[Layke1123]

Then if you could change a person and make them incapable of murder, would you not do it? If you could prevent murder, why aren't you morally compelled to? If you chose to let it happen, that means you approve of it.

My position is that reducing murder as much as you can is the correct position, to include making that number zero, just like stopping all rape is better than just reducing the number of rapes.

Is it OK for a parent to have their child circumcised? Or have their ears pierced? If thats OK, I don't see why removing your ability to murder someone is seen as so drastic. Would you not elect to have your ability to murder removed?

[pdonis]

> if you could change a person and make them incapable of murder, would you not do it?

I should have commented earlier in this discussion that you are presuming an awful lot of certainty about something where I don't think any such level of certainty is even possible. How could you possibly be so confident that some brain procedure would really, truly make a person incapable of murder? And would do so without impairing their capacities in any other respect? I can't even put myself in the position of imagining being in that kind of state of knowledge. So I'm not sure I can even respond to questions about what I would or wouldn't do in such a state.

Furthermore, my comments in this discussion about tyranny are based on historical knowledge about past societies where people have held beliefs like the ones you describe--where they really, truly, honestly believed, with certainty or even with what they thought was a high enough probability, that forcing other people to do something, or forcing some kind of treatment on them, would achieve some obviously desirable social goal. And in every single case in history that I know of, those people were wrong. Not just sort of wrong, not just a little bit off--terribly, horribly wrong; lots and lots of people dying wrong.

So when you describe a scenario in which you say you know, with certainty, or even with high probability (you threw out a figure of 90 percent in another part of this thread--I'll respond more specifically to that there), that you could change a person and make them incapable of murder, by some sort of brain surgery or some secret ray that they can't perceive, or by any means other than convincing that person, through discussion and argument, that murder is wrong, I simply don't believe that's actually possible. So I don't factor such impossibilities into my thinking about what I should or shouldn't do.

> Is it OK for a parent to have their child circumcised? Or have their ears pierced?

Personally, no, I would not force either of those things on a child without their consent.

Circumcision is an edge case because there was a time when circumcision was widely believed to be desirable for health reasons, but that belief is now thought to be false. If a parent sincerely believed it was necessary for health reasons, I would not say they were wrong to have a child circumcised. But such beliefs should be checked very carefully--more carefully than, from what I can gather, people checked the belief about circumcision during the time when that belief was widespread.

> Would you not elect to have your ability to murder removed?

As above, I am unable to even consider this as a real possibility.

[Layke1123]

Because I'm confident the brain is physical, and just like chemicals (alcohol, opoids) and viruses or bacteria (toxoplasmosis) can already brain behavior, so can a person alter than brain through similar methods. It only comes down to knowing how the brain forms new thoughts and making it incapable of exhibiting murderous thoughts.

And I say historical evidence does not lend you credence, but actually the opposite. Nazi Germany believed in capitalism and the doctrine of free will. The is considered the worst of the worst, and that is your society and historical fact you choose to ignore a m ought the rest of atrocities the western philosophy of that has inflicted through war. Or are you trying to tell me every war the US has been involved with was necessary to protect lives and promote less horrendous death and suffering?

If I can't convince you that murder is wrong, I will do my best to force you out of civilized society. I will not tolerate it in my sphere of influence just as you would not either. I simply take it not just in the external sense but the internal sense as well. If you think about murdering someone, I would ask why and if you are at fault for said thoughts and couldn't not provide an answer that justified your position, I would "cancel" you and your contributions to our society. We don't need murderers or violent offenders, whether its internal or external.

As for your inability to conceive of an idea of a real possibility, that's a lack of imagination on your part. I can clearly consider it a possibility but even more so an eventuality. Your world view is limited, not mine.

[pdonis]

> I'm confident the brain is physical

So am I. I have already said so multiple times. Continuing to talk as though you are somehow refuting my viewpoint by saying this is ridiculous.

> Nazi Germany believed in capitalism and the doctrine of free will.

No, it didn't. It forcibly sent millions of people to concentration camps. It had the government take over management of all production. It subjected an entire country to the whims of a small group of people in power.

> Or are you trying to tell me every war the US has been involved with was necessary to protect lives and promote less horrendous death and suffering?

Certainly not. I have made no such claim. And I am tired of you continuing to respond to claims I have never made.

At this point I think our discussion has run its course.

[Layke1123]

If the brain is physical, and you think it doesn't entirely determines your actions, then we disagree on the point it makes to say the brain is physical, as a lot of people reading this think there is something extraphysical about what our brains do.

As for Nazi Germany, all those Germans chose to either resist or go along with putting millions of people into concentration camps because they were enemies of their goals. That was there choice to see others as inferior to them. They still believed Jews had free will, and they most certainly all Christians, which it's fundamental tenants are about free will. You choose to accept Jesus as your saviour. Also, I'm pretty sure their industries were privately owned, ala capitalism. Or are you trying to redefine what terms mean again?

Oh, so it's only OK to talk about the death and destruction left in the wake of other countries you paint as the bad guy, but anyone mentions the atrocities committed by systems you taut as superior rubs you the wrong way? Do you even begin to understand how brainwashed you are? You can't even contemplate the evils your world views have perpetuated on societies as you pretend to claim the moral high ground.