no more incoherent than the original post! as I am about to demonstrate. words are just lacking.
when I say murder, I don't mean war, the common good vs the individual, euthanasia, manslaughter, self defence or anything else that could be given any non-synonymous name other than "murder" (except maybe genocide and dozens of others I haven't thought of) or possibly be adequately justified, because if can be justified it isn't wrong. thus, when I say "murder is wrong," i'm not generalising to all killing, rather am talking about murder that is, in fact, wrong. I apologise for not elaborating on that little facet.
anyone who attempts to divide nature into oversimplified categories is somewhat a nut. rest assured that I believe everything I read, and for everything written there is a contradiction written somewhere else. the very idea that a personality can be disordered is absurd; that it is considered an element of science, whether that sience is "soft" or "social" or not, is !! (words lacking)
I think that someone with a conscience will think (as well as know) that murder is wrong, whereas one without will "know" it's wrong, but not think. how much difference there is between not murdering because you a) think it's wrong, or b) know people will think it's wrong (your knowledge of right and wrong).. but now i'm just talking to myself. i've also realised it's possibly at least partially socially constructed. if you took 20 newborns and kept them in isolation for 22 years, then stuck them in a lab to see how many behaved as if they'd no conscience: how many would possess a voice whispering "it's wrong to murder" (in words lacking or otherwise), whether they based their behaviour on it or not?
and thankyou! my conceptions are expanding at 10million miles a second.
no subject
when I say murder, I don't mean war, the common good vs the individual, euthanasia, manslaughter, self defence or anything else that could be given any non-synonymous name other than "murder" (except maybe genocide and dozens of others I haven't thought of) or possibly be adequately justified, because if can be justified it isn't wrong. thus, when I say "murder is wrong," i'm not generalising to all killing, rather am talking about murder that is, in fact, wrong. I apologise for not elaborating on that little facet.
anyone who attempts to divide nature into oversimplified categories is somewhat a nut. rest assured that I believe everything I read, and for everything written there is a contradiction written somewhere else. the very idea that a personality can be disordered is absurd; that it is considered an element of science, whether that sience is "soft" or "social" or not, is !! (words lacking)
I think that someone with a conscience will think (as well as know) that murder is wrong, whereas one without will "know" it's wrong, but not think. how much difference there is between not murdering because you a) think it's wrong, or b) know people will think it's wrong (your knowledge of right and wrong).. but now i'm just talking to myself. i've also realised it's possibly at least partially socially constructed. if you took 20 newborns and kept them in isolation for 22 years, then stuck them in a lab to see how many behaved as if they'd no conscience: how many would possess a voice whispering "it's wrong to murder" (in words lacking or otherwise), whether they based their behaviour on it or not?
and thankyou! my conceptions are expanding at 10million miles a second.