Has anyone ever written about the morality of not being a murder, but having murderous impulses...

Has anyone ever written about the morality of not being a murder, but having murderous impulses? Most moral philosophy on murder says something like "it's obviously wrong lol, human life has infinite value." The problem isn't that this is wrong but that it doesn't address the appropriate actions for someone who has never murdered but feels they could. Imagine someone who's usually a decent person but has rages they can't control that they feel may soon lead to the ultimate crime. What should that person do, according to moral philosophers?

Attached: ethics.jpg (360x360, 21K)

cops get OP quick he's gonna blow

Yeah clockwork orange or Crime and Punishment

You misunderstand philosophy completely if you expect philosophers to tell you how to live your life

I don't have direct recommendations, but maybe the following helps somewhat?

The main issue for a person with murderous impulses is one of epistemic trust. Do they trust the majority of people who claim to have a human experience unlike their own? Do they trust them to the point of seeing themselves as the impaired ones? Do they trust them given their greater numbers?

So I would recommend literature on epistemic injustice and epistemic authority.

Even a psychopath and a sociopath relies on induction to some degree (everyone does), so in this case they're going to have to rely on induction of some sort to look past their murderous impulses and conclude "Actually, human life has dignity and I ought to respect it."

Of course you can do more. If you think stuff like the utility principle or the categorical principle can be derived using reason alone, then maybe you can help the person with the murderous impulse to be convinced of some notion of person-respecting ethics that way.

By the way, yes some people exist who lack regular empathy but have become convinced through reasoning that human dignity exists.

>all that reddit spacing

Kant and the Ancients
There's this whole idea that logos should reign upon your soul
Oddly enough, you're right in that modern philosophy tends to ask 'what is good?' instead of 'what about my soul? what if it isn't good or just, independently from my deeds?'
also, Freud.

Jordan Peterson, in a way. But he also talks about overcoming that, and that being able to kill is a virtue, as long as you're kind and don't kill unless you have to.

Attached: 1549754231825.jpg (1125x1107, 125K)

Why would you ever think that murder is wrong? Human life is literally worthless by any definition of value. So why is killing someone wrong? It's literally just forcing the inevitable a little early on some useless individual.
>wow so edgy
It's not that I don't appreciate morals. I always make sure to help bugs accross the road so they don't get trampled. A single ladybugs life is way more valuable than the lives of like then people, btw.

Attached: D1JWHDLXQAAl7z9.png_large.png (579x585, 403K)

>human life is literally worthless by any definition of value
Not true, so maybe restrict this to "any definition of value I endorse."

Yeah, fuck the fact he posted something interesting and worthwhile rather than a meme, right?

There's psychological research on the topic of violent impulses. I forget the exact figure but something crazily high like 75% of people surveyed have had violent and even murderous thoughts at some point in their lives.
It makes sense from a biological perspective. Violence is a primitive form of problem solving, but it's a form of problem solving nonetheless. It was one of the first forms of problem solving that evolved. Chimpanzees are known for their hyper-violent capabilities, so there can be no doubt that there are genetic roots to violent ideation.
When you consider "me no like it, so me smash it until it gone" as a thesis, it's perfectly logically valid taken on its own, despite how brutish and dimwitted it sounds on the surface.
Only by understanding the biological impulses to violence can it be correctly analyzed.

Ok tell me why human life has any value. Human life is not rare, it's not useful in any greater context. Basically everything outside of humanity is only damaged by humans. So why is human life not worthless?

Not asking you to believe human life has value. Just telling you that there are people who understand value in such a way that humans have value. You don't have to accept that if you don't want.

I don't wanna be a murder because murding is bad, I don't want to murd anyone.

You just as well can't prove that human life isn't valuable in some greater timescale, or begin to explain the reason for the existence of anything. At the very least someone else may value their life on a personal level and by forcing your view onto them you assume you are any more correct about the world than they are.

>you can't know so might as well assume it's so
Lol no thanks. And I know I can't rationalize such things but I find my view more instinctually interesting and aesthetically appealing anyway. Fuck humanity (especially kikes and niggers)

>rarity
>utility
goddamn i hate capitalists.
why the fuck would you use criteria for goods to determine the value of human life?
that's insanely backwards.
goods always serve as ends to humans. so their value is in no way comparable to the value of humans

I'm not a capitalist. That was not criteria for goods. It was a definition for value within the bounds of human understanding. Do you excpect me to give you some divine definition for this special concept of "human-value", since humans are so extremely precious that they need their own criteria (but not a separate word though, we can compare it to the value of goods apparently, but only if the value of human life is infinite or something ridiculous like that lol)
>Yeah the value of human life is like infinite bro like worth a million tendies or something my dude
>Wtf YOU CAN'T USE A CRITERIA FOR GOODS (like I just did but let's ignore that) THAT'S INSANELY BACKWARDS
>I'm a human btw haha total coincidence that I happen to value human life this much I'm sure any other species or form of consciousness would agree totally
Stop being a faggot

Attached: 1550288502837.jpg (400x600, 19K)

What you are talking about is called "antinomian tendencies". It's largely due to the fact you cannot reconcile normativity with naturalism. It's also a big issue with a lot of Eastern religions, which many people have failed to grasp.

Do you understand me, or should I elaborate further?

Let me define these terms and phrases:
>"antinomian tendencies"
It means "to have little sense of obligation to obey any set of moral rules that one considers arbitrary, or even just constraining, whatever its source". It is basically Marquis de Sade's view that "everything is permssible".
>It's largely due to the fact you cannot reconcile normativity with naturalism
This is referring to the fact the natural world provides no oughts. All attempts of trying to fit moral oughts into the natural framework have failed. Sam Harris' Ethical Naturalism is nonsensical for reasons I could go further into.
>It's also a big issue with a lot of Eastern religions, which many people have failed to grasp.
This is due to mystical monism sometimes leading to the view that everything is one, and even good and evil blur.

Poor is the bugman, who has no qualitative mind! He is stuck within his quantitative mentality, trying to define life beyond direct sensuality. Sad

I’m not saying that at all. Im only saying you don’t know. You play a part in a system that is bigger than you and beyond your comprehension so why act towards others in a way that is informed by something you have no evidence for other than a feeling. On a personal level I value my life so my life has value to me regardless of whether you think you know better, and at the same time I don’t know what the purpose of life in general is. Your hatred for humanity and even certain races is kind of retarded if you think nothing matters on a long enough timescale. It just seems like a way for you to be ok with being a miserable person right now because maybe you’re unhappy and it’s easier and requires no personal responsibility. That’s fine I guess but I don’t want it enforce it on me via murder. At the same time tho I’m ok with whatever happens by my own logic so fuk

So terribly ironic to call others bugmen while refusing to admit that what you call the value of human life is just your herd survival instinct kicking in and nothing more profound.

Pretty based.

GKC said it better...

Attached: quote Chesterton right.jpg (512x624, 26K)

>it's another entry in the series of "it might be legal for 40 year old men to date 17 year old girls but it's disgusting and wrong"
>don't you dare call fags gross though

Attached: hht.jpg (900x680, 89K)

That person should not intend to murder others in the first place.
A murderous impulse is a choice, and if one considers murder amoral, one should consider the intent to commit murder amoral.

What can you do to clear your mind of these impulses? I am schizophrenic and while it's not my inclination to hurt or harm someone else sometimes it comes off that way when I speak. I don't worry about the reality of one day being able to kill someone but it's more against my will to have these impulses in the first place.

I disagree and the court system does too. There are three degrees of murder: the first being the highest offense by plotting to kill; the second being spontaneous, and the third being accidental/negligent.

This is a good example of why we need to stop demonizing suicide

> I'm not a capitalist
Good, but you sure as hell reason like one
>It was a definition for value within the bounds of human understanding
Hahahahahahahaha
As if.
It's hilarious that the criteria you brought up are exactly the ones economists use.
Rarity is one of the most basic principles that determines the exchange value of goods. You know, supply and demand.
And utility, is conveniently also one of the most basic principles that humans have used to determine value of goods.
Actually, use value and exchange value are the two basic principles of Karl Marx labor theory of value.
You go on about human life not being special and that you're so enlightened that you see that, but it's hilarious that you can't even see that the method with which you come to that conclusion is literally the same one used to determine products.(coincidentally in a capitalist framework, in which you live, I'm sure)
There is no objective way of determining value.
Any reasonable human being could see that the economic method of valuing products requires a different approach than the ethical question of what constitutes the value of human life.

> like worth a million tendies or something my dude
This is exactly what I mean, how can you think those are comparable?
You are taking two concepts from completely unrelated fields of discourse and use them as if they are the same.

>economic method of valuing products requires a different approach than the ethical question of what constitutes the value of human life
Why though? That is only true if you already assume that human life is somehow especially valuable. And obviously making such an assumption is very arrogant and based on nothing but your instinct to maximize the population.
Just like anybody else who speaks about the value of human life or about the immorality of murder.

>Imagine someone who's usually a decent person but has rages they can't control that they feel may soon lead to the ultimate crime. What should that person do, according to moral philosophers?
Just chill the fuck out lmao

>That is only true if you already assume that human life is somehow especially valuable
No, not really.
I'll repeat myself: the process of valuing a product to sell on the 'free market' is an entirely different process than determining the value of a human life.
Why?
Because the question is fundamentally different;
What conclusion do we want if we value a product we are intending to sell?
One of exchange value, like i mentioned. If I want to sell a horse, while needing bread, i need to know how much bread i can exchange for my one horse.
Likewise, if I want to know the value of a product I made, i need to know what function it has, and how it could be used by customers.
Now in both of these examples the value of determining value, the endgoal of the value of products, is utility, so how useful the product is for humans as a means to an end.

However, if i want to determine the value of a human being, the question becomes something different. It would be contradictory to use the value of a human in terms of utility to human beings, because the means would be literally the same as the ends. Humans don't have a function or they can sufficiently fullfil, out of which you can calculate value. Besides, being valuable as a human being to another human being, is highly subjective, and impossible to quantify. Traditionally, philosophers have answered this question in manners similar to this. Kant for example asserted that human agents have their moral value because of their freedom, their ability to act according to reason. Plato thought that humans have moral value because of their immortal soul. De Beauvoir thought that humans gained their moral value from having absolute freedom, which ought to be respected.
the point is, you cant just apply a capitalist framework of valuing products to the question of the value of human life. They are different kinds of questions, that need different kinds of answers. Also, these questions stem from different fields of discourse, and are therefore treated differently.


>And obviously making such an assumption is very arrogant and based on nothing but your instinct to maximize the population.
yes i am aware that you feel superior to me, no need to repeat that

I enjoyed listening to Petersons lectures, but boy oh boy is he a walking meme.

I understand that when you speak of the value of human life, it is not the same concept as literally any other use for the word value. The question then is why do we feel the need to give value to human life at all? And when we do then why do we use the word value and have not come up with any another word to differenciate between the two separate concepts?
>Kant
>Plato
>De Beauvoir
Every single one of them are humans with their own bias clearly guiding their train of thought. I too like to assert value to life but I like to base it on how useful the life is to nature and diversity of life in general. I openly admit this so why can't everybody else at least admit their bias too before arrogantly making statements about the value of the lives of their species? Being dishonest is not very nice

Humans created the concept of value. Idle value is defined in culture as being advantageous from a survival point of view. Evolution is not a force the only force is the one that pushes you to pursue, eat, fuck, live, paint, sing, buy expensive trainers and whatever dives us, that is value and it is mainly found in humans.

Does he, though?

de Sade obviously, first and foremost, blatantly, evidently blabla..

board of underaged, dumb pseuds

Brainlet tier reasoning

>The question then is why do we feel the need to give value to human life at all?
Right, but that is an entirely different question.
>And when we do then why do we use the word value and have not come up with any another word to differenciate between the two separate concepts?
Right, but I think this is merely a contigency in language. I'm sure there's a language out there somewhere, dead or alive, which has such a word. The humans might have organised the world just slightly differently from how they have done now, and such a word might have existed.
Besides, isn't the term 'diginity' sometimes used in such a manner?

>Admit their bias too before arrogantly making statements about the value of the lives of their species?
They didn't?? I've only read Kant and Plato, and both of them have, in my mind, solid arguments to prefer the human species over others. Read them. Also, because you're biased towards something doesn't mean you can't ever be right about it.

I'm also very curious to how you would assert usefulness to nature and diversity. I'm rather confused how you would quantify usefulness, but mainly, why you would argue that that usefulness has any moral value.