⚡💬 NEW - A woman questions a Christian, asking him why he needs Christianity to know that killing someone is wrong.
Woman: “Do you really need your religion to tell maybe you shouldn't kill people? Do you really need a book to tell you that?”
Christian: “Why shouldn’t I kill someone?”
Woman: “Why… why… I don’t… I… taking a life is not a good thing.”
Christian: “That’s what the claim is… tell me why.”
Woman: “I feel like taking someone’s life is not a good thing.” https://blossom.primal.net/a7e21f44cf5cc64bbeb52dede42c589c16516069817f2cd29a9b0e4add7b11a6.mp4
Murder destroys permanently the potential value creation from voluntary trade (goods and ideas), diminishing to a degree the probability of life continuing.
Therein it is a net negative to society and shouldn’t be done, and punished if done.
Killing in defence of society from external forces is net positive, protecting the existing society and way of life within it.
Life is the standard to determine between good and evil.
What you are saying isn't untrue but it is purely pragmatic and still lacks a particularly moral rationale.
It is the rationale but is perhaps pragmatic in that it is matter of fact.
Destroying life is immoral on this basis, unless it is in defence of life.
Interestingly murder is based on the false premise that value can be gained through destruction as opposed creation. For example, war does not increase value (perhaps looting does in the short term), trade does.
