The given example of self defense should be sufficient to show that parsing "murder" is wholly unnecessary, yes, since self defense would have no context in a discussion of dictionary-defined murder, right? So it should be pretty clear that parsing when it is unwarranted would be counterproductive, yes?
Certainly. I should have considered my response more thoroughly before posting. I apologize for the annoyance I have caused, and I'll try to do better from now on.
Lord knows I'll never attempt to move a conversation along by answering a largely rhetorical question for you again. Let's get back to the actual point at hand, since our argument about the parsing of "murder" is completely tangential. My position is that even you summarize your positions with binary responses with restricted parameters. You swear up and down you do not. This is the debate. No more, no less.
In that case, I did not phrase my statement correctly, although I had hoped that my subsequent explanation would have cleared it up. As I said, I believe that various instances of one human killing another fall along a continuum between "wholly unacceptable" and "morally imperative."
"I believe that as a general rule it is unacceptable..." Binary response. Yes/no. Acceptable/unacceptable.
But that's not what I believe, nor is it what I attempted to express. As I said, I believe that things fall on a continuum; not a binary either-or choice.
Gonna omit the action of your quote, because the action is irrelevant. I thought I was picking an easy, non-argumentative one, but clearly I was horribly mistaken.
dte, I'm honestly doing my level best to be as non-argumentative as I can. I can't help it if I don't agree with you, though, and I don't want to pretend I do just to avoid an argument. If you can't accept that, then perhaps it's better that we don't pursue these kinds of discussions at all.
"...but there are specific circumstances..." Restricted parameters. Subsets of the global where your binary is not applicable.
Again, it's not a binary. It's a continuum: "totally not acceptable" at one end, "mandatory" at another end. I believe that most cases of homicide fall near the "totally not acceptable" end of the continuum, but there are specific circumstances under which they fall somewhere else.
"...that make it less unacceptable, or even acceptable, or, very rarely, desirable." This reflects nothing more than the stuff to either side of your tipping point. It's under the hood. Background calculations. Ultimately, nobody gives two shits about your moral qualms any more than they would mine. They want your answer.
But my answer isn't a binary "acceptable/not acceptable." It's a scalar -- "how acceptable/not acceptable." You may not like that answer, or want to accept it, but that's still what it is.
Maybe I would have been better off proving my point with court decisions. Guilty or not guilty (strictly binary) or not guilty by reason of insanity (restricted parameters)? No room for your wishy-washy scalars at the end of the trial. Sure, there's plenty of judgment calls that occur under the hood back in the deliberation room, but nobody cares about that stuff--they want your verdict. Nothing happens based on the deliberations. Nothing happens until you offer up that binary that you claim doesn't exist in your world. Show me scalars in your verdict, Jury Foreman PJ, since you deny the existence of binary answers.
The scalar shows up in sentencing. One killer gets the death penalty. Another gets life without possibility of parole. Another gets fifteen to life. Another gets ten. Another gets five. Another gets paroled. Yet another gets off scot-free. The "guilty/not guilty" verdict is just the first part of it.
What's more, I by no means deny the *existence* of binary answers -- you, for example, are all to eager to provide them. However, *I* do not, generally speaking, offer binary answers, because I believe that they almost invariably oversimplify things to the point where they become almost as bad, or even worse, than no answer at all.
