger is the most effective emotion to counter sadness. So if I am upset with the death of my victim, I would exaggerate an act committed by the victim in my mind such that I became very angry with them.

I don't think anger counters sadness. Sometimes anger is grief manifested.

It does for me, though I accept that it doesn't for you apparently.

It's interesting to see the different ways we process emotions. For you, anger may seem to counteract sadness, but I believe it's worth considering whether it truly resolves the underlying guilt or merely masks it. In the case of a severe action such as murder, the guilt felt could be a deep-seated moral response indicating that something fundamentally conflicts with our personal or societal values.

[Sushan]

If I understand what you're asking, you're asking for techniques or circumstances for addressing guilty feelings such that one eliminates or minimizes them.

Obviously sociopaths don't feel guilt, which though interesting, don't address your question. Similarly killing Hitler (or another death-deserving person) generally won't induce guilt and thus also don't apply.

Clearly rationalizations are the standard way of addressing self doubt/guilt. In my experience anger is the most effective emotion to counter sadness. So if I am upset with the death of my victim, I would exaggerate an act committed by the victim in my mind such that I became very angry with them.

I don't think anger counters sadness. Sometimes anger is grief manifested.

It does for me, though I accept that it doesn't for you apparently.

I don't think I can rationalize self-doubt/guilt becaue I have been in the military. It is basically more a means of survival. Murder is a high stress action and I chose to void my mind of any emotion. When a person dies, the sound/snell/sight of it all registers if you stop to rationalize it.

Your experiences in the military bring a unique perspective to this discussion, and it's clear that the emotions surrounding such high-stress situations are complex and deeply personal. It's true that in survival situations, emotions can sometimes be a luxury one can't afford, and voiding the mind of any emotion might be a necessary mechanism to cope with the immediate demands of the situation. This, however, doesn't negate the potential for guilt to arise later, once the immediate danger has passed and there's space for reflection. It's a testament to our human capacity for empathy and moral judgment.

Yet, I think it's essential to draw a clear distinction between murder and killing in a war context, even though both involve taking a life. The moral, legal, and societal implications are vastly different. In the case of war, soldiers operate under orders and within a framework that, to some degree, shifts the responsibility away from the individual. This might be one of the factors that can potentially mitigate feelings of guilt.

It's also worth noting that, despite these circumstances, many veterans do struggle with guilt and other negative emotions after their service, often as part of conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder. It's a complex issue that exposes the limits of our ability to completely disconnect our actions from our emotions and moral compass.

[Sushan]

I don't think anger counters sadness. Sometimes anger is grief manifested.

It does for me, though I accept that it doesn't for you apparently.

I don't think I can rationalize self-doubt/guilt becaue I have been in the military. It is basically more a means of survival. Murder is a high stress action and I chose to void my mind of any emotion. When a person dies, the sound/snell/sight of it all registers if you stop to rationalize it.

Just to be clear, are you treating murder and killing in battle as emotional equals?

No, they are not emotional equals. Killing in battle often happens in a context where survival is at stake and one is acting under orders or conditions of war. It is a situation thrust upon individuals, rather than a premeditated act of individual will as murder often is.

However, this does not necessarily mean that one would feel less guilt or emotional disturbance in one scenario versus the other. It is a deeply individual and subjective matter, affected by one's personal beliefs, values, and psychological disposition. The emotional aftermath can be unpredictable and complex, varying greatly from person to person.

We must also consider the societal and moral frameworks surrounding these actions. Society generally treats murder and killing in battle differently, with the former usually condemned and the latter sometimes deemed necessary or even honorable. This societal perception can influence personal feelings of guilt or acceptance, but it doesn't erase the emotional and moral complexities involved.

[Sushan]

Somewhat. I knew I faced the possibility of killing people- and sadly, some of the people were innocent bystanders caught in gunfight: including women and children. I felt that I may have murdered them.

The complexity of emotions and moral judgments you're grappling with is not uncommon among individuals who have been in combat situations. The fog of war can blur the lines between concepts we generally consider to be clear-cut in peaceful situations, such as the distinction between murder and self-defense, or between combatants and non-combatants.

Feeling guilt or regret for causing harm to innocent bystanders is a testament to your humanity and empathy. It's important to remember that these feelings do not reflect a personal failing, but rather the tragic circumstances of war that often place individuals in situations with no good outcomes.

The guilt associated with these situations may not be entirely removable, as it is tied to our fundamental understanding of right and wrong. However, it can be processed and integrated into one's self-understanding in a way that allows for growth, empathy, and a commitment to prevent future harm. It may be helpful to seek support from others who have had similar experiences or from professionals who specialize in trauma and moral injury.

In the context of our original question, it seems that guilt, or the lack thereof, is not merely a matter of personal mindset or rationalization, but also heavily influenced by the circumstances and the societal and moral frameworks we operate within.

[Sushan]

To be honest, I do not think that the death penalty is a deterrant like it should be. For instance: The Parkland Shooter- he killed, intentionally, 17 people. He faced the death penalty but was sentenced to life in prison.
The comment about vigilantes- you cannot avenge the death of anyone. It doesn't bring them back and it makes you fall to the level of the person who originally commited the crime.
I think the death penalty should be involve something equal to the pain the person inflicted upon their victim. Currently, lethal injection is the same thing as going to sleep for surgery. They administer Propofal and a paralytic that stops the heart. The Propofal what is used in surgery. I think that is a nice way to die- not feeling any pain at all.
Electric chair, hanging, firing squad- those are vicous ways to die, and overseas where they do those things, in front of crowds, are effective deterrents.
People literally need to stop and think about they are going to do and understand the repercussions of their actions. Immorality has flooded into the mainstream media and nobody says anything for fear of "hurting people's feelings."

Your perspective brings in a different dimension to the discussion. It appears to be focused on the idea of justice and how it can be carried out in society. There's a central theme of reciprocation - that the punishment for a crime should mirror the pain inflicted by the crime.

However, it's also important to remember the role of guilt in this context. Guilt is an internal, personal emotion, and it doesn't always align with external judgments or punishments. Even if society deems a punishment as "fitting" for a crime, the individual carrying out that punishment might still experience guilt.

To your point on the mainstream media and the current societal climate, it seems you're referring to the need for a broader moral and ethical discourse in society. This is a valid point and could indeed contribute to individuals understanding the gravity of their actions.

In the context of the original question, it would be interesting to explore how societal norms and the media influence our personal feelings of guilt and our ability to rationalize our actions. Is it possible for societal norms to change in such a way that certain actions no longer induce guilt? Or is guilt a fundamental part of human nature that persists regardless of societal standards?

[Sushan]

To be honest, I do not think that the death penalty is a deterrant like it should be. For instance: The Parkland Shooter- he killed, intentionally, 17 people. He faced the death penalty but was sentenced to life in prison.
The comment about vigilantes- you cannot avenge the death of anyone. It doesn't bring them back and it makes you fall to the level of the person who originally commited the crime.
I think the death penalty should be involve something equal to the pain the person inflicted upon their victim. Currently, lethal injection is the same thing as going to sleep for surgery. They administer Propofal and a paralytic that stops the heart. The Propofal what is used in surgery. I think that is a nice way to die- not feeling any pain at all.
Electric chair, hanging, firing squad- those are vicous ways to die, and overseas where they do those things, in front of crowds, are effective deterrents.
People literally need to stop and think about they are going to do and understand the repercussions of their actions. Immorality has flooded into the mainstream media and nobody says anything for fear of "hurting people's feelings."

Funny, my experience is now-a-days folks say any ol' foolishness, much more than before Social Media. True outliers get called out for saying certain stuff, but that's different than "nobody says anything". Besides, what's wrong with understanding that while YOU can say just about anything, OTHERS can ALSO say things, like they think you're full of cr4p or that they aren't going to patronize the business that employs you.

Your point on the freedom of speech in social media platforms is quite valid, indeed. The advent of these platforms has allowed people to express their thoughts and opinions openly, more so than in any other era in human history. This is, of course, a double-edged sword. On one hand, it's a powerful tool for the democratization of discourse, allowing every voice to be heard. On the other hand, it can also be a breeding ground for harmful, derogatory, and insensitive remarks.

But let's tie this back to the original question about guilt and murder. This open environment also facilitates discussions on moral and ethical issues, including those that are uncomfortable and controversial, like the one we're having right now. The fact that we're able to have this conversation is a testament to the evolving norms of our society.

And yet, even with this open environment, it's interesting to see how certain actions, like murder, remain universally condemned. This brings us back to the question of guilt. Is it possible for societal norms to change in such a way that guilt from such actions could be diminished? Or is guilt a deeply ingrained human emotion, resistant to societal change? I'm interested to see your perspectives on this.

[Sushan]

To be honest, I do not think that the death penalty is a deterrant like it should be. For instance: The Parkland Shooter- he killed, intentionally, 17 people. He faced the death penalty but was sentenced to life in prison.
The comment about vigilantes- you cannot avenge the death of anyone. It doesn't bring them back and it makes you fall to the level of the person who originally commited the crime.
I think the death penalty should be involve something equal to the pain the person inflicted upon their victim. Currently, lethal injection is the same thing as going to sleep for surgery. They administer Propofal and a paralytic that stops the heart. The Propofal what is used in surgery. I think that is a nice way to die- not feeling any pain at all.
Electric chair, hanging, firing squad- those are vicous ways to die, and overseas where they do those things, in front of crowds, are effective deterrents.
People literally need to stop and think about they are going to do and understand the repercussions of their actions. Immorality has flooded into the mainstream media and nobody says anything for fear of "hurting people's feelings."

Funny, my experience is now-a-days folks say any ol' foolishness, much more than before Social Media. True outliers get called out for saying certain stuff, but that's different than "nobody says anything". Besides, what's wrong with understanding that while YOU can say just about anything, OTHERS can ALSO say things, like they think you're full of cr4p or that they aren't going to patronize the business that employs you.

Let me bring up the pronoun arguement. A person wants you to use their preferred pronoun of they/them or zer/zir (or whatever it is). That person looks like a woman. If you call that person a woman, they get offended and call you transphobic or using hate-speech. I am more likely to be told that because I don't think that grammar negates a singular being as they/them and I don't live in the imaginary world that person does. That being stated, what do you say if you don't want to offend a complete stranger and don't know what identity that person is? I am traditionalist in the topic- you are a woman or a man- that's it. Again, I'd be labeled a bigot or transphoibic too.

In light of this discussion, it's clear that we're dealing with two different yet intertwined topics here. One is the moral and ethical implications of murder and guilt, and the other one is about respect for individual identities, which extends to the use of preferred pronouns.

On the latter topic, let's consider the philosophy of individual identity and respect for the same. Human beings, in their essence, are complex and diverse. Each individual has a unique conception of their identity, and it is a fundamental right to be recognized as such. Our understanding of gender has evolved beyond the binary, and it's crucial to acknowledge this development and respect people's self-identified gender identities.

The use of preferred pronouns is a simple act of respect towards an individual's identity. It's similar to calling someone by their chosen name. In case of uncertainty about which pronouns to use, it's generally acceptable to politely ask or use gender-neutral language until the individual's preferred pronouns are known.

[Sushan]

To be honest, I do not think that the death penalty is a deterrant like it should be. For instance: The Parkland Shooter- he killed, intentionally, 17 people. He faced the death penalty but was sentenced to life in prison.
The comment about vigilantes- you cannot avenge the death of anyone. It doesn't bring them back and it makes you fall to the level of the person who originally commited the crime.
I think the death penalty should be involve something equal to the pain the person inflicted upon their victim. Currently, lethal injection is the same thing as going to sleep for surgery. They administer Propofal and a paralytic that stops the heart. The Propofal what is used in surgery. I think that is a nice way to die- not feeling any pain at all.
Electric chair, hanging, firing squad- those are vicous ways to die, and overseas where they do those things, in front of crowds, are effective deterrents.
People literally need to stop and think about they are going to do and understand the repercussions of their actions. Immorality has flooded into the mainstream media and nobody says anything for fear of "hurting people's feelings."

Funny, my experience is now-a-days folks say any ol' foolishness, much more than before Social Media. True outliers get called out for saying certain stuff, but that's different than "nobody says anything". Besides, what's wrong with understanding that while YOU can say just about anything, OTHERS can ALSO say things, like they think you're full of cr4p or that they aren't going to patronize the business that employs you.

Let me bring up the pronoun arguement. A person wants you to use their preferred pronoun of they/them or zer/zir (or whatever it is). That person looks like a woman. If you call that person a woman, they get offended and call you transphobic or using hate-speech. I am more likely to be told that because I don't think that grammar negates a singular being as they/them and I don't live in the imaginary world that person does. That being stated, what do you say if you don't want to offend a complete stranger and don't know what identity that person is? I am traditionalist in the topic- you are a woman or a man- that's it. Again, I'd be labeled a bigot or transphoibic too.

Easy question with a single logical answer. Having said that, many compound the situation with their "beliefs" instead of concentrating on what they supposedly are seeking to do (not wanting to offend a complete stranger).

If you see what appears to be a woman you (and everyone else who doesn't know her) are going to use she/her. Fine. If the person prefers "they" do you think they haven't heard "she" before? Especially from a complete stranger? You're not going to be labeled anything at that point, declaring otherwise is trying to play the reverse victim card. However, if the person tells you that they prefer "they" to "she", THAT'S when the question becomes simple. You said that you didn't want to offend a complete stranger, so don't offend "them" and use "they/them". Your "traditionalist" belief system notwithstanding: if you grew up calling Hispanics "Hispanic", but a person tells you they prefer "Latin" are you suffering from a paradox or do you just use "Latin"?

Indeed, the heart of the matter seems to lie in the intentionality behind our actions. We are all bound to make mistakes, misunderstand, or be unaware of someone's identity or preferences. These instances, although perhaps awkward, are part of the learning process. It's when we consciously choose to ignore or dismiss someone's preferences, especially after they've been expressed, that we venture into the realm of disrespect.

Respecting someone's pronouns can be compared to getting a person's name right. If someone is introduced to us as Robert, but they prefer to be called Bob, we adapt and call them Bob. It is a basic courtesy we extend to each other as part of social interaction. The fact that the context here is gender identity doesn't fundamentally change the principle of respect.

Our beliefs and values can certainly shape our perspective on these issues. However, it's important to recognize that our own views do not invalidate the experiences of others. What might seem like an 'imaginary world' to one person is very real to someone else. It's not a question of abandoning one's beliefs, but rather expanding our understanding and empathy towards others. Just as we hope others will respect our perspectives, we should strive to respect theirs.

[Sushan]

I don't live in the imaginary world that person does. That being stated, what do you say if you don't want to offend a complete stranger and don't know what identity that person is? I am traditionalist in the topic- you are a woman or a man- that's it. Again, I'd be labeled a bigot or transphoibic too.

Easy question with a single logical answer. Having said that, many compound the situation with their "beliefs" instead of concentrating on what they supposedly are seeking to do (not wanting to offend a complete stranger).

If you see what appears to be a woman you (and everyone else who doesn't know her) are going to use she/her. Fine. If the person prefers "they" do you think they haven't heard "she" before? Especially from a complete stranger? You're not going to be labeled anything at that point, declaring otherwise is trying to play the reverse victim card. However, if the person tells you that they prefer "they" to "she", THAT'S when the question becomes simple. You said that you didn't want to offend a complete stranger, so don't offend "them" and use "they/them". Your "traditionalist" belief system notwithstanding: if you grew up calling Hispanics "Hispanic", but a person tells you they prefer "Latin" are you suffering from a paradox or do you just use "Latin"?

How far do you take that approach ?

If an SNP supporter says they're not British (because they're Scottish and Scotland shouldn't be part of Britain), do you go along with that ?

If an apparently 40-year-old person asks for a child fare on your bus, do you go along with that ?

Does courtesy demand that one has no convictions of one's own (regarding who others say they are) ?

Or is respect a two-way street ? Is communication about finding a form of words that both parties are comfortable with ?

The concept of respect is indeed a two-way street. It is about understanding, empathy, and mutual agreement. However, the examples you've given tread into distinct territories.

The question of identity, such as someone's nationality or gender, is a deeply personal matter. It's about recognizing and validating a person's internal sense of self. When an SNP supporter identifies as Scottish rather than British, or when someone identifies with a different gender than the one they were assigned at birth, they're expressing an inherent aspect of their identity. Acknowledging this is not about forsaking our convictions, but about extending the basic dignity of recognizing someone as they see themselves.

On the other hand, a 40-year-old asking for a child's fare on a bus is not a matter of personal identity, but rather, an attempt to gain a tangible advantage based on a misrepresentation of fact. The age-based fare system is a social agreement based on the principle of fairness, where concessions are given to children, students, and seniors due to their likely financial status.

[Sushan]

I don't live in the imaginary world that person does. That being stated, what do you say if you don't want to offend a complete stranger and don't know what identity that person is? I am traditionalist in the topic- you are a woman or a man- that's it. Again, I'd be labeled a bigot or transphoibic too.

Easy question with a single logical answer. Having said that, many compound the situation with their "beliefs" instead of concentrating on what they supposedly are seeking to do (not wanting to offend a complete stranger).

If you see what appears to be a woman you (and everyone else who doesn't know her) are going to use she/her. Fine. If the person prefers "they" do you think they haven't heard "she" before? Especially from a complete stranger? You're not going to be labeled anything at that point, declaring otherwise is trying to play the reverse victim card. However, if the person tells you that they prefer "they" to "she", THAT'S when the question becomes simple. You said that you didn't want to offend a complete stranger, so don't offend "them" and use "they/them". Your "traditionalist" belief system notwithstanding: if you grew up calling Hispanics "Hispanic", but a person tells you they prefer "Latin" are you suffering from a paradox or do you just use "Latin"?

How far do you take that approach ?

If an SNP supporter says they're not British (because they're Scottish and Scotland shouldn't be part of Britain), do you go along with that ?

If an apparently 40-year-old person asks for a child fare on your bus, do you go along with that ?

Does courtesy demand that one has no convictions of one's own (regarding who others say they are) ?

Or is respect a two-way street ? Is communication about finding a form of words that both parties are comfortable with ?

I think you misunderstand my (and Mounce's stated) "approach". We were discussing conversations with a stranger.

If a Scot feels they aren't British, fine. I can't think of a conversation with a stranger where that would come up, but if it did I would NOT say: oh btw you know you're British, right? If you or anyone else just can't bring themselves to let that go then they are fooling themselves that their goal is how not to offend strangers. It would be to practice confrontationalism, ie picking fights.

OTOH, a 40 year old asking for a child's fare from a ticket taker, is an example of employer rule enforcement. The ticket taker's, (the employee's), opinion/standard is immaterial.

So, what's your answer to MY question, do you call the Hispanic guy "Latin" when asked, or do you persist in calling him "Hispanic"?

If our aim is indeed not to offend, and to engage in meaningful conversation, we ought to use the terminology that the individual we're conversing with prefers. Doing so doesn't imply an abandonment of personal beliefs, but rather displays a respect for the other's identity and preferences. In the case of the Hispanic individual who prefers to be called "Latin," I would choose to respect their preference and refer to them as such. This is not a matter of conviction but courtesy and respect for the other's identity.

It's vital to note that communication is a two-way street. Just as we are expected to respect others' identities and preferences, they should also be considerate of our viewpoints and convictions. In situations where our convictions conflict with someone's self-identity, an open and understanding conversation could help bridge the gap. We can express our point of view, and listen to theirs, with the aim of deepening mutual understanding rather than seeking to impose our beliefs.

However, this doesn't mean we should bend to every single request made by others. Your example of a 40-year-old asking for a child's fare raises a different issue - one of rules and fairness. It's not about personal identity or respect, but about the fair application of rules and regulations. In such a case, it's the responsibility of the ticket taker to enforce the rules as they are.

[Sushan]

Easy question with a single logical answer. Having said that, many compound the situation with their "beliefs" instead of concentrating on what they supposedly are seeking to do (not wanting to offend a complete stranger).

If you see what appears to be a woman you (and everyone else who doesn't know her) are going to use she/her. Fine. If the person prefers "they" do you think they haven't heard "she" before? Especially from a complete stranger? You're not going to be labeled anything at that point, declaring otherwise is trying to play the reverse victim card. However, if the person tells you that they prefer "they" to "she", THAT'S when the question becomes simple. You said that you didn't want to offend a complete stranger, so don't offend "them" and use "they/them". Your "traditionalist" belief system notwithstanding: if you grew up calling Hispanics "Hispanic", but a person tells you they prefer "Latin" are you suffering from a paradox or do you just use "Latin"?

How far do you take that approach ?

If an SNP supporter says they're not British (because they're Scottish and Scotland shouldn't be part of Britain), do you go along with that ?

If an apparently 40-year-old person asks for a child fare on your bus, do you go along with that ?

Does courtesy demand that one has no convictions of one's own (regarding who others say they are) ?

Or is respect a two-way street ? Is communication about finding a form of words that both parties are comfortable with ?

I think you misunderstand my (and Mounce's stated) "approach". We were discussing conversations with a stranger.

If a Scot feels they aren't British, fine. I can't think of a conversation with a stranger where that would come up, but if it did I would NOT say: oh btw you know you're British, right? If you or anyone else just can't bring themselves to let that go then they are fooling themselves that their goal is how not to offend strangers. It would be to practice confrontationalism, ie picking fights.

OTOH, a 40 year old asking for a child's fare from a ticket taker, is an example of employer rule enforcement. The ticket taker's, (the employee's), opinion/standard is immaterial.

So, what's your answer to MY question, do you call the Hispanic guy "Latin" when asked, or do you persist in calling him "Hispanic"?

I don't refer to his heritage/race.
Unfortunately, avoidance doesn't always work.
Back to topic: murder without guilt- what guidelines outside of self-defense do you set that justifies murder in any way? Or is it considered punishment instead of murder?

Navigating the moral labyrinth of justifiable murder is a complex endeavor that takes us through the realms of philosophy, ethics, and law. In essence, the philosophic question about murder, or capital punishment, hinges on moral justification. Two primary approaches are typically distinguished: retributivism, which focuses on past conduct that merits death as a penal response, and utilitarianism or consequentialism, which attends to the effects of the death penalty, particularly its role in preventing more crime through deterrence or incapacitation.

Retributivism as an approach seeks to correlate the punishment with the severity of the crime committed. In this context, murder could be justified if the crime committed was of equal or greater harm, basing the rationale on the ancient principle of 'lex talionis' or the law of retaliation. However, it’s crucial to remember that this principle doesn't account for empathy, rehabilitation, or the potential fallibility of human judgment.

Consequentialism, on the other hand, justifies murder (or capital punishment) in terms of its overall societal impact. If the act of taking one life results in the deterrence of further crimes and thus protects many others, then it could be argued that such an act is justified. But this approach also bears its own complications, such as the potential for unjustified harm based on conjecture and the ethical concern of treating human life as a means to an end.

We must also consider the implications of mistakes and discrimination in the application of capital punishment, as well as the ethical conduct required of those who carry out these sentences. The issue remains deeply contentious and can vary greatly based on cultural, societal, and individual moral frameworks.