Before I reply, I would like to clarify something. When I say murdering, I am talking about killing in all aspects, be it intentional or what.
Then you are misusing the word. "Killing" is the word you want. Murder is a very specific subset of killing.
Of course it is. Why is it I can't kill a person even if there were no laws and you were to offer me 1 million whereas serial killers kill without hesitating? Nature made me who I am and nature also made the murderers who they are.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Where do you get the definition that murder is wrongful? American Heritage dictionary of the English language
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. Mirriam Webster online
the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought Webster's New World College dictionary
the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another; also, any killing done while committing some other felony, as rape or robbery
We are the authorities simply because we invented the meaning of words? What kind of logic is that? It doesn't even make sense.
Yes. It makes sense. Murder is wrong because that is how we have defined murder. That is like saying apples taste like apples. Of course they do. What else could they taste like?
It's like saying that a claw is defined as a sharp, usually curved, nail on the foot of an animal, as on a cat, dog, or bird, and since we make up the meaning of words, then I would say we are the authorities on the matter.
What kind of rules of behavior? Without these rules we could not trust each other enough to have society? How did Hitler gather so many followers with violence as his methodology? Same for Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc.
What kinds of rules would you think would be useful for a group to survive? Think about how people are and what rules would be necessary.
You are fundamentally not understanding. Morality exists to bind people together in groups. Nazi morality bound Nazis together. Violence was not Hitler's methodology. He did not personally beat every German into following him. Random violence on all Germans was not part of the Nazi way. He picked out a few select groups on whom to focus anger and derision. The groups he singled out were somehow "different" than the germans of the homogeneous culture he envisioned - Jews, gays, gypsies, etc. This has always been a part of human morality. Forming and defining in groups and out groups. In Hitler's case, "Arians" were the in group. Everyone else was the out group.
Humans generally do not regard the out group as human. They do not give the out group the same degree of empathy or respect. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" should have said "Thou shalt not kill jews". It was originally a rule for jews that only applied to other jews. As their provincial god, yhwh, became more mainstream and more universal, that rule expanded in scope from "do not kill jews" to "do not kill other people," of course, with a whole boatload of exceptions.
Think about who your in and out groups are. Think about how you view them.
And what? What are you trying to ask me?
I was not asking you anything. I was making the point that "wrong" only exists in our heads.
Absolutely agree? Wow. How do you know for sure? It can never be proven.
You think deer do not mind being eaten? You think prey cheerfully surrender to predators?
Look, you were the one that said "you don't see deer complaining about the immorality of being eaten, do you?" I could have said something as stupid as, "Wow. How do you know for sure? It can never be proven." Instead I tried to make a point that right and wrong are dependent on your perspective. Your answer to that was disputing that hypothetical, morally cognisant, talking deer would find it problematic that they were being eaten by lions. What the hell kind of answer is that?
I thought we were going to have an intelligent conversation. At least, that was my goal. If you are going to act like a dipshit, then I won't waste my time. Just let me know how this is going to go.
I wrote that in the same paragraph as the 'rules' of the nature thingy. Isn't that clear enough? For your sake, I will repeat. That murder is neither wrong nor right, just like how a basketball team running up the score isn't wrong nor right.
Don't act condescending, especially after that last paragraph. It is not as if you are some kind of genius or I am an idiot. This is a medium that is inherently poor for communicating complex ideas and it compounds your already poor writing skills. So do us both a favor and try to not act like a twat.
So eating animals is okay with you right? But killing humans is wrong? What's the difference? You are still taking a life.
Obviously, my perspective as a human is the difference. As I tried to point out before, I think if animals could be aware, they would have the same species bias that we have.